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

[Badger]

I vote Draw, fwiw, based on the return to antibellum status in the Treaty of Ghent and rather mixed bag of military successes (and failures) on both sides.

[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?

[Badger]

We've been taught since childhood that we kicked your butts, but Wikipedia says it was a draw.

Canada did kick our butts. The invasion of Canada went terribly for the United States, and Canadians were a major part of that. But there were two other major opponents to the USA in the war: Britain, who won some, lost some, and agreed to peace without a change in territory; and Tecumseh's Confederacy, who basically lost to the USA.

@ Hatman: that's adorable, but there wasn't any 'we' Canadians at the time, only loyal servants of the British Crown.

@ you & Sparkey: the Canadian border was more of a stalemate than anything. Yes, there were failed American invasions, but the British invasion was thwarted by defeat on Lake Champlain, and the were American victories along the front which weren't followed up for strategic gains, not to mention that burning of York (strategically meaningless as it was).

[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).