Did The U.S lose the War Of 1812?

[Davidedwardboone]

For any reason, or just because it's not "pro-America"?

Because I don't believe that an Indian nation would have industrialized and became a world power like the US became, and largely a world power for good, with some relapses. It would have also guaranteed constantly conflict between Mexico, the Indian nation, and the US, with the Indian nation held together only by it's hatred of it's two neighbors.

[Andaluciae]

ZED ZED ZED!!! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

[Delmire]

Because I don't believe that an Indian nation would have industrialized and became a world power like the US became, and largely a world power for good, with some relapses. It would have also guaranteed constantly conflict between Mexico, the Indian nation, and the US, with the Indian nation held together only by it's hatred of it's two neighbors.

There was a very successful Indian alliance (irquios confederacy? or something of the like) but it fell apart during the us civil war when soem tribes fought for the south and so the victorious north went after them. An indian nation complete with customs now near lost could not be valued any less than an extra chunk of land to america, i dont think the indians would be attacking US right now, it would be suicide and theyd have no reason, they want peace and survival.

[Avaloniea]

It depends on how you define winning, Most Americans will say with a straight face it was a draw since they failed to realize that they actually didn't succeed in conquering Lower Canada like they had sought to do at the very start. I think that war's victory's are accomplished by objectives. First the U.S set out to conquer Canada and they got as far as York before getting tossed back by the British, who were more focused in Europe against Napoleon's forces.

Britain meanwhile, didn't have any sort of desire to conquer America, they felt that they should just kick the U.S out of Canada and then make sure the nation didn't try and touch it's colonies in the New World ever again. While Britain botched it's attempt to make it's negotiating hand much larger by losing battles in the U.S and couldn't exactly impose hard terms on the U.S, So they sued for peace instead, which created a status quo ante bellum and ended the war, both sides claiming victory, but the modern American claiming a draw.

So, while America failed to annex Canada, Britain was very successful in kicking the Yankees out of Canada and then spent most of it's time trying to get a upper hand at the negotiating table, which was quickly changed. Ergo, I believe America loss because what it set out to do failed while Britain easily manged to complete it's role.

Also, side note, while I know casualities don't decide a war's victor, but they do speak volumes of who had the better force and could tip the favor to the other side. American lost 2000 odd men in battle while Britain lost 1,600. Just going to throw that out there.

[Caecili]

Yep, completely. The U.S. didn't get what they wanted, so the defensive British forces won. Also, we burned down their capitol building, and killed far more of their troops than they did of ours, and won the last battle of the war.

[Brewdomia]

Yep, completely. The U.S. didn't get what they wanted, so the defensive British forces won. Also, we burned down their capitol building, and killed far more of their troops than they did of ours, and won the last battle of the war.

The capitol was essentially useless. The last battle of the war was The Battle of New Orleans which was handily won by Andrew Jackson.

[Old Tyrannia]

The main reason they did not was that Britain was fighting Napoleon in Europe at the same time. As it happens, we were, and the war was a stalemate.

[Caecili]

Yep, completely. The U.S. didn't get what they wanted, so the defensive British forces won. Also, we burned down their capitol building, and killed far more of their troops than they did of ours, and won the last battle of the war.

The capitol was essentially useless. The last battle of the war was The Battle of New Orleans which was handily won by Andrew Jackson.

Fort Bowyer was actually the last battle, even though it technically took place after the war had ended.

[Dyakovo]

Yep, completely. The U.S. didn't get what they wanted, so the defensive British forces won. Also, we burned down their capitol building, and killed far more of their troops than they did of ours, and won the last battle of the war.

You obviously know nothing about why the war was fought.

[Brewdomia]

The capitol was essentially useless. The last battle of the war was The Battle of New Orleans which was handily won by Andrew Jackson.

Fort Bowyer was actually the last battle, even though it technically took place after the war had ended.

Fort Bowyer was insignificant compared to New Orleans.

[Andaluciae]

Yep, completely. The U.S. didn't get what they wanted, so the defensive British forces won. Also, we burned down their capitol building, and killed far more of their troops than they did of ours, and won the last battle of the war.

I just love it when people pop into the thread, and having not read it, provide an incorrect aren't that has already been debunked--in this case, American war aims.

[Caecili]

Yep, completely. The U.S. didn't get what they wanted, so the defensive British forces won. Also, we burned down their capitol building, and killed far more of their troops than they did of ours, and won the last battle of the war.

You obviously know nothing about why the war was fought.

I believe the Americans started the war because they wished to expand and were forced under trade restrictions due to Britain's war with France, among other lesser reasons. I'm sorry if I've been taught wrong.

[Caecili]

Yep, completely. The U.S. didn't get what they wanted, so the defensive British forces won. Also, we burned down their capitol building, and killed far more of their troops than they did of ours, and won the last battle of the war.

