War of 1812 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Template:Talkheaderlong

Military history: British / Canadian / European / North America / United States / Napoleonic era Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  British military history task force Canadian military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

United States B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2003–2005) Archive 2 (Jan-May 2006) Archive 3 (May-June 2006) Archive 4 (June-Nov 2006) Archive 5 (Nov 2006-Jan 2007) Archive 6 (Feb-Apr 2007) Archive 7 (Apr-Aug 2007) Archive 8

Why the British won the War of 1812 In reply to GABaker's post (above)

(1) The US goal of invading Canada was defeated

(2) The US war goal of stopping impressment was not acheived. It stopped before the war, and the British refused to sign away their right to impress in the treaty

(3) Military the US lost most of the land battles.

(4) The Brits generally only lost land battles when they were attacking dug in troops, or outnumbered. In contract, the US lost a number of battles to smaller forces.

(5) The British army ended the war occupying US soil. They were preparing to attack mobile when the treaty was signed. There was no US army challenging them in the field. In an historical sense, victory is given in a battle to the army that possess the field at the end of the conflict.

(6) In summary, at the end of the war, the British army was in US territory. It possessed Maine, and its Navy completely controlled the water. If anything(though the treaty was signed and previous frontiers returned) the war was a tactical victory for the British Empire.

(1)If the US goal was to invade Canada then that goal was met. Canada was invaded ;) Can you cite what the US's goals with respect to Canada were? Can you cite any territorial demands made by the Americans on any Canadian territory before, during or immediately after the war?

(2)The brits never again used impressment so this can't be cited as a loss for the US

(3)The US lost most of their land battles in the war for indepenance and the Viet Cong and north vietnamese lost essentially *all* of their land battles against the US in the Vietnam war. Number of battles won or lost doesn't dictate the results of a war.

(4)see (3)

(5) nonsense. A war can even be lost when a participant is in control of territory many times what they held at the outset. For instance the Germans lost ww1 despite winning military control of vast territories on the East front and confining nearly all of the fighting to their enemies home turf on all fronts.

(6) The british navy was no more in control of the water at the end of the war than they were at it's beginning. Certainly they were unable to protect their shipping from US privateers.Zebulin 17:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile? Sorry, that was a sideshow. The real prize in North America is New Orleans, and the British failed there spectacularly.

There are only a few key ports that connect to river transport. Mobile is a fine seaport, but the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio river systems drain in New Orleans. Please note that in the American Civil War that was the first key port the North grabbed from the south.

The U.S. Army won more battles than it lost towards the last year of the war: and in New Orleans, it defeated a Peninsular general. Trivial. The U.S. Army was a professional army in 1814, and the British knew it.

We gained control of the Great Lakes in 1814. Wellington knew that defeating the U.S. was impossible without control of these lakes, and advised against any such attempt.

I don't know why people seem so eager to pin a defeat on the U.S. when the U.S. came out of the war with its intangible war goals accomplished. Yes, the Southerners didn't grab Canada; but we grabbed the rest of the continent. I think part of this is the "we need to bring the Yanks down a peg/I hate American" attitude. But, on terms of achievement, the U.S. made it clear it was the power on North America, and no British development in less populous, more open Canada was going to balance that. Let Britain have the rest of the world. We got the part we wanted. -- GABaker 7 August 2007 0136 UTC.

To clarify, why the British won the war of 1812

(1)US tried to invade Canada, each invasion force with objectives. Objectives not taken, invasion forces defeated. By end of war, all US invasion forces repulsed from Canadian soil

(2)The Brits stopped using Impressment before the war began, because of US concerns, and, militarily, the need for impressment was no longer there ...so the war's prosecution did not result in the stopping of impressment

(3)True, and a good point. The Number of land battles by itself doesn't dictate a war lost or gained, but in context, with other factors, it definitely says something. In this case, the reason why the US lost most of the land battles does relate to why they lost the war.

