The War of 1812 Merged Thread

[RangerRay]

Or the Pig War...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War

 

[Pusser]

The Aroostook or Lumberjack's War might also be considered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War

I have visions of large bearded men going at each other with axe handles in the woods....

As for the War of 1812, in simple terms, the Americans often base their "victory" on the Battle of New Orleans, which was a rout against the British (though not as Johnny Horton described it).  However, that battle actually took place after the treaty ending the war had been signed.  I personally subscribe to the theory that Canada/the Empire won simply because one of the main stated aims of the Americans was to remove all British influence in North America, in which they utterly failed. 

 

[RangerRay]

I think the Yanks also believed they won because the Brits stopped press-ganging American sailors at sea into the RN after the war, which was one reason why they invaded.

 

[Old Sweat]

I think the Yanks also believed they won because the Brits stopped press-ganging American sailors at sea into the RN after the war, which was one reason why they invaded.

The British had actually ended the practice in mid-1812, but word did not reach the Americans until after war had been declared.

 

[jeffb]

If you define win as who achieved their aims, then I can't see how the US won the War of 1812. In order to understand the war you have to understand that in 1812 the Napoleonic wars were raging. The British had pretty much total control of the sea but British trade was subjected to Napoleon's Continental system- a land based economic blockade of the Britain. Their armies were tied down in Spain and Portugal fighting the Peninsular War- a sideshow of the Napoleonic War really. Napoleon's Grand Armee invaded Russia in 1812. In essence, in 1812, the war was not going well for Britain. Prussia was still an ally of France and the Sixth Coalition, the alliance that ultimately defeated Napoleon, had not yet been formed. The British public was not very happy about the war. 1812 was an election year and also saw the assassination of the Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval. Incidentally, he was the only PM assassinated in British history although his assassination was not related to the war per se. In an effort to stem the tide of British sailors jumping ships, the British Navy adopted a policy of stopping any merchant ships in an effort to find deserters. Needless to say, the American's were somewhat unhappy with this and this as an excuse to get back at England.

British North America was almost undefended at the time given the events elsewhere in the world. To the US, 1812 seemed like the perfect time to gobble up the top half of the continent through "a mere matter of marching". So, there goal was to conquer British North America.

The British government's goal was to defend Canada in total if possible but if not, to at least hold on to Canada from Quebec City eastward.

In essence, it is hard to see how this war could be considered a win for the US. When faced with overwhelming odds on paper, the small British garrison, augmented by Native allies and some militia, managed to take advantage of what would be almost comical, if they weren't so tragic, invasion attempts by the US until British reinforcements arrived later in the war. At the close of the war the British forces had capture Detroit, parts of upstate New York and burned the White House while sacking Washington, DC. Their only partly successful invasion attempt occurred in the Niagara campaign and the raiding of York but these were quickly repulsed.

 

[jeffb]

Or the Pig War...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War

I didn't know about this one. Interesting, that the commanding officer on the ground for the US was then Capt George Pickett made famous (infamous) several years later in the misnamed Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg.

 

[The Bread Guy]

La guerra del fútbol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

 

[Old Sweat]

If you define win as who achieved their aims, then I can't see how the US won the War of 1812. In order to understand the war you have to understand that in 1812 the Napoleonic wars were raging. The British had pretty much total control of the sea but British trade was subjected to Napoleon's Continental system- a land based economic blockade of the Britain. Their armies were tied down in Spain and Portugal fighting the Peninsular War- a sideshow of the Napoleonic War really. Napoleon's Grand Armee invaded Russia in 1812. In essence, in 1812, the war was not going well for Britain. Prussia was still an ally of France and the Sixth Coalition, the alliance that ultimately defeated Napoleon, had not yet been formed. The British public was not very happy about the war. 1812 was an election year and also saw the assassination of the Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval. Incidentally, he was the only PM assassinated in British history although his assassination was not related to the war per se. In an effort to stem the tide of British sailors jumping ships, the British Navy adopted a policy of stopping any merchant ships in an effort to find deserters. Needless to say, the American's were somewhat unhappy with this and this as an excuse to get back at England.