I just love it when people pop into the thread, and having not read it, provide an incorrect aren't that has already been debunked--in this case, American war aims.

13 pages, don't feel like it. I'm only quoting what I learned in school, to be honest.

[Avaloniea]

Fort Bowyer was actually the last battle, even though it technically took place after the war had ended.

Fort Bowyer was insignificant compared to New Orleans.

New Orleans, while being a very impressive victory for the U.S, was pointless and insignificant to the overall war since it happened after the peace deal was agreed upon and the war was basically if not already over. It took awhile for people to hear about treaties declaring ends of a war back then.

[Dyakovo]

You obviously know nothing about why the war was fought.

I believe the Americans started the war because they wished to expand and were forced under trade restrictions due to Britain's war with France, among other lesser reasons. I'm sorry if I've been taught wrong.

Apology accepted. Read the thread, you learn that the expansion effort was an afterthought (and an ill conceived one at that) and was not actually one of the reasons why the US declared war.

[Caecili]

I believe the Americans started the war because they wished to expand and were forced under trade restrictions due to Britain's war with France, among other lesser reasons. I'm sorry if I've been taught wrong.

Apology accepted. Read the thread, you learn that the expansion effort was an afterthought (and an ill conceived one at that) and was not actually one of the reasons why the US declared war.

Enlighten me, then.

[Andaluciae]

Fort Bowyer was actually the last battle, even though it technically took place after the war had ended.

Fort Bowyer was insignificant compared to New Orleans.

Not just in comparison to New Orleans, Fort Bowyer was just plain insignificant.

[Dyakovo]

Apology accepted. Read the thread, you learn that the expansion effort was an afterthought (and an ill conceived one at that) and was not actually one of the reasons why the US declared war.

Enlighten me, then.

Read the thread.

[SaintB]

There was a very successful Indian alliance (irquios confederacy? or something of the like) but it fell apart during the us civil war when soem tribes fought for the south and so the victorious north went after them. An indian nation complete with customs now near lost could not be valued any less than an extra chunk of land to america, i dont think the indians would be attacking US right now, it would be suicide and theyd have no reason, they want peace and survival.

It wasn't the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois Confederacy existed before the first Europeans came to settle North America, it spread from New Hampshire to about the eastern edge of Ohio and into Virginia. Powatan's tribe that the settlers at Jamestown met were probably part of that confederacy along with 6 or 7 great tribes and many many many smaller ones.

[Katganistan]

Trust me, you're no saint.

whut whut

next you'll say Pope Joan isn't leader of the Catholic Church.

S/he isn't. I am.

[Andaluciae]

I just love it when people pop into the thread, and having not read it, provide an incorrect aren't that has already been debunked--in this case, American war aims.

13 pages, don't feel like it. I'm only quoting what I learned in school, to be honest.

Then your school failed you.

[SaintB]

[
Trust me, you're no saint.

But I am, its in my name.

[Caecili]

Enlighten me, then.

Read the thread.

Meh, don't care enough. I'll be off, then.

[Andaluciae]

Just thought this could be beneficial, some edification, eh?

Coincidentally, I just did this for the Korean War.

It depends on how you evaluate the combatants war aims, as the goalpost shifted throughout the war.

The initial war aims for the United States included inducing a cessation of the act of impressment, and to coerce the British Canadians to stop selling weapons to the Indians on the Western Frontier, and to get t[url][/url]he British blockade of continental Europe lifted. In addition, some sought the annexation of Canada--largely, this was sought by Western War Hawks, who felt that this was the only way to achieve the aforementioned goals.

By the end of the War, though, the US had clearly reverted its goals to ensure its territorial integrity, and independence from Great Britain--with the goal of achieving the initial three goals through negotiation. Weirdly enough, the US managed to achieve the first fairly easily--with Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, Impressment and the Blockade sort of evaporated. The second goal, the US managed to get major concessions on--these outcomes indicate that the US was poorly advised in going into this war: They got what they wanted regardless of the outcome of the conflict.

As for the British, their initial war aims were maintaining the territorial integrity of Canada as part of the British Empire. As the Wars against Napoleon wound down, though, their war aims shifted to achieving military dominance over the United States--and annexation of several key territories including New England, the Northwest territories and Louisiana.

So, here's how we can assess the war:

Initial War Aims
US: Mixed: Annex Canada--fail. Impressment, Arms and Blockade--success
UK: Success

Maximum War Aims
US: Annex Canada--fail
UK: Annex Louisiana, Northwest territories, New England--fail

Closing War Aims:
US: Three goals, territorial integrity--success
UK: Maintain Canada--success, Annexation--fail

Looks like a pretty mixed bag.

[Katganistan]

Can we stop arguing about this and have our Canadian brothers stop declaring war by sending us horrendous celebs in the form of Justin Bieber, Celine Dion, et. al?