The US Won the War of 1812

[Galahad]

--The War of 1812 was NOT an "Unequivocal American Defeat". Rather, it was won by the United States.

--How, you ask, since the US didn't take Canada and the Treaty of Ghent didn't address impressment of US sailors or neutral rights on the high seas?

--Was it because the US won a lot of battles?

--No, but it was because the war forced the US to develop an arms industry capable of providing for the large increase in US military forces. Effectively, it was the birth of the US military-industrial complex.

--When the war ended, the US Army was working up to a strength of 50000 Regulars, while the Navy was several times larger than at the start of the war, and was commissioning its first three line of battle ships--plus the world's first steam-powered frigate, plus it had established a long-term plan for expanding the Navy.

--And it had developed an Army capable of going toe-to-toe with the British regulars who had beaten Napoleon. At Chippeway and Lundy's Lane in 1814 they gave just as good as they got. The implications for 1815 were ominous from Britain's viewpoint.

--Militarily, the US ended the war stronger than it began it, and in almost full possession of the most of its territory. And both the Army and the Navy were then led by competent commanders of proven worth, most of whom had inflicted defeats on Britain's forces. Winfield Scott, Andrew Jackson, Jacob Brown, William Henry Harrison, Isaac Hull, Stephen Decatur, William Bainbridge.....to name a few of the better known.

--Was it because the US profited economically?

--No, because the government was nearing bankruptcy when peace was declared. But US privateers did a lot of profiting. Between them and the regular Navy ships that got turned loose on Britain's shipping, Lloyd's insurance rates were approximately 50% higher in 1814, after Napoleon's abdication, than at the height of the Napoleonic Wars. Britain was hurting quite a bit from this fracas with the scorned Yankees.

--And not just hurting economically. It was hurting in its pride.

--Prior to the start of the war, during the previous 20 years, Britain had won around 200 single ship engagements against almost every navy in Europe, and almost without regard to the odds against the British ship--such as the 14 gun sloop HMS Speedy capturing the Spanish frigate Gamo. And it had lost a mere two or three.

--But in the first six months of the war, it lost Guerriere, Macedonian, Java, Frolic and Peacock--while capturing the 14 gun USS Nautilus and the 18 gun USS Wasp. American ships were doing to the Royal Navy what the Royal Navy had done to ships of the rest of Europe. To a nation accustomed to victory at sea as a matter of course, this was a considerable shock, especially considering the Royal Navy had more than 800 ships in commission, as opposed to the 13 of the USN.

--One quick change as a result of this was that Royal Navy captains were ordered NOT to engage American frigates unless there were two or more RN ships. Prior to that, a Royal Navy officer who refused combat with a ship equal to his own, or even stronger, would have been court-martialled. That was as good as saying they thought one American was as good as two Brits. And, though British officers laughed at American "fir built frigates" before the war, to counter them, Britain built a class of--you guessed it--large frigates made from fir.

--On Lake Champlain and Lake Erie, US squadrons defeated British squadrons. In the case of Lake Erie, the British squadron was totally destroyed in combat, something alien to British naval history. And the next time the British lost a naval engagement as decisively as they did at Lake Champlain was just over a hundred years later at a place called Coronel. Small potatoes compared to Trafalgar and Cape St. Vincent, maybe, but it's the principle. The mistress of the sea went head to head against a navy smaller than that of Sardinia or the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies--and got its nose bloodied. At best, despite the overmatch in ships, the Royal Navy achieved a draw against the US Navy. It didn't destroy it and it didn't prevent it from putting to sea on a semi-regular basis, at least not totally.

--It's interesting to note that when Shannon, with her well-trained crew, captured Chesapeake, with her green crew, Shannon suffered more casualties than Guerriere admitted to when she lost to Constitution. I'm not sure what that says, but it seems to say something.

--When you're bullying the little kid down the block--as Britain was bullying the United States up to 1812--and he not only pops you some good ones in the nose and the nads, but you also can't knock him out no matter what you do, you remember it.

--The end result of that was respect, from Britain, towards the United States. Though there were crises and threats in the coming years, never again did Britain seriously contemplate making war on the US, though other countries weren't so fortunate.

--So even though the main issues that caused the US to declare war were left unsettled in the treaty of peace, Britain stopped playing fast and free with US shipping, and never impressed seamen from US ships again. One would think that if the US had lost the war, the opposite would be true. Yet, de facto, the US accomplished one of its two main aims.

