The US Won the War of 1812

[Galahad]

--For the benefit of Dunserving who appears not to have read them--or who doesn't think that they apply to trolls--here are a couple of the rules Marcus has established for his Forum.
--"Guidelines & Instructions
by Marcus Wendel on Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:09 pm
These are the basic guidelines of this forum:
.....* No insults are tolerated (that includes serious national and religious insults)...
* Keep the message on topic....."

--Dunserving has now made 4 off-topic posts in a row, a violation of one of Marcus' stated rules.

--His initial post was calculated to be an implication of cowardice on the part of the US Navy, and the "fact" he used as a foundation for it was incorrect. We'll cut him some slack on that would-be insult since it boomeranged on him.

--His second post opened by imputing that I lied in something I'd written ("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.....").

--Again, we'll cut Dunserving some slack over that "little ship" comment; we all know it's nothing but troll spite being displayed.

--But he has yet to apologize for implying that I was other than truthful. He has further not shown where I did, in fact, state anything that wasn't the truth. THAT deliberate insult I'll cut him no slack over, because I don't like being called a liar by some troll with an agenda. That was another violation of the Forum's rules, one uncalled for in any way.

--Except in his spiteful mind, ticked that his little joke insult got shot down with fact.

--Dunserving should either get on the topic of the thread, or go troll someplace else lest we see what the Forum moderator has to say on the matter of repeatedly violating Marcus' rules in order to hijack the thread.

--And, assuming he is going to keep posting, I suggest Dunserving should actually read my initial post, rather than just read the title.

[Dunserving]

I read your post and I also read the rules.

You claim that I have implied cowardice on the part of the US Navy and that I have implied that you are a liar.

I have done nothing of the kind and reject your comments abut me utterly. I do not imply anything - if I thought it then I would state it, unequivocally. And as I have not formally accused your navy of cowardice, nor you of lying, you may take it as read that I have made no allegation of any kind of that sort. My comments were written in English as it is learnt and understood by an Englishman born in London, and if your similar but different language leads you to have a different understanding to mine it's your problem not mine. Presumably your understanding of my words led you to make the troll allegation. I reject that utterly. I don't have any Scandinavian ancestry either. Almost certainly do have some French ancestry though.

For those reasons if you are waiting for an apology you will have a very long wait indeed. Marcus and the the other moderators have had over five weeks to react by either locking the thread or banning me, or both. They have done neither.

The "little ship" comment was entirely appropriate - surely the 18 gun Hornet could not be thought of as equal to the much bigger and more heavily armed Cornwallis? No need to cut any slack is there?

You wrote "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."

Surely the fact that neither our government nor the ships owners submitted a claim does not necessarily indicate that they supported the Peacock's actions? A legitimate action? Depends whose side you are on.

There are other possibillities, not the least of which is that it was really a very minor incident and perhaps hardly worth starting fighting or other financial/diplomatic conflict over? Did anyone important get hurt of killed? Was there any great financial cost or loss? Worth also remembering how many cargo ships never arrived at their destination in those days even in times of peace. The incident happened some 60 years before the Plimsoll Line, and I'm sure we all know why that got invented. A bit of damage to a fairly insignificant cargo vessel was hardly worth caring about compared to the losses in a typical peacetime year.

I'm not sure how your government would have felt about it had the situation been reversed, but it is pretty typical of British government to just let it go when it suited, regardess of right. The incident was worthy of a diplomatic spat, but hardly worthy of starting another conflict.

[waldzee]

I read your post and I also read the rules.

You claim that I have implied cowardice on the part of the US Navy and that I have implied that you are a liar.

I have done nothing of the kind and reject your comments abut me utterly. I do not imply anything - if I thought it then I would state it, unequivocally. And as I have not formally accused your navy of cowardice, nor you of lying, you may take it as read that I have made no allegation of any kind of that sort. My comments were written in English as it is learnt and understood by an Englishman born in London, and if your similar but different language leads you to have a different understanding to mine it's your problem not mine. Presumably your understanding of my words led you to make the troll allegation. I reject that utterly. I don't have any Scandinavian ancestry either. Almost certainly do have some French ancestry though.

For those reasons if you are waiting for an apology you will have a very long wait indeed. Marcus and the the other moderators have had over five weeks to react by either locking the thread or banning me, or both. They have done neither.