British North America was almost undefended at the time given the events elsewhere in the world. To the US, 1812 seemed like the perfect time to gobble up the top half of the continent through "a mere matter of marching". So, there goal was to conquer British North America.

The British government's goal was to defend Canada in total if possible but if not, to at least hold on to Canada from Quebec City eastward.

In essence, it is hard to see how this war could be considered a win for the US. When faced with overwhelming odds on paper, the small British garrison, augmented by Native allies and some militia, managed to take advantage of what would be almost comical, if they weren't so tragic, invasion attempts by the US until British reinforcements arrived later in the war. At the close of the war the British forces had capture Detroit, parts of upstate New York and burned the White House while sacking Washington, DC. Their only partly successful invasion attempt occurred in the Niagara campaign and the raiding of York but these were quickly repulsed.

However the British ceased their support of the native Americans in the northwest and left them to the tender mercies of the Americans. Do not forget that the US Army in 1814 was a vastly different organization from the mob that began the war and was able to fight the British on an equal footing. See the fighting in the Niagara Peninsula that year for an example. One could argue they gave as good as they got at Chippewa, Lundy's Lane and the siege of Fort Erie. They also repulsed an invasion attempt on Lake Champlain in mid 1814 at Plattsburgh. The British realized the "divorce" was final and accepted the status quo. Frankly the United States could not have been conquered and held by the available forces even if all Wellington's Army that could have been spared from watching France had crossed the Atlantic, so its independence was secured.

 

[jeffb]

OS, I don't disagree with any of the points you mention here but making the War of 1812 into the American Revolution redux because England no longer challenged their independence is not really the point. The stated goal of the war was to stop the practice of pressing American sailors into British service, a practice that you pointed out ended before the start of the war and the annexation of BNA. They failed on the second attempt. It was never a British goal to launch an invasion on the US for the purposes of conquering the country. Most British actions were aimed at bringing the conflict to a conclusion and returning to the pre war borders (as evidenced by the peace treaty). The British had no appetite, nor did they have the military power, to conquer the US.

I completely agree with you about your assessment of the US Army late war. Further proof of this can be found at the Battle of New Orleans. The problem they had was that there was a whole of bunch of British 1st line troops that had been freed up in Europe and could be made available in BNA. Had the US and the England decided to continue the war into 1816 and beyond, I suspect there would have been a strategic stalemate marked by raids of ever increasing side.

In the final balance, who's national interest was better served at the end of the war? America's by demonstrating that it was not able to successfully complete what should have been a fairly easy conquest, albeit gaining recognition after the fact, or England's in securing one of it's more important colonies from future invasion?

 

[Old Sweat]

In our best gunner style, we are debating nuances of the same side of the issue. We used to call it having a gunnery discussion.

Certainly Canada's place in the Empire was assured, even if the Brits may later gladly have given us away as atoo expensive drain. If you look at it from various parts of the US, you might also have different perceptives. New England and the Atlantic coast suffered from the war, as did parts of New York. However the belt along the St Lawrence prospered trading with the enemy. The South, including the new Louisiana territory, probably was really not bothered too much, except for sea trade and, of course, the 1815 invasion culminating in the battle of New Orleans. Middle America - the home of the tidal wave of Scotch Irish expanding into the Appalachians and the northwest - really came out ahead, given the freer hand they had after the British abandoned the Indians. At worst, the Americans did not lose too badly on the battlefield and they did achieve their long term strategic objective, even if they may not have realized it at the time.

 

[Maxadia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ety2FEHQgwM

;D

 

[Danjanou]

La guerra del fútbol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

Even shorter and more lopsided

Anglo Zanzibar War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

 

[Zartan]

My American-educated cousin, Dan, always held that "we" won the War of 1812. When asked who he meant, it was the Americans of course. Old Sweat raises good points about the defeat  of the Native Americans. They were the true losers from the conflict, and their defeat does give the Americans some claim to a victory (of sorts). However, in addressing the matter of whether the Americans met any of their war aims from the start of the war, the answer is of course, absolutely not. Seizing upon the victories of 1814 (Chippewa, Baltimore, Lake Champlain), and of course, New Orleans, the Americans have since been able to recast the war as a "Second war of Independence." A completely ridiculous notion, but after all, history is not always written by the victors. It is written by whoever cares, and care the British certainly did not.

