Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
and Paris Hilton would be Canadian!
Napoleonic Wars navies....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Plattsburg and New Orleans were too late in the war to have an effect; Madison already knew the reality of his situation. Britain soundly defeated the U.S in the War of 1812 - it's only obvious, since the stars and stripes aren't flying above Canada.
"It is always useful to remind our mule-minding brethren (and sisters) of who bailed them out of the pickle they got us into due to their bungled attempt to seize the "richest and most defenceless possessions at our door" ... Especially around this time of year ... (Army-Navy football match coming up ... eh, the gridiron kind.)"
Interesting to note that Jefferson thought the navy as a 'pillar of corruption'.
The best thing about the War of 1812 was the ending; it proved that two nations can actually sort out a lasting peace - it's still lasted to this day.
"It is always useful to remind our mule-minding brethren (and sisters) of who bailed them out of the pickle they got us into due to their bungled attempt to seize the "richest and most defenceless possessions at our door" ... Especially around this time of year ... (Army-Navy football match coming up ... eh, the gridiron kind.)"
Interesting to note that Jefferson thought the navy as a 'pillar of corruption'.
The best thing about the War of 1812 was the ending; it proved that two nations can actually sort out a lasting peace - it's still lasted to this day.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Reading an interesting book entitled "Seizing Destiny" about the US and it's expansion from sea to sea. Not always complimentary of the methods and motives of our leaders but it makes me realise that many leaders in the US in the 1700s always felt that Canada should be included in the US. Probably a good thing it worked out as it did.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
Ultimately "victory" must be based upon acheivement of political goals - which obviously war seeks to do. This is separate from being victorious militarily. Although it is true that elements within the US did support taking Canada, the seizure was not the political objective for the US entering the conflict (even though a disastrous campaign was launched), so I don't see how you can judge THAT as the defining item of the conflict. It is true that the British did emerge victorious in the majority of the conflicts. Ghent ultimately proved that there was no political victory for either side.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
the fact was your goal was the invasion of Canada and Thomas Jefferson said it was merely a "a matter of marching " as America had a population of 8 million against 300000 sounds like a loss to me. pleasev remember that in that in the place they invaded in 1812 there were a maximun of 1100 regulars the balance were miltia and native
fer-de-lance
Airman
- 64
- Jun 12, 2007
Sure they had an effect ... The War didn't just end when the Canadian invasion was halted. Yes, the US objectives were not met and the war was essentially lost but it could have been a lot worse.
If the Battle of Lake Champlain was lost, there would have been a Canadian/British invasion into New York. The U.S. Navy saved the bacon in that instance.
The battle of New Orleans was fought after the Treaty of Ghent was signed but the campaign was ongoing since December 1814 when Cochrane landed Pakenham's troops near the mouth of the Missisippi. One could not anticipate the Treaty of Ghent being signed and there was much for the Americans to lose had the British captured New Orleans.
A successful defense was critical for preventing further economic losses. (New Orleans store houses were full of goods like cotton and sugar thta couldn't be shipped overseas due to the blockade). Thrashing the Peninsular War veterans was just a bonus.
Lord Cochrane and his fleet made things really tough for the Americans along the Atlantic seaboard. However, the defenders of Baltimore did almost everything right. The entrance to the harbor was blocked with sunken ships and obstacles, preventing the heavy ships like HMS Tonnant from getting in to use her heavy guns while Fort McHenry held out against the bombardment. Even with five specialized "bomb vessels" armed with large 10-inch mortars and a vessel armed with Congreve rockets, the British just could not do enough damage to the stout fortifications; the limit of the technology of the period.
Lord Cochrane was aggressive but certainly not foolhardy. He almost certainly knew that, during the Revolutionary War, the Royal Navy had lost a ship-of-the-line, HMS Augusta 64, to the Americans. HMS Augusta was trying to fight their way up the Delaware River to attack Philadelphia in October, 1777 when she ran aground trying to get past a line of obstacles between Hog Island and the American fort at Red Bank. Gun fire from American shore batteries and gunboats set her alight and she blew up. HMS Merlin 18, was also lost in this action.
It was probably successes like these that motivated Jefferson to do away with the ocean-going navy and focus instead on building small gunboats for coastal defense. But the US was a maritime nation with the need for ocean-going warships to protect merchant ships in far off waters like the Mediterranean. That was why building of the Constitution class was authorized in the Naval Act of 1794.
