War of 1812: Win, Loss, or Draw for America?

[SWE]

An embarrassing loss

[ingemann]

I guess it was a American win because UK didn't put USA over a barrel and make you squeal like a pig after they had beaten and humiliated you.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I call it a draw - it can't be considered anything else.

[Hatman 🍁]

In terms of territorial gain, it was obviously a draw. The U.S. didn't get Canada; Britain didn't get their Indian Republic in the West. Essentially, it preserved the status quo.

If we're talking about national morale, however, it was quite clearly a victory for the US. Like the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War, the real effect of the War of 1812 was to foster patriotic feeling at home. Regardless of whether they actually won, Americans thought they won, and that sense of victory fueled one of the great nationalist periods of American History. It's no coincidence that the War of 1812 was directly followed by the Era of Good Feeling.

(NOTE: I don't know a lot about how Brits/ Canadians felt about the war, so it's possible that you could call this a win/win conflict in terms of national morale.)

That's interesting, because under that definition the British/Canadians could be considered winners as well. We take great pride in the fact that we burned down the White House, for example. As I said, we are taught in school that the British/Canada won the war.

But the American army burned down York, the capital of Canada. Do they not teach this in Canadian "schools"?

This part is predictably glossed over, of course

[Associate Justice PiT]

     We started a war and got our capital sacked. I know that not much changed from the status quo, but it's hard for me to call that anything other than a loss.

So? Unlike most European wars where the capture of a capital was usually the last ditch battle of the losing army, the capture of Washington was merely a raid where the British relinquished control of the city within 24 hours. Sure it was a humiliating defeat of a single battle (or rather the Battle of Bladensburg), but it meant little strategically for the overall war or the ultimate Treaty of Ghent.

Besides, does that mean America similarly raiding and burning Canada's capital (York, nka Toronto) mean Canada lost the war?

     We started a war and failed in our operational objectives, both official and unofficial. The fact that we lost the capital only serves as a reminder of how badly we did at what we had set out to do.

    It is important to note though that there are differing standards for differing times. The fact that no territory was exchanged might mean it could be considered a draw by the standards of the time, but as someone speaking from a modern perspective I would tend to qualify it as a loss. I don't usually judge older times from a modern perspective, but considering how cavalier people then and now can be about war and warfare, I tend to make a certain exception for this in terms of being critical towards the old standards of warfare.

[Gass3268]

Draw

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Draw

I'd prefer to draw this but it wouldn't be appropriate for this forum.

[beaver2.0]

America sort of won.

[Türkisblau]

Isn't a draw for the US basically a win considering it was against Great Britain?

[Badger]

     We started a war and got our capital sacked. I know that not much changed from the status quo, but it's hard for me to call that anything other than a loss.

So? Unlike most European wars where the capture of a capital was usually the last ditch battle of the losing army, the capture of Washington was merely a raid where the British relinquished control of the city within 24 hours. Sure it was a humiliating defeat of a single battle (or rather the Battle of Bladensburg), but it meant little strategically for the overall war or the ultimate Treaty of Ghent.

Besides, does that mean America similarly raiding and burning Canada's capital (York, nka Toronto) mean Canada lost the war?

     We started a war and failed in our operational objectives, both official and unofficial. The fact that we lost the capital only serves as a reminder of how badly we did at what we had set out to do.

How can you say that? The primary American objectives were to cease British impressment on the seas, and stop their overt attempts to prevent American westward expansion by openly supporting Native nations. Both were successfully achieved (albeit the former augmented by the end of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe). Sure there was a desire to annex Canada, but it was clearly tertiary to these other achieved goals. If anything, annexation of Canada was an afterthought; the war wasn't started or fought because of a desire for Canada, but rather more of a "hey, while we're at it...." sentiment. Unlike the Mexican War, imperialistic ambitions didn't spark the war, and alone such sentiments would've never started but for impressment and open interference in frontier expansion.

And again, what did the British occupying Washington for less than 24 hours obtain them in the war or peace settlement other than a moral victory and revenge for York (Toronto)? The British had to withdraw from the entire Chesapeake peninsula within a week. Again, at most it was payback for York, but not at all indicative of having "lost" the war.