(4) See 3

(5) Actually, being in possession of territory at the end of a war does generally indicate who is winning. The example you gave of WW1, with the Germans losing, but having a lot of land at the end of WW1 is pretty unusual. Most wars end with the loser having less land at the end of the war than they did at the beginning, if they end up with any land at all eg WW2, Falklands, gulf war 1, gulf war 2, Korea, Boer war, Vietnam, Russian Civil war, Iran-Iraq war.

(6) True, they weren't in control of the seas in the sense that there were privateers (from both sides) active. However, militarily the Royal Navy had tightened their blockade on US ports to the point where the US couldn't challenge it, except to blockade run. Privateers could attack British Merchant shipping (and certainly did), however the Brits had privateers from the UK, Canada and Bermuda attacking US shipping. All up, more US ships were captured than British, and the Brits had a bigger merchant (and Naval) fleet anyway. Plus the Brits were using American shipping from New England to get supplies for their army in Spain, which (I'm guessing?) weren't attacked. Overall, by wars end, the RN had blockaded the ports and this was affecting the US economically and militarily.

GABaker. You talk about the amazing feat of a little country standing up against a giant and surviving. You're thinking that little country is the US. But I'm thinking of CANADA. Deathlibrarian 12:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the United States was a small country then, too. -- GABaker

There was no country of Canada in 1812-1814. --Noren 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and even if we pretend there was it was a case of Canada and it's big brother vs the US not Canada vs the US.Zebulin 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Napoleonic wars is forgotten here. That got most of Britain's attention for most of the war. For two years. Tourskin 02:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To further illustrate the point, if Mexico declared war and invaded the United States and America responded by repelling the invaders, launching a counter attack and razing Mexico City to the ground I think most Americans would consider that a slam dunk victory. -chris m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.246.25 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about if the US began forcing commercial passenger planes to land then rounding up mexicans on the planes and impressing them into service to fight in Iraq. The US government decides in washington to stop the practice but elects to publish the decision through a letter mailed to the mexican government. Before the letter is recieved Mexico rashly declares war and rashly invades the US. The US military bombs the mexican capitol to cinders but embarrassingly loses several important naval battles denying it access to important stretches of the west coast. The US government pulls out of Iraq and seeing no further need for conflict suggests peace on the terms of restoring the status quo antebellum. Mexico agrees but the US fails to call off an invasion of mexico which is embarrassingly routed. Mexicans celebrate victory on the basis of the irrelevant battle and the end of conflict and the end of the original grevienances and The US largely forgets the embarrassing affair. Now who would you say "won" the conflict? Did the mexicans really lose? did anybody lose apart from the mortified US navy?Zebulin 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God, can this just be dropped? Stop feeding the anonymous trolls.Narson 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possibly the same annonymous troll whom I recently needed to revert from changing the article to "decisive british victory". I directed them to this talk page so if they feel the need to post something here I'd rather respond here than in an edit war in the article.Zebulin 18:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how much does this aritcal get vandalised? if its a lots i think it should be locked-chris m

This debate is completely ridiculous. The War of 1812 was one of the most one sided wars in history. The outcome was perfectly clear; the USA emphatically outdone militarily as well as diplomatically and failing to achieve ANY of their ambitions at the start of the war. The USA is the only hyperpower in the world at the moment. I would have thought this status would have made its citizens quite immune to hurting over a war in which they happened to get quite clearly hammered almost 2 centuries ago. 80.80.176.20 23:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice to have some more information about how the US was emphatically outdone diplomatically in the war. I had not even heard that this was the case until just now. Could you elaborate a bit on this dimension of British victory? Perhaps you are referring to the way the empire managed to get all of it's recent anti Napolean allies to join them in declaring war on the united states? that was an amazing diplomatic victory I must admit.Zebulin 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were no concessions either way really in the treaty of ghent. The war result was a status quo, as to whether its a victory either way, its pretty debatable (as the constant conversation proves). Personally I think it was a British victory, however as even history books debate whether it was a win for either side or a total draw, I think simply stating the result as the treaty of ghent and a 'no change' is the most neutral way to go. Narson 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is sort of common wisdom now - regardless of # of casualties or who won what victory when or who burned whose capital and which was more important, both countries FELT like they had won the war. Technically one might call it a draw, given the status quo ante bellum treaty ending. It would be more accurate, though - if more abstract - to look at the issue from a historiographic view and let both sides be the victors, since both sides felt that way.