The "little ship" comment was entirely appropriate - surely the 18 gun Hornet could not be thought of as equal to the much bigger and more heavily armed Cornwallis? No need to cut any slack is there?

You wrote "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."

Surely the fact that neither our government nor the ships owners submitted a claim does not necessarily indicate that they supported the Peacock's actions? A legitimate action? Depends whose side you are on.

There are other possibillities, not the least of which is that it was really a very minor incident and perhaps hardly worth starting fighting or other financial/diplomatic conflict over? Did anyone important get hurt of killed? Was there any great financial cost or loss? Worth also remembering how many cargo ships never arrived at their destination in those days even in times of peace. The incident happened some 60 years before the Plimsoll Line, and I'm sure we all know why that got invented. A bit of damage to a fairly insignificant cargo vessel was hardly worth caring about compared to the losses in a typical peacetime year.

I'm not sure how your government would have felt about it had the situation been reversed, but it is pretty typical of British government to just let it go when it suited, regardess of right. The incident was worthy of a diplomatic spat, but hardly worthy of starting another conflict.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Both of you are n an odd exchange- & as a veteran of bad posts I know of whence I speak!
Both the Battle of Lake Erie & the battles on Lake ontario at Burlington were sagas crews of both the Provincial Marine & the Us Navy fighting to the death- with Perry turning the tables with innovation.

The Freshwater naval war was a fight to the finish....

[waldzee]

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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The US, in the Ghent treaty, gained the Red River Valley & the 49th parallel boundary instead of the Upper Missouri channel , & eventually, the Oregon country, so it was a 'clear victory', over time.

The Losers, I suppose, were the Sioux, who were coalescing in the Red River Basin

[David Thompson]

Gentlemen -- Our rules prohibit personal remarks about other posters, so avoid them in discussions of historical events. Our readers come here for sourced information about the topic, not extraneous flame-bait or personal notions about unrelated matters. Consider this a thread warning.

[waldzee]

Gentlemen -- Our rules prohibit personal remarks about other posters, so avoid them in discussions of historical events. Our readers come here for sourced information about the topic, not extraneous flame-bait or personal notions about unrelated matters. Consider this a thread warning.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mea Culpa! I did not intened to imply

"the Sioux lost Territory'- but are winners as people.

[Ken McCanliss]

The only exchange of territory in the war was when three American soldiers
captured Carleton Island in the St. Lawrence River (in the Thousand Islands
group). This was ratified by Great Britain in the treaty of peace. Thus, by the
measure of territory won or lost, the United States did indeed win the War of
1812.

[Ken McCanliss]

By the way, that the Red River Valley was ceded to the United States and the 49th Parallel
agreed upon as the boundary was accomplished by the Treaty of 1818 (also known as the
London Convention), and not by the Treaty of Ghent.

[waldzee]

By the way, that the Red River Valley was ceded to the United States and the 49th Parallel
agreed upon as the boundary was accomplished by the Treaty of 1818 (also known as the
London Convention), and not by the Treaty of Ghent.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the London convention was triggered by the war of 1812.

[Ken McCanliss]

The northern boundary was one of those unresolved issues between Great Britain
and the United States that the Treaty of 1818 laid to rest. It was a comprise in
which the U.S. got the Red River Valley (south of the 49th parallel) and Britain
got the northern portion of the Louisiana Purchase (that part north of the 49th parallel).
In 1846, that line was extended from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.
But even then the boundary issue was not settled. That came in the 1880s when
the U.S. and Britain submitted the dispute over the San Juan Islands (in Puget Sound)
to arbitration by the Emporer of Germany.

[waldzee]

[quote="Dunserving"]I read your post and I also read the rules.

You claim that I have implied cowardice on the part of the US Navy and that I have implied that you are a liar.

I have done nothing of the kind and reject your comments abut me utterly. I do not imply anything - if I thought it then I would state it, unequivocally. And as I have not formally accused your navy of cowardice, nor you of lying, you may take it as read that I have made no allegation of any kind of that sort. neither......
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Given that the events occurred 200 years ago, we all now shall thank the internet gods for small mercies....

[Bearskin]

“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.”

Britain started impressment during the Napoleonic Wars. It stopped impressment after the first defeat of Napoleon. James Monroe accepted that impressment was already a moot point in June 1814.

