who won the war of 1812.Americans and Canadians have arguments about this.What do you think.explain fully?

Answer 1

I was taught that it was basically a "draw", since at least offiicially (that is, by the terms of the Treaty of Ghent) everything was returned to its status before the war. In that case I find it very difficult to say the Britian "won" it anymore than that the U.S. did.

In fact, if you take a close look at the whole American situation in the decades leading up to the war, and how the war was a key piece in CHANGING that situation (esp vis a vis the ability to sail and trade freely), you have to conclude that America ultimately gained a great deal of its main objective in the war. So even if I wouldn't necessarily say the U.S. "won" the war, the endeavor was in key respects a "success" (even when the successes were not always directly tied to victories in battle).

Some insist that the U.S. LOST the war of even that "Canada won" (which is odd since the nation of Canada did not exist for another six decades). Usually they start with the mistaken notion that the war objective of the U.S. was to conquer the Canadian territories. Though this certainly motivated many of the western "War Hawks", it was, in fact, NOT among the war's central causes, nor was it EVER among the official reasons given for going to war. So yes, they did fail to take Canada -- but is that "losing the war" if that's not what the WAR's purpose was??

To get the right answer it's necessary to be clear about why the war was started/what the goals were.

As I hinted, much of the misunderstanding has to do with the notion that war must be about "taking territory" (or at least that this particular war was). By that measure NO ONE won the war, since at the war's end all territories were returned to whoever controlled them before the war.

But, in fact, gaining territory was NOT the objective of EITHER side!

More specifically, two major mistakes are often made here:

a) "the British were trying to retake their former American colonies (and failed)" No, that was NOT the British objective!

b) "a key American war-aim was to take Canada (perhaps annex it), and they were repelled" No. While there were those who desired this, this was NOT the reason for attacking the British in Canada and the government never stated any such thing

In other words, some of our Canadian friends are operating under the misapprehension that we declared war on THEM and/or on the British in order to annex Canada. But that simply is not the case.

---------------------

The main (and stated) objectives of the U.S. are listed below. Note that each of them was, in fact, accomplished, though not necessarily all because of the war itself!

1) impressment of U.S. sailors. This was actually settled before war, with Britain largely acquiescing (though with slow communication the Americans did not yet know this)

2) interference in American TRADE, and hence with American sovereignty/independence.

This was mainly the result of the wars between Britain and France (and Americans suffered at the hands of BOTH powers). Once that war ended, the British no longer interfered in the same way. Thus the American objective was achieved, though not necessarily by the war!!

3) "Indian question" -- in the Northwest frontier wars. the British supported the Indians
this was THE reason for invading the Canadian territories. (Though some in the Western states wanted to annex the Canadian colonies, this was NOT the reason for the invasion, and the U.S. government never pushed for it.) Note, that the U.S. was indeed successful in reaching this objective. After the war the British were never again involved in assisting Indians vs. the U.S.


Although Britain was NOT attempting to retake its former colonies, all three of these issues DO have to do with the exercise of American independence/sovereignty, which was being treated rather lightly by the European powers.

Thus it is understandable that Americans regarded this as a "second war of Independence" even if it was not that in the STRICT sense. And this overarching objective -- of asserting its own sovereignty in issus of territory ("Indian question") and trade, America WAS successful.

SOME of the American success was an INDIRECT result of the war. In particular, the cutting off of trade with England ended up strengthening U.S. independent manufacture...leading to greater ECONOMIC independence.

Another indirect result -- the expansion of the American navy in order to conduct the war contributed in other ways to America's ability to assert its sovereignty. One prime example -- immediately after the War the U.S. Navy was able to fully and finally address the problem of the Barbary Pirates in the quick and very successful SECOND Barbary War (1815) . In short, by the end of 1815, and in part THROUGH the War of 1812, the U.S. finally DID accomplish the sort of freedom to sail the seas and trade as it wished -- something it had hoped to gain through the American Revolution but never quite achieved.