I believe I read this on this site once long ago, and I think it encapsulates the war rather accurately: "The War of 1812 was a war between Great Britain and the United States. The winner was Canada and the loser was Spain. Any questions?"

 

[jeffb]

You are absolutely right that the winner of the war was Canada. Despite the fact that Canada didn't exist at the time, the result of the war was the security of our border. Yes, there was some serious talk of an invasion after the US Civil War and there were the Fenian Raids but by and large, this war set the stage for the great relationship we have with our southern neighbors today. The Rush-Bagot Agreement signed shortly after the war is a prime example of this. Basically, it turned the Great Lakes, and Lake Champlain, into a demilitarized by severely limiting the construction and deployment of warships. The naval race on the Great Lakes was one of the central themes in the War of 1812 and was something that neither side wanted to repeat again.

 

[jeffb]

On a slightly related note, with all of the bicentennial reenactments that will be taking place over the next few years, is anyone aware of any reenactors who will be playing the parts of the Royal Artillery or the Royal Marine Artillery? I did a search online and all I found were infantry formations.

 

[Old Sweat]

Now you have done it. You have got me going on the Fenians, a moistly forgotten and under-rated threat that was taken very, very seriously at the time. While the US government did sort of turn a blind eye to their goings on, when push came to shove the Federal authorities got a grip on them pretty quickly. It is too bad that the incompetence of the British and Canadian authorities in 1866 allowed them to claim the only victory for the Irish independence movement between 1798 and circa 1922 at the two battles on 2 June 1866 at Ridgeway and then Fort Erie.

I was born in Fort Erie and grew up in Ridgeway, so my fixation may have a reason. My ancestors did hurry to the Ridgeway battlefield to, as they claimed, aid the wounded. I annoy my relatives by claiming they really were robbing the dead.

And the author of what used to be our unoffical national anthem, The Maple Leaf Forever, which included the lines "At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane, Our Brave Fathers Side by Side, For something, something and Loved Ones Dear, Bravely Fought and Nobly Died," was a veteran of Ridgeway.

Sorry for the sidetrack.

 

[vonGarvin]

I am not sure the War of 1812 was the strangest war ever. While researching something else I came across a reference to the border war between Peru and Ecuador in July 1941, which included the use of airborne forces by the Peruvians. In other words, Peru was the third country after Germany and the UK to conduct an operational parachute assault. Who'da thunk?

I know that the Germans used airborne forces in Belgium and Holland in 1940, and then in Crete in 1941, but when did the UK conduct an operational parachute assault prior to Julyh 1941?

(I could google it, but what fun would that be?)

 

[jeffb]

To my knowledge the first British airborne OP in the second world war was OP Bieting or something like that. It was a small scale raid on a radar post near Le Harve in France led by Major John Frost, a name that is best known for his role in OP MARKET GARDEN 2 years later. I don't think the Japanese executed any either until 1942.

 

[larry Strong]

Operation Colossus. No. 11 Special Air Service Battalion. Feb 1941.

A small force of thirty eight men – seven officers and thirty one other ranks as well as three Italian speaking interpreters, jumped to attack a  fresh water aqueduct near Calitri in southern Italy.

 

[larry Strong]

To my knowledge the first British airborne OP in the second world war was OP Bieting or something like that. It was a small scale raid on a radar post near Le Harve in France led by Major John Frost, a name that is best known for his role in OP MARKET GARDEN 2 years later. I don't think the Japanese executed any either until 1942.

Operation Biting or the Bruneval Raid was in Feb 1942

My source for both answers is British Airborne Troops, 1940-45 which is a Macdonald illustrated war study