So who lost the war? Easy answer to that one: the Indians.

Incidentally I noticed Pierre Berton's account is not on the reference list (unless I'm overlooking it). I thought it was a good read, if perhaps a little pro-Canada. Dmhaglund 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the Americans got the ability to head to the west and take all whilst the British held onto Canada. Victory for all.Tourskin 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to keep Canada is a victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.185.164 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, getting to keep Canada is a victory.Acanadian 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)acanadian[reply]

It seems that the war lives on in the minds of many contributors to this talk page. However, the Treaty of Ghent was signed by the combatants in 1814-1815. The result: Status quo ante bellum. The article reflects this.

This page is for discussion of changes to the article—not for endless rehashing of the war. Read the archives. It has all been said before. If you must discuss it, find a blog. Time to move on. Sunray 17:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh..yeah. Thanks for the information. It is completely relevant to be discussed here because this page is one of the most pro US biased pages on Wikipedia that I have come across. A facet of information for this page is being discussed. If you don't like it, you simply don't have to read it. This page constantly reflects people unhappy with the US bias on this page.This is wikipedia, people should be free to discuss problems with a page as much as they feel the need. Deathlibrarian 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I think we should bring some focus to your concern. The debate over who won has been continuing for three years. That is not germane to these pages. So how about you raise some specific points that document your concern about bias. Then, perhaps we can deal with them. Sunray 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I am being too amorphous and should focus on exactly what issues, and I'm not being particularly helpful by being general. However the who won the war thing is something that should be addressed here. Clearly people are not happy about how it is presented here, as the topic keeps coming up. While the US wikipedia editors are happy with the result, editors from other countries seem to not see it so. It really can't be pushed ot the side, it will always be brought up here until the article reflects various viewpoints on who won....and so it should.

There is a lot of bias that Americans wouldn't notice. An example is the introduction box. It has the reasons for why the US declared war, and their greivances...but says nothing about Britain and how they thought their reasons were unfounded, and how the saw the war as opportunistic.203.35.150.226 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for this? Sunray 07:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wether I have sources for it or not, there is no description of UK reaction, just a statement of what the US saw as their grievances. I can tell you, without source, that the UK did not welcome an attack on their lightly defended colony while they were in a life or death struggle with Napoleon.Deathlibrarian 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC) "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World" by Arthur Herman. I believe this book details more British opinion, I don't have it though. There aren't a lot of British commentary on the war because everthing at the time was written about Waterloo!! Deathlibrarian 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that both sides accomplished most if not all of their war aims. War is not a zero-sum game. Often in war, both sides lose; this was a rare case when both sides won. It's hard to imagine that--it's counter intuitive-- but it happens. GABaker 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)GABaker -- 8 Aug 2007 1445 UTC.[reply]

I agree with the statement that this article is very pro-US. If the war was a draw, why does the article seem so focused on the US achievements? Surely it should be more balanced --Alex 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

