War of 1812 Victor

[Erebus Pasha]

We destroyed the Brit army at New Orleans, USS constitution defeats HMS Guerrier,US won majority of 1v1 ship conflicts even tho Brit navy was dominant...Really no point in you arguing about who won, in ANY way.

The British Army at New Orleans took a bit of a beating but it was far from destroyed. The army merely re-embarked on navy vessels and landed again further down the coast. When news came of the Treaty of Ghent the British were preparing to attack Mobile.

At sea?

If anything the number of victories it had in the naval portion of the conflict, as opposed to the land battles, are one of the few things that the US did quite well in during the War of 1812.

Ships like the USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Essex, and others had feared fighting reputations that made most British Captains think twice before trying to fight them.

As Sphere has already pointed out the Royal Navy was dominant on the sea around the American coast, especially when you consider the impact on American trade and the fact that British troops could pretty much land anywhere at will. A few ship on ship actions in the Americans favour doesn't change this fact.

Where the US truly deserves praise is in it's performance on the Great Lakes especially in battles such as Lake Erie.

[Old_Scratch]

I was never taught that the US won the war of 1812. There was a sense of victory in the US because Jacksons victory in New Orleans was the last battle, but that's about it. I like the Solomon Short quote; "The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky. "

[Yorkshireman]

Even tho Wellington admited it was a stalemate?

Wellington, was'nt he in Spain fighting the French in 1812 ?

[MaximiIian]

War of 1812 had no victors, really. It was a bloated stalemate.
But out of it, the U.S. gained some respect internationally; that was the biggest impact of it. We held our own and duked it out with the most powerful military in the world...twice. And we didn't get destroyed. We were still standing; that's the important thing about the War of 1812, not who "won". Because, in truth, there was no winner in that conflict. Neither side accomplished all of their goals.

[67th Tigers]

The British Army at New Orleans took a bit of a beating but it was far from destroyed. The army merely re-embarked on navy vessels and landed again further down the coast. When news came of the Treaty of Ghent the British were preparing to attack Mobile.

Actually, they'd taken Mobile. This was the last battle of the war (and a British victory). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Bowyer

New Orleans "permanently removed from the orbat" about 10% of the British expeditionary force.

[King Edward III]

When have I denied it wasn't a draw. Infact, I said it was a strategic stalemate...But the British did achieve many symbolic victories. If you are desperately trying to grab a "winner", the British deserve it more than the Americans. Thats for sure.

[Old_Scratch]

Actually, they'd taken Mobile. This was the last battle of the war (and a British victory). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Bowyer

New Orleans "permanently removed from the orbat" about 10% of the British expeditionary force.

It wasn't really a spectacular defeat for the Americans though, the garrison just surrendered. New Orleans was what everybody remembered. It inspired quite a bit of nationalism, even though it was small in scale and wouldn't have meant much in the long run.

[driecken]

Read up on the history, don't dream up conclusions.

[Mangalore]

Any war where you allow your enemy to burn down your capital is either a crushing defeat, simply embarrassing or you're Russia.

The US started the war. Thus one can assume that they wanted to change the status quo. The war ended and everything returned to the status quo before the war. The US had gained nothing from it, Britain as the defender did not need to gain anything => militarily it was a draw but politically it was a defeat for the US (aka her government) because she had made a fool of herself killing thousands of people but nothing to show for it.

Of course would the leader in that instance frame it as victory.

[Visna]

I was never taught that the US won the war of 1812. There was a sense of victory in the US because Jacksons victory in New Orleans was the last battle, but that's about it. I like the Solomon Short quote; "The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky. "

Ehrm, the 1812 ouverture was written to commemorate the battle of Borodino, 1812. It is no way connected to the US-GB war of 1812...

Or was Solomon Short ironic? In that case I apologize and the is on me.

[smithy17]

War of 1812 had no victors, really. It was a bloated stalemate.
But out of it, the U.S. gained some respect internationally; that was the biggest impact of it. We held our own and duked it out with the most powerful military in the world...twice. And we didn't get destroyed. We were still standing; that's the important thing about the War of 1812, not who "won". Because, in truth, there was no winner in that conflict. Neither side accomplished all of their goals.