--Further, in the 1857 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law, all the nations of Europe, including Britain, accepted the US position concerning neutral rights on the seas. Especially, they accepted a provision banning privateers and ships sailing under Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Naturally, the US didn't accept that provision, having found privateers useful, which is why Britain wanted them banned.

--Additionally, the US finally took full title and possession of the area known as the Northwest Territories, due to a near-total victory over the Indians. At the Battle of the Thames their confederation was smashed and their one true leader, Tecumseh, was killed. From then on it was the US versus a lot of tribes, with the US being an awful lot larger than any of them. And they were on their own. Britain, which had been trying to stir things up to the point where the US lost the Northwest Territories--in favor of an Indian preserve lovingly guided by Mother Britannia--ended its support of the tribes and its incitement of them. Another win for the Americans that came about only because of the War of 1812.

--The victories that gleamed so brightly alongside humiliating defeats such as Bladensburg engendered a sense of nation in the US population, one that wasn't there before the war, and one that shortly got a name.....Manifest Destiny. Thirty years later that led to War with Mexico, which led to the US growing in size by 1/3. The victory was won by the army trained and commanded by Winfield Scott--who had learned his trade at places like Lundy's Lane and who the Duke of Wellington called "the greatest living general".

--It's said that the War of 1812 created the nation of Canada. It also created a new United States.

--The US won, not by conquering, but by not being conquered, and by growing stronger as the war continued, especially in the development of industries supporting war, and in the strength of its military. It won by gaining the respect of the the British Empire (as shown by that Empire's actions over the next century), and by convincing Britain that war with the US simply wasn't worth the cost of prosecuting it.

--Especially since in another one, with the US population growing by leaps and bounds, and with proven professional commanders like Scott and Jacob Brown, the odds were in favor of the US taking Canada. And most likely at the same time another horde of those pesky American privateers would be unleashed in the English Channel and the Irish Sea. It was a strong argument in favor of being friendly with the US.

--General W. T. Sherman said "The only legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace". Even if it wasn't a war aim for either nation in 1812, a more perfect peace is certainly what resulted--that, and a stronger United States. How can anyone think the US lost the war? If that's an "unequivocal defeat", I'd love to see an equivocal one.

[South]

Good morning Galahad,

I missed your above excellent post - until now.

A couple of comments;

Re: "never again did Britain seriously contemplate war on the US,..";

During the US Civil War, the USN captured 2 British diplomats aboard a Confererate vessel on the high seas. To abbreviate: HM Government sent 10,000 troops to Canada in preparation to protect British diplomats and et cetra. President Lincoln told his Admirals and Generals to hold off because = One war at a time is enough. = or something reported like this. I forgot the specifics of this incident but the Civil War people here should be readily familiar with this incident.

Re: "Thirty years later that led to the War with Mexico,..";

"Manifest Destiny" was planned much earlier. The expulsion of a Spanish presence was coupled to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. What the Hades were Captains Lewis and Clark doing with their flaura and fauna survey party on the Pacific Coast in 1805?! "Oh, the sea, the joy".

Re the US War of 1812,;

The Brits were involved in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. London's main concern was protecting their West Indies markets by American raiders. This was the main reason the Brits blockaded US ports. This did damage US commerce but it was a secondary matter with the West Indies protection being of primary importance.

Again, great post.

Warm regards,

Bob

[Galahad]

--Hi Bob.....and thank you for the compliment on the essay! Given how unpopular the War of 1812 was, I wasn't sure anyone would bother to read it through. Long long posts tend to be more popular if they are on "what if the SS had done this", or maybe "Medieval cavalry charges". <g>

--A couple of replies to a couple of your comments.

--You wrote "During the US Civil War, the USN captured 2 British diplomats aboard a Confererate vessel on the high seas. To abbreviate: HM Government sent 10,000 troops to Canada in preparation to protect British diplomats and et cetra. President Lincoln told his Admirals and Generals to hold off because = One war at a time is enough. = or something reported like this. I forgot the specifics of this incident but the Civil War people here should be readily familiar with this incident."

--You're referring to the Trent affair, where an overeager US Navy captain stopped a British Royal Mail steamer, the Trent, searched it, and confiscated two commissioners the Confederacy was sending to Europe. That did get Mother Britannia hot and bothered, and Britain did take steps in case of war, such as hiring the Great Eastern to ship 6000 troops to Canada.