Since someone mentioned the USS Niagara, it should be mentioned that the US Navy gained a significant advantage with a clever move prior to the Battle of Lake Erie. Some 150 experienced officers and men from USS Constitution were transferred to the Lake Erie Squadron while the big frigate was in refit in Charlestown.
"Ultimately "victory" must be based upon acheivement of political goals - which obviously war seeks to do. This is separate from being victorious militarily. Although it is true that elements within the US did support taking Canada, the seizure was not the political objective for the US entering the conflict (even though a disastrous campaign was launched), so I don't see how you can judge THAT as the defining item of the conflict. It is true that the British did emerge victorious in the majority of the conflicts. Ghent ultimately proved that there was no political victory for either side."
mkloby, the capture of Canada was the sole reason for the War of 1812. It's a common thing today for America to deny this and use the impressment of U.S sailors as the cause. As I've said previously, the U.S had no chance of upholding that argument in any law system (American or European).
The U.S did not issue official citizenship documents to its merchant crews and since most were ex-British, then in British law they were British and up for the taking.
Jefferson and Madison made it impossible for the British to negociate when they claimed all men on U.S ships were U.S citizens. Jefferson was offered an agreement by the British in 1807 - but it wasn't taken to congress; I wonder why?
Madison didn't care about the ship-owners who were mostly Federalists; those same people who refered to him as a Jacobin.
Madison believed Napoleon was going to take victory in 1812; he was going to be on the winning side. Seizing Canada was the sole objective of that war for the U.S, mkloby.
In June 1812, Britain believed it had meet all the grievances of the United States. The British government believed it was a mistake when the U.S declared war; especially since the British government had called for an end to the impressment of seaman on U.S ships (which is still had as the issue today).
The British objective was to avoid using a vast amount of resources on an irritant like the U.S; France was the real enemy.
"Sure they had an effect ... The War didn't just end when the Canadian invasion was halted. Yes, the US objectives were not met and the war was essentially lost but it could have been a lot worse."
If Britain had have marched into New York or the Ohio Valley; the war might have been over a little bit sooner. But whatever Britain may have taken, it would all be handed back. By 1815, Britain realised that true wealth comes from a trading network. Britian had no interest in regaining American colonies as it was making more money from the U.S if it was kept a seperate nation.
All Britian was trying to do in 1814 and 1815 was to finish off Napoleon; Cochrane and Cockburn were simply in the U.S to drive home the reality of the situation for Madison.
Honestly, is it believed that if the war had continued the U.S would have been able to hold up continuing British offensives, and increasing pressure? Once Napoleon was defeated the Royal Navy was open for the U.S and yet more troops were available for the U.S - if Britain had some motive for the War of 1812 they would have continued.
Plattsburg simply held up the British Army in Canada for a while, and New Orleans gave the U.S some moral victory. Even before Washington was burnt to the ground; Madison knew it was over.
mkloby, the capture of Canada was the sole reason for the War of 1812. It's a common thing today for America to deny this and use the impressment of U.S sailors as the cause. As I've said previously, the U.S had no chance of upholding that argument in any law system (American or European).
The U.S did not issue official citizenship documents to its merchant crews and since most were ex-British, then in British law they were British and up for the taking.
Jefferson and Madison made it impossible for the British to negociate when they claimed all men on U.S ships were U.S citizens. Jefferson was offered an agreement by the British in 1807 - but it wasn't taken to congress; I wonder why?
Madison didn't care about the ship-owners who were mostly Federalists; those same people who refered to him as a Jacobin.
Madison believed Napoleon was going to take victory in 1812; he was going to be on the winning side. Seizing Canada was the sole objective of that war for the U.S, mkloby.
In June 1812, Britain believed it had meet all the grievances of the United States. The British government believed it was a mistake when the U.S declared war; especially since the British government had called for an end to the impressment of seaman on U.S ships (which is still had as the issue today).
The British objective was to avoid using a vast amount of resources on an irritant like the U.S; France was the real enemy.
"Sure they had an effect ... The War didn't just end when the Canadian invasion was halted. Yes, the US objectives were not met and the war was essentially lost but it could have been a lot worse."
