Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 9th, 2017, 01:16 PM   #11

Ajax_Minoan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Washington State, USA.
Posts: 712
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Well the USA failed to achieve its war aims--so it lost.

The British achieved their war aims -- so they won.

How did the British lose?
The British did not achieve their war aims. They wanted to punish the US by seizing some of our territory, but eventually gave up on the idea. The Duke of Wellington was known to have spoken against trying harder to seize US territory, and leaving things as they were before the war.

Treaty of Ghent | War of 1812 | PBS

Quote:
The Duke of Wellington’s Advice

The talks dragged on and on, while events in North America, reported in the European papers, affected the strength of each side’s positions. In just the first three months of negotiations Washington was burned, Baltimore defended, Prevost turned back at Plattsburgh. Still, the border between the U.S. and Canada had not changed.
The advantage seesawed between the teams, neither having enough leverage to claim a full diplomatic advantage.
Facing unrest at home and on the European continent, Lord Castlereagh turned to the Duke of Wellington for advice. The British Navy had failed to control the Great Lakes, British Army had failed to occupy substantial territory in the United States. The Duke’s advice was blunt – take the status quo ante bellum and be done with it.
Ajax_Minoan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 9th, 2017, 01:22 PM   #12

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,957

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax_Minoan View Post
The British did not achieve their war aims. They wanted to punish the US by seizing some of our territory, but eventually gave up on the idea.....................
Sorry British war aims were not to seize American territory but to return to the status quo , it was an aggressive war launched by the USA.

The treaty achieved British war aims but not the USA's.

Last edited by Kevinmeath; December 9th, 2017 at 01:25 PM.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old December 9th, 2017, 01:50 PM   #13

Ajax_Minoan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Washington State, USA.
Posts: 712
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Sorry British war aims were not to seize American territory but to return to the status quo , it was an aggressive war launched by the USA.

The treaty achieved British war aims but not the USA's.
The desire to return to the status quo was the British desire at the end largely because of the advice of Wellington. It took American victories like The Battle of Lake Erie, and Plattsburgh to help them arrive at this point. The burning White House does not reflect well the overall defense of American territory during the war. The British were unable to overrun any significant amount of US territory.

They sent those soldiers all the way to New Orleans for a reason. The fact that the treaty was signed before the battle took place proves that there were clearly some changed minds in Britain.

The War of 1812

Quote:
In May Jackson was named American commander in the New Orleans area, just as the British were planning to take New Orleans with a large force of 7,500 veterans under Sir Edwin Packenham. The British planned to take control of the entire Mississippi River Valley.

Last edited by Ajax_Minoan; December 9th, 2017 at 01:52 PM.
Ajax_Minoan is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 02:08 PM   #14

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,957

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax_Minoan View Post
The desire to return to the status quo was the British desire at the end largely because of the advice of Wellington.
sorry no-- Wellington had very little influence as he was commander in Spain!!!

It was an aggressive war launched by the USA which failed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax_Minoan View Post
It took American victories like The Battle of Lake Erie, and Plattsburgh to help them arrive at this point. The burning White House does not reflect well the overall defense of American territory during the war.
The USA invaded Canada and failed and a defeated in the war


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax_Minoan View Post
The British were unable to overrun any significant amount of US territory.
They didn't want to!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax_Minoan View Post
They sent those soldiers all the way to New Orleans for a reason.
On a raid


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax_Minoan View Post
The fact that the treaty was signed before the battle took place proves that there were clearly some changed minds in Britain. ,,,,,,
No not really
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old December 9th, 2017, 02:30 PM   #15
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 181

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
sorry no-- Wellington had very little influence as he was commander in Spain!!!
Wellington was in Paris in November 1814 and his opinions are considered significant.

Quote:
It was an aggressive war launched by the USA which failed.
From the US point of view it was British aggression before the US declared war.

Quote:
On a raid
Actually the British took civilian officials with them to administer New Orleans after they captured it. If it was just intended as a raid they would not have taken them. They did not do that on the attack on Washington. Of course, their plans were made before the Treaty of Ghent.
Harry is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 02:34 PM   #16

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,146

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Sorry British war aims were not to seize American territory but to return to the status quo , it was an aggressive war launched by the USA.