--Fortunately, Lincoln did defuse the matter, along with the intervention of Albert, the Prince Consort. Had it escalated it would have been interesting to see what happened in the end, given the US had around half a million men under arms. Canada could have been lost.

--What's ironic about this hullabaloo is that the US started it by doing exactly what the US went to war in 1812 over Britain doing.....stopping a neutral and friendly ship on the high seas, and removing people from it by force. As Lincoln noted: "I fear the traitors will prove to be white elephants. We must stick to American principles concerning the rights of neutrals. We fought Great Britain for insisting … on the right to do precisely what Captain Wilkes has done. If Great Britain shall now protest against the act, and demand their release, we must give them up, apologize for the act as a violation of our doctrines, and thus forever bind her over to keep the peace in relation to neutrals, and so acknowledge that she has been wrong for sixty years."

--There were other matters that could have led to war, both before the Trent affair, and after it, but leaders on both sides worked to ensure that a settlement short of war was reached. Prior to the War of 1812, that wasn't the case, because Britain was interested in doing what Britain wanted to do, because Britain had the ships and men to do so.

--Prior to the war there were attempts and desires to take over various of the Latin American countries--and those continued for decades--but prior to the war there wasn't a sense that the US would be doing God's Work. When the term Manifest Destiny was coined in 1845, it gave a name to the national feeling engendered as a result of the War of 1812. And the US was promptly involved in grabbing a third of Mexico, with part of the population--notably Southerners--feeling they should have grabbed it all.

--Before the war, the US was fairly provincial and parochial. Afterwards it was blatantly expansionist.

--Concerning the blockade, one humorous aspect of it was that Britain issued credentials to American merchant ships so they could supply the Duke of Wellington's army in Spain; seems they supplied perhaps half the grain he used. So you had the amusing spectacle of British warships protecting American merchant ships trading with the enemy from being confiscated by American warships or privateers.

--Again, thank you for the compliment, Bob!
Take care,
Rob

[Trackhead M2]

Dear Big G,
I am reminded of the scene in Catch 22, where Nately is told, "Italy will lose the war but be victorious". I think you are suggesting that 1812 like 1898 later were learning experiences which prepared the USA for tougher tests to come.

Mexico was a test of professional logistics for the first time in American Military History.

Spain was logistics and mobilization for a world covering conflict. There were even Spanish propagandists who thought the crews of the the US Navy would rebel against their officers under fire and take the ships back to their nations of origin as they had no common heritage as the Spaniards did.

I guess they didn't read our money where it says E Pluribus Unum, we proved it in 1898, I hope we still can.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

[Dunserving]

"The War of 1812 was NOT an "Unequivocal American Defeat". Rather, it was won by the United States. "

I read that while looking at a fruit bowl turned on my lathe by my father half a century ago. It is made of Indian teak which was recovered from the hull of HMS Cornwallis when it was being broken up (and burnt to recover a huge amount of copper rods that had been used to "nail" timbers together) in Sheerness Dockyard.

That was the ship that fired the very last shots of the war of 1812. At a US ship. That was running away at the time..........

[Galahad]

--Dunserving writes: "I read that while looking at a fruit bowl turned on my lathe by my father half a century ago. It is made of Indian teak which was recovered from the hull of HMS Cornwallis when it was being broken up (and burnt to recover a huge amount of copper rods that had been used to "nail" timbers together) in Sheerness Dockyard.

That was the ship that fired the very last shots of the war of 1812. At a US ship. That was running away at the time.........."

--Trying to be cute, are we?

--You are referring to HMS Cornwallis' unsuccessful chase of the USS Hornet on 27 April 1815. Considering that Cornwallis was rated as a 74 gun ship of the line, and Hornet was an 18 gun sloop of war, of course Hornet was running away; it was the wise thing to do.

--That wasn't the only experience HMS Cornwallis had with the US Navy. Her completion was delayed because the USS Constitution captured HMS Java, which was carrying to India (where Cornwallis was built) the copper sheathing for Cornwallis' hull.

--But in fact Cornwallis DIDN'T fire the last shots of the War of 1812. They were fired by the sloop of war USS Peacock (named for a captured British warship) when she captured the East India Company brig of war HEICS Nautilus, on 30 June 1815, in the Indian Ocean.