“On mature consideration it has been decided, that under all the circumstances above alluded to, incident to a prosecution of the War, you may omit any Stipulation on the subject of Impressment”
James Monroe, 27th June 1814.

Apart from stopping and searching American flagged vessels during her African Blockade (against the transatlantic slave trade) the Royal Navy had no cause to play “fast and free” with US shipping. All that changed in 1914. The original Orders in Council of 1807 (the main avowed reason for war in 1812) were revived by the Orders in Council of 1915. US trade with Germany and her allies was cut dead in its tracks. US flagged vessels were searched for contraband by the Royal Navy. Likewise there were similar howls of protests from the US about neutral rights. All that was missing was the refrain “onwards to Canada”.

Historians Andrew Lambert, Brian Arthur and Donald Hickey all argue that Britain won the War of 1812. All agree that what was salient was left out of the peace treaty, giving a false impression of the war’s outcome. All cite WW1 as proof of the USA’s failure to address British maritime issues in and after 1812.

“The present condition of American foreign trade resulting from the frequent seizures and detentions of American cargoes destined to neutral European ports has become so serious as to require a candid statement of the views of this Government in order that the British Government may be fully informed as to the attitude of the United States toward the policy which has been pursued by the British authorities during the present war.”

“Articles listed as absolute contraband, shipped from the United States and consigned to neutral countries, have been seized and detained on the ground that the countries to which they were destined have not prohibited the exportation of such articles. Unwarranted as such detentions are, in the opinion of this Government, American exporters are further perplexed by the apparent indecision of the British authorities in applying their own rules to neutral cargoes.”

Correspondence between William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State and Walter Hines Page, US Ambassador to Great Britain.

http://www.gwpda.org/1915/usmarit.html

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.

The Royal Navy blockade combined with seaborne depredation along the USA coast wrecked the US economy, reducing it by 88% compared to 1811. The economies of some states like Maryland and Virginia were extinguished. The US Treasury finally defaulted on 9th November 1814. The USA couldn’t even mint small change in 1815. How many British seaports were blockaded? How many British towns and cities reduced by seaborne attack? Saying that America’s little flotilla drew against the power of the RN is pure fantasy.

American authority on the War of 1812, Donald Hickey, provides a far shorter and more accurate conclusion on the result:

“But the United States failed to conquer Canada, and the maritime issues were not even mentioned in the peace treaty. By any reasonable measure, Republican war policy was a failure, and the United States actually lost the war–even if it has never acknowledged the fact.” Donald Hickey “Who Really Won the War of 1812?”

[South]

Good afternoon Bearskin,

Welcome to the forum.

......

I'm not familiar with the 3 referenced historians but have read some material on WWI. This material involved the Panama Canal. I guessed that the US acquired the Danish Virgin Islands for naval stations to monitor the Atlantic approaches to the Canal. I also guessed that the US did not worry about the British presence nearby. Surely the Panama Canal and its naval defense generated US internal discussions on British maritime issues after 1812.

The US economy was "wrecked" ?!

What was the status of New Orleans in the peace treaty or perhaps afterward?

In basic terms...nearly useless to discuss at the advanced level...the War of 1812 was a stalemate or "draw".

Of course Canada was a US failed objective.

Yet the US remained a sovereign even after Napoleon's defeat allowed for the UK to free up huge resources to prosecute this war.

If you consider the relatively new-and poorly organized-US as addressing it's situation, you will see the War of 1812 forced the Republicans (not the current US political party [Bear, I'm adding this for other readers]) to reevaluate their policy position against a Bank of the United States. They did and the messy political process of fielding a national bank got started. Again, the catalyst was the War of 1812. Westward expansion accelerated. This translates to economic activity.

It was this war that generated the Act of 3 March 1815 making the Army a permanent institution (although there was no provision for a Commanding General for the entire Army).

This war also had Congress accept the recommendation of Secretary of the Navy Benjamin Crowninshield for a permanent naval establishment (Act of Congress 29 April 1816).

Wars cause economic damage but the US experience during and after this war dealt with the damage successfully.