let's start with just the overview. Can you name specific US achievements that should be removed there? Can you name some British achievments that should be added there? Let's see if we even agree that the overview at least is balanced before tackling the rest of the article.Zebulin 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that both sides won is interesting. The Americans won pride and nationalism and with it the ability to conquer the west without too much British interference. The British were able to hold on to their lightly defended colony and pursue a so called "Gunboat diplomacy". Tourskin 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me at least it is very true that this war is hardly remembered in Britain. I just found out about it by reading this article. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.223.193.144 (talk) 01:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. Raised in Britain, I remember reading one page of this from one history revision guide by Letts (it was light cream in colour and had all wierd history symbols and pics on it). So yes, this war, which I think the British should be proud of just as the Americans are, severly under-cover it. If thats even a term. Tourskin 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol not that I editted much of this tho!Tourskin 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am British and take a keen interest in British history, especially regarding the British Empire. However, I never knew about the 1812 war until just a year ago when a fleeting mention (about four words) was made of the war with America in Lawrence James's definitive history of the British Empire - 'The Rise and Fall of the British Empire' (1999). Subsequent to this, I have found out about the war mostly from American sources such as wikipedia - you are hard pressed to find any mention of it in the UK. It appears that this was a big event in America's history - a battle with their old colonial masters - yet to the UK it was nothing but a minor sideshow to the European war with Napoleon. If the US had actually achieved any form of concrete victory such as conquering Canada, then maybe it would get a mention! As it stands its one of the forgotten Imperial conflicts that Britain seemingly was having in all parts of the globe with numerous other nations at the time. The article is very biased towards the American view by the way and seems to spin it as some sort of victory, but perhaps this is because hardly any British scholars have attached any signficance to it. In a sense, Britain largely maintained the 'Status Quo' which since this meant Britain would remain on top, was its main goal of military conflict at the time. Stuzzer 14:11 10th September 2007

any specific suggestions for fixing the bias? perhaps rewrites of some small portion of the article to illustrate the bias and changes you are proposing?Zebulin 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has all the smaller parts of the British Empire been listed? Should we list all the states of the USA at this stage as well? Don't forget that whilst the listed combatants on the British side all have the Union Jack, the American states had their own flags, further strengthening my argument:

• We should either list the states of the US as well

OR

• Just label it as British Empire only.

I prefer the second option - in theory whenever the British Empire gose to war, volunteers can be raised from any of her colonies and yet we don't see a long list in every British Empire war.Tourskin 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I disagree with it here. Reasoning being that there was a marked difference in training and quality between the British regulars (who wore red uniforms and probably came from England) and the Canadian militia (who didn't). The American forces were relatively more uniform in comparison. Bermuda hardly seems relevant as a 'combatant' though; I will remove it. Dmhaglund 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its got the British Empire and Canada now. Tourskin 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable, as the Canadian militia took a major role; are you saying it is unreasonable? If it's any help, the French and Indian War article lists Britain and American Colonies as separate combatants. And as to the second point, members of the British Empire didn't automatically go to war when Britain did; to use the same example, American colonial militias fought alongside British regulars in North America, where it was in their interests to do so; they didn't, and weren't expected to, send troops to fight with the British army in Europe, or India, or any other theatre of the war. (anyway, I only came here over "Decisive British victory", but it's been fixed already; does thispage have its own rapid response team?) Xyl 54 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited this page to say "war hawks" and other things that seem unbecoming of an encyclopedic article. Also, to say in the body of the article:

(According to the book by textbook author James W. Loewen in his book "Lies My Teacher Told Me") The most important cause of the war was land, Spanish land (Florida), British land (Canada), and the biggest chunk of land was the Indians land. After war was declared Britain offered to withdraw the trade restrictions, but it was too late for the American "War Hawks", who turned the conflict into what they called a "second war for independence." While the officially-stated reasons for declaring war were ending impressment, ending harassment of mercantile shipping, and ending British military support for western native tribes, a major goal of the "war hawks" in the western and southern states was aggressive territorial expansion.

This seems more like an expression of opinion than anything. While I don't necessarily think that this following statement is true, I do think that it would be much more appropriate than the current one. My proposed revision: "While the officially-stated reasons for declaring war were --such-and-such--, --such-and-such-scholar-- believed that a major goal of those American politicians in favor of the war in the western and southern states was territorial expansion.(some citation listed here)" Since no citation is given for this statement here, I would say that it needs to be removed, since it is a biased statement based on original research or non-cited sources.

Even my proposed version seems to be weasely, so I think that this should be written to "show" and not just to "tell" the reader what to think.