If Britain had have marched into New York or the Ohio Valley; the war might have been over a little bit sooner. But whatever Britain may have taken, it would all be handed back. By 1815, Britain realised that true wealth comes from a trading network. Britian had no interest in regaining American colonies as it was making more money from the U.S if it was kept a seperate nation.
All Britian was trying to do in 1814 and 1815 was to finish off Napoleon; Cochrane and Cockburn were simply in the U.S to drive home the reality of the situation for Madison.
Honestly, is it believed that if the war had continued the U.S would have been able to hold up continuing British offensives, and increasing pressure? Once Napoleon was defeated the Royal Navy was open for the U.S and yet more troops were available for the U.S - if Britain had some motive for the War of 1812 they would have continued.
Plattsburg simply held up the British Army in Canada for a while, and New Orleans gave the U.S some moral victory. Even before Washington was burnt to the ground; Madison knew it was over.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
PD - your argument is logical, but are there any sources to back this up (or are you going off of conjecture)? That line of thinking seems much more common throughout Britain and Canada, and mind you it enables them to declare victory in the war, not to mention guys like PB to puff their chests up . It's acknowledged that there were members of Congress that pushed for seizing Canada - but they were not the majority. Also, if you read the text of President Madison's message to Congress 1 JUN 1812, you won't even find Canada mentioned - it instead focuses on impressment and commerce.
. It's acknowledged that there were members of Congress that pushed for seizing Canada - but they were not the majority. Also, if you read the text of President Madison's message to Congress 1 JUN 1812, you won't even find Canada mentioned - it instead focuses on impressment and commerce.How can the reasons be denied; when both Jefferson and Madison make it blatantly obvious that Canada is the objective. The impressment was not a matter of concern for Madison - but they were a 'good' reason to go to war, good enough maybe for Congress to back his actions.
Britain declares a victory for one reason, and one reason only - they won. Britain was not trying to achieve anything in that war but scratch the itch that was the U.S. - all the British government wanted was for the U.S to shut up while they dealt with France. If the U.S government truly had concerns the British government was open for discussion; the unofficial citizenship documents were even sometimes accepted just to keep the U.S quiet.
How can you honestly believe that the U.S wasn't aiming for Canada? It's only denied now because the U.S doesn't like to admit it lost. There's no evidence of Britain attempting anything but defending Canada and making Madison realise he was an idiot to start something.
It'd have probably been better if Britain continued and dismembered the U.S - then this bizarre myth couldn't have been continued.
Britain was victorious because they achieved everything they wanted to achieve, and the U.S.A achieved nothing from their efforts. Britain had already halted impressment of U.S 'citizens' on merchant vessels. And since Britain was the U.S largest trading partner - I hardly see economy as a reason to declare war on them.
Britain declares a victory for one reason, and one reason only - they won. Britain was not trying to achieve anything in that war but scratch the itch that was the U.S. - all the British government wanted was for the U.S to shut up while they dealt with France. If the U.S government truly had concerns the British government was open for discussion; the unofficial citizenship documents were even sometimes accepted just to keep the U.S quiet.
How can you honestly believe that the U.S wasn't aiming for Canada? It's only denied now because the U.S doesn't like to admit it lost. There's no evidence of Britain attempting anything but defending Canada and making Madison realise he was an idiot to start something.
It'd have probably been better if Britain continued and dismembered the U.S - then this bizarre myth couldn't have been continued.
Britain was victorious because they achieved everything they wanted to achieve, and the U.S.A achieved nothing from their efforts. Britain had already halted impressment of U.S 'citizens' on merchant vessels. And since Britain was the U.S largest trading partner - I hardly see economy as a reason to declare war on them.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
PD - that's what is on the record from Madison's speech. You say that Jefferson and Madison made it blatantly clear that Canada was the objective - but please supply some backing for that statement. As I said, his speech to Congress mentioned only impressment and british interference with American trade. Those were the issues being discussed in American gov't, not the conquering of Canada - unless you can show otherwise.
I'm quite shocked you believe that Madison wasn't holding back some truths in his speech to Congress.
Jefferson, "Providence has placed their richest and most defenceless possessions at our door," Really gives away his intentions. Especially after he refused to send an agreement between the Whig government and American diplomats concerning impressment to congress in 1807. I have also stated that Britain abandoned impressment from U.S ships before the war started. Britain even disavowed the admiral of HMS Leopard in 1807 for firing upon USS Chesapeake when he wanted to claim British deserters.