[Badger]

In terms of territorial gain, it was obviously a draw. The U.S. didn't get Canada; Britain didn't get their Indian Republic in the West. Essentially, it preserved the status quo.

If we're talking about national morale, however, it was quite clearly a victory for the US. Like the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War, the real effect of the War of 1812 was to foster patriotic feeling at home. Regardless of whether they actually won, Americans thought they won, and that sense of victory fueled one of the great nationalist periods of American History. It's no coincidence that the War of 1812 was directly followed by the Era of Good Feeling.

(NOTE: I don't know a lot about how Brits/ Canadians felt about the war, so it's possible that you could call this a win/win conflict in terms of national morale.)

That's interesting, because under that definition the British/Canadians could be considered winners as well. We take great pride in the fact that we burned down the White House, for example. As I said, we are taught in school that the British/Canada won the war.

Earl, there wasn't a single Canadian involved in the burning of DC. The units were all Napoleonic War vets from England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bladensburg#British

Even most of the Canadian Frontier theater was defended by regular English army units; Canadian militia played an important supporting role, but one that was at best a shared defensive role.


FWIW, I say the war was clearly a draw as the Treaty of Ghent returned the parties to a strictly antebellum status, though Americans could present an argument for a "moral victory". Honestly, but for the long-remembered, but strategically irrelevant, day-long raid on Washington, no one would ever realistically call this an American "defeat". Nor should they even when considering Washington.

[Badger]

Isn't a draw for the US basically a win considering it was against Great Britain?

Well, it would be if the British fought us unencumbered for the entire war, but for most of it their military and resources were primarily tied up defeating Napoleon. The American theater was a relatively trivial one in comparison. Once Nappy surrendered (the first time), the American leadership saw the writing on the wall and cut a deal for the antebellum status quo with no statement on impressment, hoping Napoleon's defeat would remove much of the British Navy's need for shanghaied manpower (they were right).

[RINO Tom]

I have trouble calling it a loss when we came out of that debacle with our independence and with the British going home empty handed.  Draw.

[nolesfan2011]

     We started a war and got our capital sacked. I know that not much changed from the status quo, but it's hard for me to call that anything other than a loss.

Was a major loss given our agenda was to conquer Canada, we lost and lost territory as well, and were simply lucky the British weren't interested in messing with us further, otherwise it would have been bad

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It's worth noting that the British had suffered some pretty serious military setbacks in 1814, the Battles of Plattsburgh and New Orleans being the most significant. While the burning of Washington and the raids in the surrounding area were humiliating, the British lost any tactical advantage those victories might have brought them from withdrawing from the area immediately afterwards. Then, of course, Ft. McHenry happened, and that was the end of that. Meanwhile, their attempt to seize control of Lake Champlain failed miserably, and we all know how New Orleans turned out. It's possible that the British could have won a decisive victory, but doing so would have required starting from scratch in the Spring of 1815. Even then, it's hard to imagine a scenario where the British do any better than during the early years of the War of Independence, and if the campaigns of 1776 and 1777 weren't enough to finish the US, the odds of doing so in 1815 are grim.

There is one possibility for the British to gain the upper hand in the peace settlements, though: the Hartford Convention. As things actually turned out, news of the New England secession movement reach most Americans' ears at the same time that the peace treaty was coming home from Europe, and the convention was discredited. Had the war still been raging at the time, however, it seems possible that a serious move to dismember the Union might have developed. A desperate President Madison might then be pressured into making some territorial concessions to the British, possibly in the form of a Western Indian republic.

That will all fall apart, however, if the US wins a major military victory in the Spring or Summer of 1815. A second British route at Lake Champlain (or at any number of possible targets) would have just as much dampening effect on the anti-war movement as the peace treaty did, erasing Britain's advantage. Ultimately, it's possible for Britain to have won decisively, but I don't think that at the end of 1814 they had the overwhelming advantage that some seem to be suggesting.