At very least, the statement that "a major goal of the "war hawks"...(etc.)" should be qualified by a phrase that indicates that it is a view of someone in particular, instead of just flat-out saying it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotbeat (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the War Hawks were a recognizable faction who figured prominently in the debate about going to war, I certainly think that it is appropriate to mention them. However, we do need better citations for this section. Couldn't that be dealt with by placing "citation needed" tags on the specific statements that need citations? Sunray 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War Hawks seems to be used quite frequently by much other commentary on the War of 1812, so can't see why it shouldn't be used here. 10:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)

The section closely follows the citation given: The U.S. Army's Center for Military History. Thus it certainly is not original research. The war hawks were a very real faction and the reference does mention them. If editors believe that this reference is unduly biased, perhaps they would want to add other references as well. I personally don't see a problem with the reference since the section deals with "causes of the war." As the Americans declared war, it seems appropriate to have an American military reference to describe why war was declared. I am going to remove the "neutrality" tag, and would encourage those who don't consider the section neutral to add cited material from other sources that give a different point of view. Sunray 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The commanders box seems a bit lop-sided; there should probably be a few more listed for the British and Indians, and Seeing as how the Canadians are proud of their involvement, there should probably be a Canadian commander listed. Also On the American side, I think that William Henry Harrison should probably be added, as he did defeat Tecumseh.(Lucas(CA) 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Was spain truely involved in the war of 1812? I find this an unlikely idea, considering it was, until 1814, a puppet of the French. Narson 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the British were responsible for liberating Spain(and Portugal) during the Peninsular War it is certainly feasable thet the would have sided with the British(particulaly in the later stages of the war), however i have no specific details. Lucasshark33 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the information was removed and not re-inputted, so I suspect it was mis-information vandalism. Narson 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the U.S. burning down the Canadian Parliament and the British retaliating by burning down the White House even mentioned in this article? It's one of the most important events of the war. If it's mentioned in the White House article, it should be mentioned here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House#Early_use.2C_the_1814_fire.2C_and_rebuilding

i don't think it existed back then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.246.25 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a 'canada' for there to be a parliament of. They could have burnt down the legislative assembly house of either Upper Canada or Lower Canada (Seperate colonies) though. Narson 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sackets Harbor, NY was critical to the American victory on the Great Lakes. As it had a protected harbor on Lake Ontario, it was here that the US Navy established its headquarters and base of operations on the Great Lakes. It established Navy Point, where nearly 3000 men built eleven warships in record time. The warships were the strength of the US fleet on the Great Lakes. Oliver Perry reported to the commander at Sackets Harbor.--Parkwells 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The overview section starts off a little weakly with "The war started badly for the Americans as their attempts to invade Canada were repeatedly repulsed..." As someone with little knowledge of the war, I was hoping for more background, like *why* the Americans were invading, what built up to those events, and so on. Can anybody shed some light on this and add it to the article? Thanks. Maruchan 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could consult the causes of the war section below it or the Origins of the War of 1812 article linked in the same section. The causes were pretty convoluted to try to do much justice in the overview. You have things like impressment building up intense outrage, then the impressment being ended but having the war break out before word of the change in policy could be recieved. And that just addresses impressment. I don't know if the causes could be put in the overview without either taking over or constantly being attacked as too simplistic.Zebulin 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am more in favour of the initial position that causes not be enumerated in the overview, but since they appear to be, I felt I had to add "desire for territorial expansion of the Republic" to those listed. I believe all are correct. The decision-makers here had a sort of cocktail of interests, and ultimately decided to invade, though certainly there was no unity among the American leadership (particularly in New England!) on the actual cause of war. While I recognize that of course not all of the American leadership sought territorial expansion, one interest group did and they lobbied fairly hard. Dmhaglund 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can something be done to stop the vandalism to this article? 'Decisive British victory' keeps being deleted by vandals from the section entitled 'Result'. This vandalism appears to be exclusively conducted by American contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal is on the other end of the "undo" button on this one, I'm afraid. If you read the discussion on this talk page (here), you will note that the consensus (word to describe the way editorial decisions are made in Wikipedia) is "Status quo ante bellum." That means no one won; no one lost. This was the judgement of the signatories of the treaty and editors (both Canadian and American) of this encyclopedia respect it. That is why you your attempt to change the result will continually be reverted. Sunray 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid 'Status quo ante bellum' does NOT mean that no one won the war. Many wars end when an invading army is defeated and the original borders are restored. see for example the 'Falklands war' which also ended with 'Status quo ante bellum' which was a decisive defeat for Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina made territorial claims on the Falkland islands. The US was not making territorial claims on the british empire. Are you saying that if a country invades another country/empire and doesn't get territorial concessions at the end of the war then it automatically lost the war? I don't remember that the Uk gained any territory from Russia in the Crimean war and yet nobody seriously suggests that the Uk therefore lost the war. Just because the Uk invaded Russia does not mean it was seeking to annex Russian territory. Just because the US invaded the british empire in the war of 1812 does not mean it was seeking British territory.Zebulin 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you cut and paste that instead of addressing my point? 'Status quo ante bellum does NOT mean that 'no one won' as was stated earlier. Furthermore, countless references have been cited to show that the aim of the American aggression was territorial expansion. The claim that the cause of the war was to 'stop impressment' is laughable. This is taught to American schoolboys to try and salvage some dignity from the debacle. The British army took up residence in the headquarters of the United Stated Marine Corps in Washington D.C. after they fled, then systematically destroyed symbols of the American nation(like the White House and other public buildings)until the Americans agreed to respect international borders. This agreement is the essence of the Treaty of Ghent.