Wasn't it the british who were duking it out with the most powerful military in the world in a completely different continent?

[Boyar Son]

The British Army at New Orleans took a bit of a beating but it was far from destroyed. The army merely re-embarked on navy vessels and landed again further down the coast. When news came of the Treaty of Ghent the British were preparing to attack Mobile.

A bit? really now. Even high commanding officers were killed, they walked into grape shot...a bit?

besides my post was meant to say, that there wasn't a winner, no matter what. Unlike what TWfanatic was trying to say "if i HAD to choose a winner, well u know me, i'd choose any1 BUT America"

And lol at how all the brits are siding with their own country for the winner!!

if they were so spectacular, wouldnt the US be defeated by 1 of the mightiest armies in the world?

but it didnt happen like that. damn fantasies u guys are havin about england lol

Wellington, was'nt he in Spain fighting the French in 1812 ?

the PM wanted him to fight the war and win, and guess what he said. STALEMATE.

jeez all these guys cryin.

Wasn't it the british who were duking it out with the most powerful military in the world in a completely different continent?

you could say the same for the US, except the continebt part.

[Erebus Pasha]

A bit? really now. Even high commanding officers were killed, they walked into grape shot...a bit?

Again it was a setback for the British Army but they simply licked their wounds, re-embarked on some RN Navy vessels and landed further down the coast. The final moments of the war were spent with Jackson rushing to the defence of Mobile.

And lol at how all the brits are siding with their own country for the winner!!

I haven't.

if they were so spectacular, wouldnt the US be defeated by 1 of the mightiest armies in the world?

The British Army was an oiled machine thanks to it's victories in Spain and Portugal but it was still small by continental standards (meaning in comaprison to the French, Austrian and Russian Armies) and was spread out all over the world in the defence of the empire. Due to the rather more important threat of Napoleon the British weren't able to send significant reinforcements to North America until 1814, with most of them being sent to the American South.

but it didnt happen like that. damn fantasies u guys are havin about england lol

Great Britain or the United Kingdom dear boy and not England.

the PM wanted him to fight the war and win, and guess what he said. STALEMATE.

In 1812?

you could say the same for the US, except the continebt part.

For a majority of the war they were fighting a mixture of Canadian militia forces and the few British regulars that were stationed there.

[Applesmack]

I always wondered, why is it called "Great" Britain? Isn't that kinda fascist? Like Greater Germany?

[Hound of Ulster]

I'd say the British won on points, but losing the naval battles was a tad embarrasing, and Wellington's best surbortinote, Packenham, was killed at New Orleans, which hurt a little as well.

Here's an interesting counter-factual thought experiment: Would the history and culture of the United States been differant if what is now Canada had been conquered in the war of 1812?:hmmm:

[Boyar Son]

Again it was a setback for the British Army but they simply licked their wounds, re-embarked on some RN Navy vessels and landed further down the coast. The final moments of the war were spent with Jackson rushing to the defence of Mobile.

And the US would respond in kind eventually leading to the defeat of ENGLAND, unless they would want to commit to the war and not to napoleon.

I haven't.

so your saying that ENGLAND never won the war, and that your posts of excuses for their loses were for naught?

The British Army was an oiled machine thanks to it's victories in Spain and Portugal but it was still small by continental standards (meaning in comaprison to the French, Austrian and Russian Armies) and was spread out all over the world in the defence of the empire. Due to the rather more important threat of Napoleon the British weren't able to send significant reinforcements to North America until 1814, with most of them being sent to the American South.

note how I didnt have #'s there. And anyway, if the ENGLISH armed forces never had any set backs do to US victory then they beat us with no problem right?

or is there something else your trying to say?

Great Britain or the United Kingdom dear boy and not England.

so overrated, jsut admit that the world was dealing with ENGLAND buddy.

In 1812?

now how the hell would you think he said that in 1812, right in the beggining????????

shortly after the battle of Plattsburg he said this, but if i remember 1815ish?..