Further, after the War of 1812 the U.S. was bolder to proclaim (and act on) its refusal to allow ANY European interference in the Western Hemisphere (note esp. the Monroe Doctrine).

It is sometimes stated that the American triumph in the Battle of New Orleans --AFTER the Treaty of Ghent had been signed, but before news of the treaty had crossed the Atlantic-- was actually just a 'feel good' victory, since it did not at all shape the treaty and so the 'official results' of the war. But, in fact, the solifying of American CONFIDENCE through this victory, together with the successes in the Second Barbary War, was no minor happening. It encouraged the U.S. to move forward, and probably also discouraged the British from further attempts to re-establish themselves on the frontier, etc.

Of course, it is also undeniable that the war had important effects on subsequent Canadian history -- serving to unify the colonists there in "defense" of their territory, the first step on the ultimate road to nationhood. Even more importantly, any interest of British Canadians in becoming part of the United States was likely squashed by this confrontation. A less hostile method might have reached very different results!

Answer 2

The Americans didn't win, which is why it is glossed over in American history. Like most wars there was no conclusive "victory". Americans got what they wanted; British stopped forcing American soldiers into impressment in their navy though they did not win anything. The invasion of Canada failed while the British invaded DC and burned the White House and the Canadians invaded Detroit.
A lot of bad blood leftover from the Revolutionary War caused the British to pick on the American sailors, hoping to start a full fledged war to make up for their loss in the Revolutionary War. However, despite the successful invasion, the British didn't regain it's colonies and most people consider that a victory for the US in that the British didn't get what they wanted.
Britain should have won, as it was a larger power and America, while growing strong was not nearly the powerhouse it would be in a hundred years.

Answer 3

War of 1812
The relationship between Britain and the United States had been frigid since the latter gained their independence from the former. Trade had been substantial but diplomatic relations consisted of each party ignoring the other’s existence.

In 1793, Britain went to war against France in what became known as the Napoleonic Wars. The United States was neutral during this conflict but hostilities between the two belligerents interfered with its trade. The Royal Navy blockaded French ports and obliged all neutral shipping, especially American vessels, bound for France, to call first at a British port and pay duties on its cargo before being allowed to proceed. Furthermore the Royal Navy frequently stopped United States ships and pressed into service those seamen who had either deserted from the Royal Navy or were vaguely suspected of having deserted. This policy so incensed United States officials, that on 18th June 1812, President James Maddison declared war on Great Britain.

The Americans were ill prepared for war. An initial incursion into Canada was easily rebuffed. There were some minor naval skirmishes particularly involving the USS Constitution, which sank several Royal Navy vessels. The British army was too involved in Europe to send troops to fight, but British interests were preserved by supplying the Shawnee tribe with armaments to attack wagon trains, heading for Oregon. The Americans sent an expeditionary force into Canada, which burnt the city of York, now Toronto, and hurriedly retreated.

By 1814, after a series of victories in Europe, Britain had available resources to mount an offensive. An amphibious British force landed at Chesapeake Bay and after defeating the American army at the battle of Blandensberg, captured the city of Washington, destroyed the Capitol building and burnt down the president’s house. This residence was rebuilt soon after but had to be painted white in order to hide the burn marks, hence the name of the White House.

After such a disturbing and humiliating defeat, the Americans called a truce and signed a peace treaty, the Treaty of Ghent, which restored matters to the state they were in before the war.

Answer 4

Technically, nobody won. The Treaty of Ghent said it was a draw.

However, in the long run, the Canadians won. They sucessfully demonstrated to the United States that they were serious about not joining the Union, and to Britain that they were competent on their own. This was the first step in the long process that led to Confederation and Canadian independence.

Answer 5

Nobody, it was a draw when The Treaty of Ghent was signed. The Brits won on land, while the USA won at sea. Since the main plan of the USA during this war was to conquer Canada, and they failed to achieve that goal, you could argue for the Brits in this case.

Answer 6

Fighting a boring battle..15-0