With reference to another contributor, I am a little disturbed that they don't know how to spell 'definitely' I was assuming that I am dealing with adult contributors.

I generally cut and paste my responses to suspected trolling. especially when it seems to be exactly the same complaint as was addressed earlier. One indication that you are merely trolling is your claim that impressment would not have constituted a causi belli. If a country today were to force passenger planes to land, round up foreigners on board and then press them into service to fight in iraq you can bet it would only take a single refusal to end the practice for it to be construed as an act of war.

I should point out that the residence in and destruction in washington you refer to ended long before the treaty of ghent was negotiated. Your contention that vacation of washington was in response to US agreement to the terms of the treaty of ghent fails on that point.

I'm glad to hear that you have found countless references to American territorial claims on Canada in or before 1812. You will do a great service for the article by posting one. So far all such references that I have been made aware of have been individuals who would not have been able to speak for the US in any capacity even had they wanted to and even those meager references have not found their way here to shed light on these discussions. Offering one such reference for discussion would go a long way towards demonstrating that you are not in fact merely abusing the discussion page to troll the editors of this article.

I think it is safe say that insulting the maturity of an editor based on their inattention to spelling constitutes a kind of personal attack and is at the least unlikely to win sympathetic attention to your complaints.Zebulin 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK Zebulin, I made a single error in my spelling, it happens. If he wants to believe that validates his position, he is more than welcome to. Ad hominem attacks just make it clear how straw filled his argument is. The British destroyed the White House which apparently constitutes victory. Obviously I was mistaken in the nature of the conflict. I therefore suggest we move the page to International Capture The Flag (1812 Semi Finals).

On a less sarcastic note, the Falkland conflict analogy has been used before and is flawed. If Britain had occupied Buenos Aires (Taking not insignificant losses in the campaigns) and we then signed a peace treaty with the Argentineans that gave back all the land we captured from them and simply kept the Falklands, obviously that would be a victory. Some people have their beaks too deep in the Daily Mail to realise that, sometimes, it's not the rest of the world out to screw us, we are quite capable of screwing ourselves. God save us from the History channel and the evils it creates. Narson 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...I'm an American editor now? Sexy British accent....use of the word bollocks......nope. Definatly British. Narson 20:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could be an honourary Canadian if you are real meek and mild (but carry a big hockey stick). ;-) Sunray 21:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erhhh No the British destroying the whitehouse does not make it a victory. The British repelling an ill planned invasion of Canada certainly does. Not quite sure why that is so hard for people to grasp.......Deathlibrarian 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just find a source that says that and we will grasp it  ;-) Sunray 19:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who won the war?

Did someone win the british-american war at all or won both?

Result: Treaty of Ghent and status quo ante bellum this means nothing to me.

My question is who won the fucking war that is important NOT that the Treaty of Ghent signed.