For a majority of the war they were fighting a mixture of Canadian militia forces and the few British regulars that were stationed there.

so much in common! that the majority of US forces were miltia too... pirates beating a mighty army, that says something.
Hound of Ulster-

I'd say the British won on points, but losing the naval battles was a tad embarrasing, and Wellington's best surbortinote, Packenham, was killed at New Orleans, which hurt a little as well.

What???

-pirates beat you at new orleans

-American navy defeats the superior brit navy several times especially Plattsburg (a shocker)

-2 brit commander of the campaign killed

-US army not even close to quality brits but...

england couldnt get a surrender out of 'em !

dont let the propaganda here fool you, ESPECIALLy TWfanaticc.

[Dodge]

Any war in which you burn down the capital of the opposing nation cannot be considered a loss.

[Erebus Pasha]

And the US would respond in kind eventually leading to the defeat of ENGLAND, unless they would want to commit to the war and not to napoleon.

There was no sign of any defeat for Britain in 1815 with no side gaining any decisive edge in the war.

so your saying that ENGLAND never won the war, and that your posts of excuses for their loses were for naught?

No side won the war period. My posts are merely countering some claims regarding the battles during the conflict.

note how I didnt have #'s there. And anyway, if the ENGLISH armed forces never had any set backs do to US victory then they beat us with no problem right?

or is there something else your trying to say?

I'm not one for making hypothetical claims.

so overrated, jsut admit that the world was dealing with ENGLAND buddy.

It's Great Britain buddy. That is what were known as from 1707. I really don't know what your problem is regarding this fact!?!

now how the hell would you think he said that in 1812, right in the beggining????????

I didn't. I reckoned from a response to Yorkshireman's post that you thought that.

shortly after the battle of Plattsburg he said this, but if i remember 1815ish?..

Plattsburgh occured in 1814.

If you find the quote it would be helpful but it was hardly a bold statement. The war was leading nowhere by this time for either side.

so much in common! that the majority of US forces were miltia too... pirates beating a mighty army, that says something.

Pirates made up just part of Jackson's army, whoes defences had been well prepared thanks to delays in the British advance.

dont let the propaganda here fool you, ESPECIALLy TWfanaticc.

Yeah don't let it fool you Boyar.

[Aetius]

Any war in which you burn down the capital of the opposing nation cannot be considered a loss.

Say that to Napoleon.

[Boyar Son]

There was no sign of any defeat for Britain in 1815 with no side gaining any decisive edge in the war.

no sign at the time, but considering what england britain was dealing with back in europe, and considering the distance between north America and Europe for communication and resupply, the US having more troops available if need be...

No side won the war period. My posts are merely countering some claims regarding the battles during the conflict.

well crap i know that, but an argument HAS to be answered. Most of the time.

I'm not one for making hypothetical claims.

you never once thought of "what-if"?

It's Great Britain buddy. That is what were known as from 1707. I really don't know what your problem is regarding this fact!?!

cant i say England once in a while? really GBritain was always to me, a little over the top, like instead "the United States of America", u could just say America.

Plattsburgh occured in 1814.

If you find the quote it would be helpful but it was hardly a bold statement. The war was leading nowhere by this time for either side.

Dudley Mills, "The Duke of Wellington and the Peace Negotiations at Ghent in 1814," Canadian Historical Review Volume 2, Number 1 / 1921 pp 19-32; Latimer, 1812 p 390-

I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. you can not on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.

quick quote

right there. But people still say, GB won the war bla-bla, the ones in fantasy land..

Pirates made up just part of Jackson's army, whoes defences had been well prepared thanks to delays in the British advance.

It was partly due to the defences, but it wouldnt have mattered as the brits were comming under fog, but the fog lifted, exposing them to guns and grapeshot. About the pirates, dont forget there were indians too, about 5,000 total of mixed quality troops to about 7,500 regulars.

Yeah don't let it fool you Boyar.

Dont worry i havent fallen for one sentence of how GBritain "won" the war.