--So the war didn't end with a US ship "running away".

--It ended with yet another British warship striking its colors to an American warship.

[henryk]

--There were other matters that could have led to war, both before the Trent affair, and after it, but leaders on both sides worked to ensure that a settlement short of war was reached.

A good example is the border dispute in 1837, for which Maine declared war. But the US and Britain resolved it peacefully.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7&t=139704

[LWD]

Not to mention the pig war.

While the war of 1812 wasn't a disaster for the US it's hard to call it an overwhelming victory either. Too much depends on exactly what you think the aims were and how you interpret whether or not they were acomplished.

[Galahad]

--Didn't say the US won an overwhelming victory.....just that it didn't lose, as some say, and that it achieved more than just a draw, as others say.

[Dunserving]

--Dunserving writes: "I read that while looking at a fruit bowl turned on my lathe by my father half a century ago. It is made of Indian teak which was recovered from the hull of HMS Cornwallis when it was being broken up (and burnt to recover a huge amount of copper rods that had been used to "nail" timbers together) in Sheerness Dockyard.

That was the ship that fired the very last shots of the war of 1812. At a US ship. That was running away at the time.........."

--Trying to be cute, are we?

--You are referring to HMS Cornwallis' unsuccessful chase of the USS Hornet on 27 April 1815. Considering that Cornwallis was rated as a 74 gun ship of the line, and Hornet was an 18 gun sloop of war, of course Hornet was running away; it was the wise thing to do.

--That wasn't the only experience HMS Cornwallis had with the US Navy. Her completion was delayed because the USS Constitution captured HMS Java, which was carrying to India (where Cornwallis was built) the copper sheathing for Cornwallis' hull.

--But in fact Cornwallis DIDN'T fire the last shots of the War of 1812. They were fired by the sloop of war USS Peacock (named for a captured British warship) when she captured the East India Company brig of war HEICS Nautilus, on 30 June 1815, in the Indian Ocean.

--So the war didn't end with a US ship "running away".

--It ended with yet another British warship striking its colors to an American warship.

Meanwhile, if we stick to the truth............

When HMS Cornwallis was firing on your little ship the captain did not know that the war had ended.....

But... While the captain of the USS Peacock had been informed that the war had ended months before, he attacked the Nautilus regardless. After capturing a ship that was hardly likely to fight given that we were supposed to be at peace, he found documents proving that the war had been over for four months. At least he had the decency to release the Nautilus.

The war didn't end with yet another British warship striking its colours to an American warship, it had ended months earlier with the formal ratification of the Treaty of Ghent.

[Galahad]

Dunserving writes, in a snotty, snide and off-the topic manner:

"Meanwhile, if we stick to the truth............

When HMS Cornwallis was firing on your little ship the captain did not know that the war had ended.....

But... While the captain of the USS Peacock had been informed that the war had ended months before, he attacked the Nautilus regardless. After capturing a ship that was hardly likely to fight given that we were supposed to be at peace, he found documents proving that the war had been over for four months. At least he had the decency to release the Nautilus.

The war didn't end with yet another British warship striking its colours to an American warship, it had ended months earlier with the formal ratification of the Treaty of Ghent."


--So what is the purpose of your post? The only one I can see is that you are deliberately trying to be insulting, the same as you were in your first post. You certainly aren't trying to be on-topic. And you certainly haven't rebutted anything I wrote.

--You make a comment that effectively says I lied in my previous post. Back it up. I deny that, period. Show what I fabricated. If you don't, then all the readers will certainly know who's the liar. Not to mention, the troll.

--You grouse about an American ship going after a British ship 6 months after the treaty of peace was signed. Yet you totally ignore the fact that your snotty entry into this thread concerned a British ship going after an American ship 4 months after the same Treaty of Ghent was signed.

--You now say the War of 1812 ended with the Treaty of Ghent. If you want to have it that way, then why did you make your initial post, with its comment about Cornwallis firing the last shot of the war--at an American ship "running away"? This happening four months after the war ended.

--By your own standard, your post was pointless and incorrect.