Who won? --Lordbecket 14:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both and neither. Both sides achieved some of their war aims, both suffered unacceptable losses, be it in prestige, manpower etc. The War of 1812 had a lasting effect on relations (Despite provocation, there was never again an out and out war between the two nations again, though there were skirmishes, notably over the New England borders, I believe) even though it is a rather forgotten war today. Narson 15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope you're not under the illusion that war is a kind of game that always has a victorious side and a losing side.Zebulin 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah agrees. "The Treaty of Ghent" is not an answer to who won the war. As for who won the war, the American Wikipedians will tell you that no one won the war. The British Wikipedians will tell you that they won. I'm an Australian, and as far as I can see, the main issue is that the US tried to invade Canada, and were defeated, the war finishing with the British in Possession of Maine. The British won the war of 1812.Deathlibrarian 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous discussion, above, GABaker made the case that both sides won:

... both sides accomplished most if not all of their war aims. War is not a zero-sum game. Often in war, both sides lose; this was a rare case when both sides won. It's hard to imagine that--it's counter intuitive-- but it happens.

If one reads the volumes of discussion on this talk page's archives about this subject, its hard to avoid this conclusion. If Americans believe that they won and the British and Canadians believe that they won, given that the result was status quo, they are both right! Now, let's put this debate to bed. Sunray 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "both and neither" is a good answer, but it's also true that each side thinks they won. I'm American; I was once discussing the Vietnam War with a Canadian friend and said it was the first war America ever lost. He said, "That's not quite true, you lost the War of 1812". And I said "No, we didn't, we won it!" And indeed, each of us had learned in school that his respective country had won that war. —Angr 19:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well to simplify.....From my Non US perspective. The US didn't stop impressment, didn't successfully invade Canada but did get land off a whole lot of Indians. I count that as 1 objective out of 3. The Brits defended the US and pushed the US back into their own country. I count that as 1 out of 1. So if you are basing it on achieving objectives, the US did not achieve the majority of theirs, and the Brits acheived all theirs. *Fundamentally, there is no "putting to bed of this". The Assumption that both sides won is an American Assumption, supported by American Wikipedians. Wikipedians from other countries will consistently turn up to this page, and contest. They always have (check the discussions) and they always will, until this page is re written to reflect this. 210.49.164.192 14:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it. Will you people stop lumping me in with the colonials? >.< Narson 14:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narson, Can't believe you are a Brit and you are calling this a stalemate???. In the war of 1812, a small amount of British/Canadian troops defeated the US invasion, kicked US Arse back across the border and then took possession of Maine. Credit where credit is due. Man, If I was British or Canadian I would be arguing like all hell to get this changed to reflect a British Victory. Deathlibrarian 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We won the fighting (IMO) but a war is not just about the fighting...its about achieving your aims, ultimatly this is done in negotiations for cease fire or peace (Or in total annexation of your foe). We gave up /everything/ we had fought to gain in negotiation. We snatched a draw from the jaws of victory. However, this cannot be summed up in an infobox. Believe me, I have no problem with us reclaiming the thirteen rebellious colonies. You realise how much we could sell them for at todays real estate prices? We'd be able to buy half of china! (Let along all its tea) Narson 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We snatched a draw from the jaws of victory." Only if you count Thames, Plattsburg, Fort McHenry, and New Orleans as British "victories". 65.28.247.16 01:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

way to miss the point. The point was that even though the British won more campaigns and territory on the battlefield than the US, they failed to translate any of that into any concessions at the negotiating table. It was not suggested that the British won every battle or engagement.Zebulin 04:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this page was moved to American War of 1812 the the ugly first sentence could be cleaned up from

The War of 1812 (known as the American War of 1812 in Britain to distinguish it from the war with Napoleon I of France that occurred in the same year)...'

to

The American War of 1812 was fought between the United States of America and the United Kingdom and its colonies.

It would also allow for the removal of "This article is about the U.S. – U.K. war. ....". Anyone object to moving the page to "American War of 1812" and if so why? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]