Why is it that... 1812?

Question

Why is it that:

- Canadians believe that we burned down the WhiteHouse.

- Canadians "won" the war of 1812 when most of the fighting was done by British regulars and First Nations

Why is it that:

- The Americans believe they "won" the war of 1812 (You didn't beat the British out of your land, they left when the treaty was signed - hardly qualifies as "winning"?)

- The Americans believe that they won the "Last battle" of the war at New Orleans, when the last battle of the war was clearly a British victory ("Ten thousand men cannot take it", eh?)

Shouldn't it be taught that:

- The war was a draw, and at worst for the Americans, a minor British victory

- The Canadian militia may have won a few battles on their own, but it was primarily the British and First Nations who saved Upper Canada

- The BRITISH burned down government buildings in Washington, it had nothing to do with Canadians

- The Americans did not win the last battle of the war.

Meh?

Rohak:

Ha-ha... I'M wrong?

~~~~~
"At the time, Canada was completely part of the British Empire, and not an independent nation, so of course it was British troops."

You've never heard of the "militia myth"... About how it was all Canadian militia with very few British troops to "help out"?

It was the other way around.

~~~~~
"The Canadians (ie british troops) did burn down the president's residence when they sacked Philadelphia, the capital at the time. It wasn't until after this happened that Washington was made the capital. So Washington was not the town that got burned either way."


Wait, wait... You're saying that the Whitehouse in Washington was never burned by the British, and they burned Philadelphia instead?

OK...

1. The executive mansion was moved to Washington in 1800.

2. If the British never did burn Washington, then why is the event called "THE BURNING OF WASHINGTON" and "THE BRITISH MARCH ON WASHINGTON"

Will continue,

3. If washington wasn't the capital, what was the President doing at the Battle of Bladensburg outside Washington, nearly being captured by the British?

Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

You also need to look at a MAP:
http://64.70.155.140/washingtonsack.htm

Oh, and since you obviously didn't pass grade eight, here's a kiddie site for you:

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/ushistory/thewarof18124.htm

Songbyrd: New Orleans being the last battle of the war is an American myth.

The last battle was the British victory at Fort Boyer.

Answer 1

The biggest key to all this seems to be how exactly to CATEGORIZE the Battle of New Orleans.

Now most everyone knows that it took place after the peace treaty had been signed, but before news of the treaty reached America. So, what exactly are we to DO with this battle --AND its consequences! Act as if they never took place??

It is true that this battle itself did not help set the TERMS of the treaty. But "treaty terms" are never the whole outcome of a war anyway. What really matters is how the relationship between the parties changes and who ACTUALLY gains or loses various things. This includes how the treaty itself plays out --something that is not just shaped by the document the parties signed.

So ask yourself -- DID the Battle of New Orleans affect the PRACTICAL outcome of the war (relationship between the two nations, etc.)? Obviously! At the very least it made Americans more confident moving forward, and more aggressive in their foreign policies (moving on to the era of the Monroe Doctrine and thence to "Manifest Destiny").
On the other side, this decisive defeat of the British no doubt affected THEIR policy and actions toward the U.S. -- contributing to the fact that, in practical terms, the U.S. did indeed get some matters resolved hat had most concerned them at the start of the war (British activity among Indians along the border, for example).

In light of these results, and the STRENGTH the U.S. gained from the whole thing (not to mention the final recognition of PRACTICAL U.S. independence in international trade, the navy, etc.) to say it was "a draw" --while technically true (on paper)-- doesn't necessarily give us a clear picture of the war's outcome.

Sure, it's ironic that a MAJOR battle took place after the treaty had been signed. But that does not change the fact that it DID take place and DID shape the ultimate results of the war. The fact that Britain won the last battle before the treaty was signed is, in light of all this, rather meaningless... a quibble, if you'll pardon me.

(One other quibble --with another answer: Canadians seem to be taught that the conquest of Canada was "a major war aim" of the Americans. That is certainly true in ONE sense -- hopes of taking some of this land no doubt motivated the western "War Hawks" who pushed us into the war. But others did not have the same goal, and it was NEVER an official justification or aim of the war. Madison actually officially LISTED the reasons for going to war. This was not among them.)