--What was so for HMS Cornwallis in the South Atlantic was also so for the USS Peacock in the Indian Ocean, near the Sunda Strait. You stated that Cornwallis fired the last shot of the war. The firing took place in April, 1815. It logically follows that statement is, by definition, wrong. It is a fact that Peacock fired hostile shots some two months after Cornwallis did, and it is a fact that both firings took place within the category of time titled "months after the Treaty of Ghent was signed".

--If Peacock didn't fire the last shot due to the treaty having "ended" the war, then your original statement was doubly pointless and doubly incorrect.

--Don't bother to answer. After your 2nd post, few who can read can't see that you were trolling, and deliberately being snide and insulting. And off-topic.

--Go troll someplace else. Or at least get your facts and your logic straight before you start here.

[Dunserving]

Think..........

In the Cornwallis incident neither captain knew the war had ended. Both had sailed before the Treaty of Ghent and quite reasonably presumed that they should be fighting each other, though one quite sesibly knew he should avoid combat. The incident was wrong but understandable.

In the Peacock incident both captains knew the war had ended, though one clearly didn't believe it till he saw documentary evidence. One had sailed after the Treaty of Ghent and quite reasonably presumed that he should not open fire. Striking colours under those circumstances seems to be a good way of avoiding loss of life on both sides so that the documentary proof could be put in the hands of a disbelieving captain. The incident was wrong.

There is a profound difference between the two incidents, tragic and unfortunate as they both were.

[LWD]

... The war didn't end with yet another British warship striking its colours to an American warship, it had ended months earlier with the formal ratification of the Treaty of Ghent."....

Actually I don't believe that is correct. From what I recall reading the treaty had a date somewhat after the signing date when it was to go into effect. Thus for example the war was not over when the Battle of New Orleans was fought even though it was post treaty.

[Dunserving]

Indeed, that is correct.

Treaty signed 24th December 1814.
Battle of new Orleans 8th January 1815.
Treaty ratified by both sides February 1815, war ended at that point.
HMS Cornwallis incident 27th April 1815. I wonder what the captain of the USS Hornet thought when he realised that the ship he had decided to engage was NOT a harmless merchant vessel.........

This shows the final fate of HMS Cornwallis just over 50 years ago: http://www.kenthistoryforum.co.uk/index ... 7#msg23117

If anyone would like to see a piece of the ship, there are three pieces in the USA, two in private hands, and one in the Smithsonian in Washington DC. I presented the pieces to the the three of them in June 1988. One of the pieces in private hands was given to a family, direct descendants of the man in charge of building the ship in Bombay, of Mumbai as it is known these days.

This is the builder: http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collection ... 14276.html

[Galahad]

--Concerning Dunserving's changed thesis that the Captain of the Peacock had been notified that peace had been declared and the war thus was over and done.

--Legally, he hadn't been notified. All he had was words from a British captain of a ship inferior in strength to his "little ship". His sworn duty was to prosecute the war till he received legal notification from either his government or from an unimpeachable outside source. Words alone from an enemy captain don't constitute an unimpeachable source by themselves.

--Under international law Captain Warrington had every right to demand the British captain strike his colors, barring a look into what he was claiming. Further, it was his duty to do so, same as the British captain felt he had the duty to not surrender. Had Nautilus' captain struck to force majeur, Peacock's captain would have gotten beforehand the informations he got after it and then considered legal and binding. He would have officially apologized and written a nice note for the Nautilus' captain to use if his superiors got nasty. But no one would have died and the official last shot of the War of 1812 would have been fired elsewhere.

--In support of this being the facts of the matter, there is the matter of compensation. The United States paid compensation for each of Peacock's prizes taken more than 4 months after the war ended (as was called for in the Treaty of Ghent).

--But neither the British government nor the Honourable East India Company ever submitted a claim for damages with regard to HEICS Nautilus. That seems to indicate that they supported the Peacock's action in the sense that it was legitimate--which is was.

--So Dunserving's changed argument is, again, wrong. He tries to claim that Peacock violated international law and that the fight with Nautilus took place after peace. Thus making something other than that fight being where the last shot of the war was fired. He's wrong. Which makes all of his posts not only off-topic, but also pointless.

--Till Peacock's captain had something more than words from a British captain who was at his mercy--say, a struck flag--the war had to continue, and the responsibility for those last killed and wounded falls directly on the captain of the Nautilus. As support for that, go read what the British author and historian C. S. Forester has to say on this matter, in his history of the naval aspect of the War of 1812--The Age of Fighting Sail.