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 11th, 2017, 07:48 PM   #31
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 180

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
These later war aims were a mix of opportunism because the war was going well and bargaining ploys for a future peace treaty
Bargaining ploys are only needed if the two sides are relatively equal and that was far from the situation at Ghent. The military situation was overwhelmingly in favor of Britain and British officials understood that. The negotiations could have started a month earlier, but the British delayed sending their delegates to allow troops to get to North America to help obtain the treaty terms they wanted. The Liverpool government expected a very different treaty than what they got. Of course, the US government also failed to obtain what they wanted.
Harry is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 12th, 2017, 09:59 AM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,898

The main reason it is claimed that the war was a draw was the status quo ante bellum treaty. The British probably could have gotten close to their original demands. However, they wanted the war over as they were concerned about some sort of trouble in Europe. This actually occurred with Napoleon's 100 days, and the British needed the soldiers.

Reconquering the US would not have been practical. The loss of both commanders, Ross and Peckenham, is an indication of the difficulties involved.

The aim of the war was the conquest of Canada. However, the war probably would not have occurred without arrogant British actions. Many of the sailors impressed were native born Americans and boarding US merchant ships was also offensive. There were other similar issues, including firing on a US Navy ship 5 years earlier.

They celebrated the 200th anniversary of the war in Canada. Canadians did defend Canada, but it would not be accurate to call it a Canadian victory over the US.
betgo is offline  
Old December 12th, 2017, 01:48 PM   #33

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,858

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
The main reason it is claimed that the war was a draw was the status quo ante bellum treaty. The British probably could have gotten close to their original demands.
Their original demands?
The British government instructed their navy not to interfere with US merchant shipping in the first months of the war because they thought their revoking of the orders of council would be enough for the USA to withdraw its declaration of war.
The British did not want this war, therefore they didn't have any demands at the start merely a wish to end it without losing any territory or being forced to accept US demands on maritime issues




Quote:
There were other similar issues, including firing on a US Navy ship 5 years earlier.
The British had eventually admitted their commander was at fault, releasing the surviving sailors and agreeing to pay compensation before the war broke out
redcoat is online now  
Old December 12th, 2017, 01:54 PM   #34

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,858

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry View Post
Bargaining ploys are only needed if the two sides are relatively equal and that was far from the situation at Ghent. The military situation was overwhelmingly in favor of Britain and British officials understood that. The negotiations could have started a month earlier, but the British delayed sending their delegates to allow troops to get to North America to help obtain the treaty terms they wanted.
While the military situation on the borders was favourable, it was still far beyond the British to be able to dictate terms to the USA.
redcoat is online now  
Old December 12th, 2017, 02:14 PM   #35
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 180

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
While the military situation on the borders was favourable, it was still far beyond the British to be able to dictate terms to the USA.
If it was just the military situation on the borders I would agree, but it was much more than that. The US was virtually bankrupt. The government could not even pay the soldiers. The entire US coast was open to attack and there were numerous attacks in the Chesapeake Bay and on the New England coast. The bottom line is that Britain did in fact try to dictate terms at Ghent and they were only successful at keeping maritime issues out of the treaty. Although that along with keeping their colonies in BNA was their most important objective.
Harry is offline  
Old December 12th, 2017, 02:30 PM   #36

phil1904's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: An Hotel of the French Riviera
Posts: 1,262
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
We know that for a long time!
Hey?'
OH CANADA!.png
phil1904 is online now  
Old December 12th, 2017, 02:46 PM   #37

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,967

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
We know that for a long time!
Hey?'
Attachment 11516
That's what it's all aboot!
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old December 12th, 2017, 03:37 PM   #38
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 8

The college textbook that I used back in the late 60s for the Freshman Survey of American History had an introduction to the chapter on the 'western' campaign. It cautioned the young American student that the events of those battles would appear so stupid that one could think them humorous. The events seemed deadly serious to the young men fighting them on both sides and many people suffered and many died. And absolutely nothing else was accomplished.

I'd just gotten out of Viet Nam a year or two prior. It made me think that I had something in common with those young men from 1812-14.
PapawJohn is offline  
Old December 12th, 2017, 04:02 PM   #39
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,556

Quote:
Originally Posted by PapawJohn View Post
The college textbook that I used back in the late 60s for the Freshman Survey of American History had an introduction to the chapter on the 'western' campaign. It cautioned the young American student that the events of those battles would appear so stupid that one could think them humorous. The events seemed deadly serious to the young men fighting them on both sides and many people suffered and many died. And absolutely nothing else was accomplished.

I'd just gotten out of Viet Nam a year or two prior. It made me think that I had something in common with those young men from 1812-14.
All wars tend of their own special version of insanity.
pugsville is offline  
Old December 12th, 2017, 04:46 PM   #40

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 2,980

Most of the war was fought by populations that didn’t want it. The British and Canadians certainly didn’t and the Americans of Vermont, Maine and the border states were against it. But those men who were going to be furthest from the fighting were decidedly for it. Imagine that!
Edric Streona 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 10:43 PM
Why Wouldn't Militia Invade Canada in 1812? VM1138 American History 21 October 6th, 2014 07:57 PM
Canada won the War of 1812, U.S. historian admits Corto Maltese American History 42 March 1st, 2012 04:38 AM
What if Canada was conquered by the US in 1812? sylla1 Speculative History 7 October 16th, 2010 10:03 AM
The War of 1812 old_abe American History 32 June 30th, 2009 02:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.