Answer 2

Wow, for all your blathering, you're wrong too.

At the time, Canada was completely part of the British Empire, and not an independent nation, so of course it was British troops. Either way, who cares, the US still expected an easy victory and got their butts kicked by the Canadian and British forces (first nations are Canadian)

The Canadians (ie british troops) did burn down the president's residence when they sacked Philadelphia, the capital at the time. It wasn't until after this happened that Washington was made the capital. So Washington was not the town that got burned either way.

The reason both sides claim victory is simple, both sides did win different portions of the war. The US had a very sussessful naval campaign on the great lakes and ended up with a favorable treaty. The Canadians (British) led a successful counterattack and razed the capital, forcing a peace treaty.

Answer 3

Canadians are not taught that they burned down the White House, and are fully aware that the British regulars and Aboriginals helped their militias greatly. You need to read a few Canadian perspectives on the war. Try Pierre Berton.

Canadians are also aware that the reason Tecumseh and his braves fought for the British was because of the massacre at Tippecanoe when the Americans attacked the Indians after inviting them to a peace conference.

While the British Admiral in command burned down Washington government buildings, the British General complained bitterly about such barbaric behaviour.

Since the Canadians were not conquered, and since that was the American war aim, I suggest that it was a major Canadian victory. They remained free to develop their distinct democracy.

As for New Orleans, yes we won. General Packenham was killed and his troops repulsed. That the war was already ended is not relevant to the outcome of the battle.

Answer 4

Most Historians share a similar view that the war of 1812 was draw. On the other hand New Orleans was a decisive victory for the Americans. Had the British been able to take and old New Orleans it would have probably voided the peace as Britain would have held the the the lock and key from which to control the north American continent by restricting US navigation on the Mississippi.
In my opinion is that it was a decisive political victory as Britain never again threatened US independence.
Just my opinion any ways.

Answer 5

Because rejection is the hardest Emotion to deal with. Men can get extremely violent, women can go off into the deep end! It hurts a lot, and all these things make you freeze up inside because you just don't have the confidence it takes to confront your own feelings up front and personal. You are baring your soul to this person and letting yourself in for a painful experience, possibly? I mean what are you settling for? At least now you get to talk to him but could you still talk to him if he rejects you? And right now that feeling of getting to talk to him feels really good, and even that though really small when taken away will hurt a lot. So either tell him straight out, or write him a short letter and then get his answer and know once and for all, or just settle for being friends and get over it, especially if you think it is one sided. Ask yourself what has he actually done to make you feel that he feels the same as you do? Truth time is a scary time, but I always find it is better to softly go in and say how you feel and gently wait for his reply. If he says YES, you go from there. But if he delays or stalls or says out right NO, then ask if it is OK for you two to remain friends? At least from this point you can go on. Right now all you are doing is putting off the truth.

Answer 6

Why don't Americans sing "God Save the Queen" as do our smug northern Neighbors and the criminal colonies down south?
Did the Queen mother give the U.S. permission to snub her?
Or perchance did we WIN our Independence as so many others in the Free World believe.

Answer 7

If you make us mad, then we will invade Canada and win the war, of course, and then make Canada into several states and you will have to pay for your own health insurance.

Answer 8

At the time, the Canadians were part of British empire. So they did in fact suffer or were part of the loss/victory.

America thinks that they, we, won the war because the British agreed not to do the things (like capturing our sailors and forcing them to work on British ships) that led to the war. So, in effect it was a victory.

The last battle of the war was faught two weeks after the war had ended.

Lastly:In late 1814 New Orleans was home to a population of French, Spanish, African, Anglo and Creole peoples dedicated to pursuing economic opportunism and the joys of life. It also occupied a strategic place on the map. Located just 100 miles upstream from the mouth of the Mississippi River, the Crescent City offered a tempting prize to a British military still buoyant over the burning of Washington, D.C. To capture the city, Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane fitted out a naval flotilla of more than 50 ships to transport 10,000 veteran troops from Jamaica. They were led by Sir Edward Pakenham, the 37-year-old brother-in-law of the Duke of Wellington and a much-decorated general officer.

