The US won most of the ship to ship engagements. It also won the Battle of Lake Erie, capturing the entire British naval force on the lake, so it was totally in US control. This had a major impact on land operations for both sides. The US naval success in both those areas was spectacular.well you just wrong. But in what way did it go that way of the US?
not an argument but a book list.
Why was it going the US way? in what area of operations was there a strategic gain for the US?
Impact in US trade v British trade?
Toital tonbnage taken US v British?
There were problems in that the British had huge naval resources if they wanted to devote them to this side war. Also, the US Army was not professional. The US tried to invade Canada with untrained militia and incompetent commanders and officers chosen based on political and family connections.
After Napoleon was defeated, the full force of the Royal Navy was available. The US ships generally returned to port and were blockaded in. The British raided up and down the coast, and took and burnt Washington.
The US was in a difficult situation then. However, as discussed earlier in the thread, the British were worried about conflicts with and between there allies, and about an unstable situation in France. In fact, most of the British army was in Canada and the Bahamas at the time of the battle of Waterloo, limiting the number of men who could be sent to that battle. Obviously, the US would have been in a difficult situation if the British invaded with the large army they had ready and with total naval dominance. However, it would be difficult to conquer the US, and the British were not really interested in concessions involving territory, navigation rights, protection of their native American allies, etc.