Warm regards,

Bob

[Bearskin]

Despite some military success 1814 was bleak for the republic. With constant raiding, ports blockaded, a collapse of trade, soaring public debt and an inability to pay interest on bonds (there was no gold or silver left) the US Treasury finally defaulted on 9th November 1814. She was essentially bankrupt. The parlous condition of the US at the end of 1814 is reflected in the dismay at the Hartford Convention where some delegates favoured leaving the union and conducting its own separate peace with Britain.

No one doubts the quality of American frigates but matched against the R.N parity wasn’t even close. Broadly speaking, America was unable to defend herself against depredation from the sea. Apart from well-known events such as the capitulation of Maine, the capture of Alexandria and Washington the following document lists towns raided, looted and/or burnt on US soil. The list is a VERY long one. The catalogue of destruction over the length of the eastern seaboard is listed state by state. Particularly hard hit were New York State, Maryland and Virginia.

‘War of 1812 Battles, Skirmishes, Raids, Massacres, Occupations, and Invasions’

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military ... lemen2.pdf

The power of the Royal Navy, once transferred to the US in force, strangled the life out of her. No nation is going to survive for long the sort of commercial devastation as wrought by the R.N.

This is what happens to commerce when a nation is effectively blockaded by a naval super-power:-

Summary of the value of exports:

$61,316,833 –US total in 1811

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... b&Page=893

$6,927,441 – US total in 1814

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?co ... &Page=1023

Overall that’s a national loss of 88.69% along with customs revenue. It makes a mockery of Monroe’s attempt to mobilize forces sufficient to take Canada – the bill was thrown out as it never could have been funded. That Britain initially targeted those states that supported the war shows even greater damage.

Virginia - $4,882,307 - 1811
Virginia - $17,581 – 1814
Loss 99.63%

Maryland - $6,833,987 – 1811
Maryland - $248,434 – 1814
Loss 96.36%

Cooler heads in Congress warned of the consequences when declaring war on the world’s largest naval power. Although the war was ostensibly fought over maritime rights, not a single representative of those states affected by maritime issues voted for war.

“Let us not be deceived. A war of invasion may invite a retort of invasion. When we visit the peaceable, and, to us, innocent colonies of Great Britain with the horrors of war can we assured that our own coast will not be visited with like horrors.” George Sullivan, 12th Congress, 1811.

How right Sullivan was. You reap what you sow.

But of course maritime issues alone were not sufficient for the declaration of war. With 12th Congress came a new breed of men, ambitious for territorial expansion – not only in the Floridas – but British N.A, taking cynical advantage of Britain’s plight. Evidence from sessions of 12th Congress, The Legislature of Massachusetts (June 1813), Article XI of the USA Articles of Confederation, territorial ambitions elsewhere and the proclamations of annexation is overwhelming and demonstrates that absorption of Canada was the real goal of the United States in 1812.

[South]

Good afternoon Bear,

We obviously have different views. I see this because we have different perspectives.

The war that damaged the US also accelerated the westward expansion. Couple the newly acquired wealth with the Atlantic coast's repairs.

The Hartford Convention was influenced by the war but the major reason...you alluded to it...was New England's economic interests; they had "carry trade" interests, ie shipping and trading.

I agree that the RN controlled much of the US territorial sea and ruled the high seas. Still, I mentioned New Orleans. Again, what was lost in the Chesapeake Bay area was recovered via New Orleans and other areas westward. The posted statistics do not account for this in re economic viability. Yes, the warfare caused much damage. Yet it was rectified.

With history now available we can see that the RN did not strangle the life out of the new US.

A specific example of our different views: The US circa 1812 was as regionally divided as even 35 years later when the regionalism resulted in the US Civil War. Mentioning this regional divide is to say that acquisition of Canada was not a primary US objective.

The Congressional elections of 1810 swept into office the war-seekers, the era's version of "hawks". This new Congressional bloc was more politically powerful than James Madison (and Madison did make a series of blunders). The Congressional hawks sought to eliminate British influence from the continent. Canada was only part of their plank. With Spanish Florida allied with Great Britain, the US southern frontier was not secure. Congress thus pushed for war. Thus we see the US south and west sought "freedom of the seas", the New England area was completely against war with GB becuse of their preexisting economic interests and arrangements.

I've already written about the inadequate US military and the complete absence of a permanent national army and navy. The War of 1812 generated the legislation and funding to start the establishment of a permanent military. It did work.


Warm regards,

Bob