For protection, the citizens of southern Louisiana looked to Major General Andrew Jackson, known to his men as "Old Hickory." Jackson arrived in new Orleans in the late fall of 1814 and quickly prepared defenses along the city's many avenues of approach.

Meanwhile, the British armada scattered a makeshift American fleet in Lake Borgne, a shallow arm of the Gulf of Mexico east of New Orleans, and evaluated their options. Two British officers, disguised as Spanish fishermen, discovered an unguarded waterway, Bayou Bienvenue, that provided access to the east bank of the Mississippi River barely nine miles downstream from New Orleans. On December 23 the British vanguard poled its way through a maze of sluggish streams and traversed marshy land to emerge unchallenged an easy day's march from their goal.

Two American officers, whose plantations had been commandeered by the British, informed Jackson that the enemy was at the gates. "Gentlemen, the British are below, we must fight them tonight," the general declared. He quickly launched a nighttime surprise attack that, although tactically a draw, gained valuable time for the outnumbered Americans. Startled by their opponents' boldness, the British decided to defer their advance toward New Orleans until all their troops could be brought in from the fleet.

Old Hickory used this time well. He retreated three miles to the Chalmette Plantation on the banks of the Rodriguez Canal, a wide, dry ditch that marked the narrowest strip of solid land between the British camps and New Orleans. Here Jackson built a fortified mud rampart, 3/5 mile long and anchored on its right by the Mississippi River and on the left by an impassable cypress swamp.

While the Americans dug in, General Pakenham readied his attack plans. On December 28 the British launched a strong advance that Jackson repulsed with the help of the Louisiana, an American ship that blasted the British left flank with broadsides from the river. Four days later Pakenham tried to bombard the Americans into submission with an artillery barrage, but Jackson's gunners stood their ground.

The arrival of fresh troops during the first week of January 1815 gave the British new hope. Pakenham decided to cross the Mississippi downstream with a strong force and overwhelm Jackson's thin line of defenders on the river bank opposite the Rodriguez Canal. Once these redcoats were in position to pour flank fire across the river, heavy columns would assault each flank of the American line, then pursue the insolent defenders six miles into the heart of New Orleans. Units carrying fascines -- bundled sticks used to construct fortifications -- and ladders to bridge the ditch and scale the ramparts would precede the attack, which would begin at dawn January 8 to take advantage of the early morning fog.

It was a solid plan in conception, but flawed in execution. The force on the west bank was delayed crossing the river and did not reach its goal until well after dawn. Deprived of their misty cover, the main British columns had no choice but to advance across the open fields toward the Americans, who waited expectantly behind their mud and cotton-bale barricades. To make matters worse, the British forgot their ladders and fascines, so they had no easy means to close with the protected Americans.

Never has a more polyglot army fought under the Stars and Stripes than did Jackson's force at the Battle of New Orleans. In addition to his regular U.S. Army units, Jackson counted on dandy New Orleans militia, a sizable contingent of black former Haitian slaves fighting as free men of color, Kentucky and Tennessee frontiersmen armed with deadly long rifles and a colorful band of outlaws led by Jean Lafitte, whose men Jackson had once disdained as "hellish banditti." This hodgepodge of 4,000 soldiers, crammed behind narrow fortifications, faced more than twice their number.

Pakenham's assault was doomed from the beginning. His men made perfect targets as they marched precisely across a quarter mile of open ground. Hardened veterans of the Peninsular Campaign in Spain fell by the score, including nearly 80 percent of a splendid Scottish Highlander unit that tried to march obliquely across the American front. Both of Pakenham's senior generals were shot early in the battle, and the commander himself suffered two wounds before a shell severed an artery in his leg, killing him in minutes. His successor wisely disobeyed Pakenham's dying instructions to continue the attack and pulled the British survivors off the field. More than 2,000 British had been killed or wounded and several hundred more were captured. The American loss was eight killed and 13 wounded.

Jackson's victory had saved New Orleans, but it came after the war was over. The Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812 but resolved none of the issues that started it, had been signed in Europe weeks before the action on the Chalmette Plantation.


It was not a British victory. They lost.