The treaty achieved British war aims but not the USA's.
The British did indeed intend to seize U.S. territory, or at least territory claimed by the U.S. Britain initially hoped to retain part of what is now Maine, force the U.S. to demilitarize on the Great Lakes, and to establish a native buffer state on what was then the northwestern portion of the United States.

In that Britain failed, just as the U.S. invasion of Canada failed.

The war was a stalemate for Britain and the U.S. and a defeat for the First Nations peoples that allied with Britain.

Last edited by Scaeva; December 9th, 2017 at 02:36 PM.
Scaeva is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 03:08 PM   #17

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,162

Britain had no resources to fight the war until 1814. For the first two years GB was on the defensive. Britain did attempt to take land towards the end of a war to strengthen her position.

Ultimately the US failed in ALL its war aims against the British.
Britain continued to take British sailors of US ships.
Britain only stopped doing this when Napoleon surrendered.
Britain had wiped out almost the entire US privateer fleet, and had the US navy locked up in port.
Britain succeeded in its primary war aim. Defend Canada with limited forces while trying to defeat the French empire.

US war aims .... capture Canada. Failed.
Stop Britain impressing sailors. Failed. (As stated Britain did this until the war in France ended NOT because of any us action)
Capital city NOT burned down... failed.

And since Canada and Britain were the same if Britain lost Canada did too, if Britain lost Canada wouldn’t exist. It’d would have been part of the US.

Last edited by Edric Streona; December 9th, 2017 at 03:16 PM.
Edric Streona is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 03:46 PM   #18

Ajax_Minoan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Washington State, USA.
Posts: 712
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
Britain had no resources to fight the war until 1814. For the first two years GB was on the defensive. Britain did attempt to take land towards the end of a war to strengthen her position.

Ultimately the US failed in ALL its war aims against the British.
Britain continued to take British sailors of US ships.
Britain only stopped doing this when Napoleon surrendered.
Britain had wiped out almost the entire US privateer fleet, and had the US navy locked up in port.
Britain succeeded in its primary war aim. Defend Canada with limited forces while trying to defeat the French empire.

US war aims .... capture Canada. Failed.
Stop Britain impressing sailors. Failed. (As stated Britain did this until the war in France ended NOT because of any us action)
Capital city NOT burned down... failed.

And since Canada and Britain were the same if Britain lost Canada did too, if Britain lost Canada wouldn’t exist. It’d would have been part of the US.
The British impressing of US (and other) sailors ended before the war in 1814. It would be hard to prove that the British in no way ended it in part to stop angering the United States.

Last edited by Ajax_Minoan; December 9th, 2017 at 03:49 PM.
Ajax_Minoan is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 11:11 PM   #19

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,162

1814.... the year France surrendered. Why would they stop it to mollify the US? For two years they kept it, while fending off US invasions, then in 1814 when they are stronger they decide “let’s go on the defensive and see if we can gain territory, force concessions from the US BUT at the same time think let’s give them what they want”.

What mention of British Navy recruitment methods is in the treaty of Ghent? There was no policy on ending impressment or law. It was not stopped officially until 1835. But with France defeated Britain needed less show and had more sailors to send to her active ships so impressment stopped, because it wasn’t needed.

So it’s easy to prove the US had no impact on Britain’s stopping Navy impressment by
1) Britain’s continues use of it during the war.
2) Britain’s stopping it after France surrendered not after any actions or events in the US.
3) USA dropping the matter in the treaty of Ghent and not forcing Britain to change policy.
Edric Streona is offline  
Old December 10th, 2017, 01:11 AM   #20

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,224

Britain won, we achieved our war aims and the US failed in theirs "The acquisition of Canada this year...will be a mere matter of marching" and "that the cession of Canada ... must be a sine qua non at a treaty of peace".

New Orleans was a face saving victory but Britain went on to triumph with further conquests in Louisiana and Georgia.
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
1812, canada, war, won



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why were there 3 incompetent commanders in the 1812 invasion of Canada? betgo American History 59 September 23rd, 2015 09:43 PM
Why Wouldn't Militia Invade Canada in 1812? VM1138 American History 21 October 6th, 2014 06:57 PM
Canada won the War of 1812, U.S. historian admits Corto Maltese American History 42 March 1st, 2012 03:38 AM
What if Canada was conquered by the US in 1812? sylla1 Speculative History 7 October 16th, 2010 09:03 AM
The War of 1812 old_abe American History 32 June 30th, 2009 01:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.