I can only assume Madison continued this chain of thought. As it's obvious that there was no effect on American trade, most of it was heading for Wellingtons Peninsular Army, Canada or Britain itself. Napoleon wasn't a particular fan of the U.S trading with Britain because it was a breach of his Continental system.
The New England traders continued trading with Britain throughout all the American governments embargos, and the war itself. Madisons claim that trading was a reason for war can only be seen as an outright lie.
The 'War Hawks' of congress obviously found it appropriate to discuss Canada as part of the war.
Madison's speech means nothing - politicians have this habit of lying and persuading. Seriously, any war that started because of impressment would have led the U.S to build a larger navy to halt this; but the U.S government only comissioned enough money to keep deep sea ships in service for a few months to escort returning vessels. The fight in Canada was obviously the place to win the war, and take the prize.
Jefferson, "Providence has placed their richest and most defenceless possessions at our door," Really gives away his intentions. Especially after he refused to send an agreement between the Whig government and American diplomats concerning impressment to congress in 1807. I have also stated that Britain abandoned impressment from U.S ships before the war started. Britain even disavowed the admiral of HMS Leopard in 1807 for firing upon USS Chesapeake when he wanted to claim British deserters.
I can only assume Madison continued this chain of thought. As it's obvious that there was no effect on American trade, most of it was heading for Wellingtons Peninsular Army, Canada or Britain itself. Napoleon wasn't a particular fan of the U.S trading with Britain because it was a breach of his Continental system.
The New England traders continued trading with Britain throughout all the American governments embargos, and the war itself. Madisons claim that trading was a reason for war can only be seen as an outright lie.
The 'War Hawks' of congress obviously found it appropriate to discuss Canada as part of the war.
Madison's speech means nothing - politicians have this habit of lying and persuading. Seriously, any war that started because of impressment would have led the U.S to build a larger navy to halt this; but the U.S government only comissioned enough money to keep deep sea ships in service for a few months to escort returning vessels. The fight in Canada was obviously the place to win the war, and take the prize.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
Good debate PD. I think you're dead on regarding several items.
I'm not saying politicians do not lie. In fact, it is a profession with a firm foundation resting upon thievery and dishonesty. However, that Jefferson quote from Notes on Virginia, I believe, is taken out of context if you read the whole of the text. A paragraph before that Jefferson goes on about peaceful relations and free trade being paramount. He goes on to say add that only a fraction of a European powers' forces would be available for a conflict with the US, so building military comparable to that of European powers is a waste of energy. The fact that believe seizing Canada would be a "mere matter of marching" at the outbreak of hostilities also does not necessarily mean that was the aim of his government. However, Thomas Jefferson was not in gov't at that time.
Even from reading current Canadian gov't material - they seem absolutely convinced that the United States' major cause for the war was taking Canada. Aside from few individuals in Congress, they have no backing for this assertion. While some wanted Canada for fishing, trapping, and other economic reasons, others wanted to seize Canada to remove the British. Don't forget that many believed that the British were supporting natives opposing American expansion. There is as much proof of this as there is of your assertion, however.
From well documented accounts regarding the impressment issue - I think you're right on in your assessment, although I believe there was still much bad blood left over regarding the issue.
I don't understand your claim of British infringement of American trade a lie as a cause for war. Did not the British conduct a blockade, especially by the Orders in Council of 1807? Historians identify this as a major cause for war. In fact, didn't the British also reverse course and end this policy about the same time war was being declared by the US?
Claiming that taking Canada was the cause of hostilities and saying Canada was the "place to win the war and take the prize" are two separate statements, and do not mean exactly the same thing.
I'm not saying politicians do not lie. In fact, it is a profession with a firm foundation resting upon thievery and dishonesty. However, that Jefferson quote from Notes on Virginia, I believe, is taken out of context if you read the whole of the text. A paragraph before that Jefferson goes on about peaceful relations and free trade being paramount. He goes on to say add that only a fraction of a European powers' forces would be available for a conflict with the US, so building military comparable to that of European powers is a waste of energy. The fact that believe seizing Canada would be a "mere matter of marching" at the outbreak of hostilities also does not necessarily mean that was the aim of his government. However, Thomas Jefferson was not in gov't at that time.
Even from reading current Canadian gov't material - they seem absolutely convinced that the United States' major cause for the war was taking Canada. Aside from few individuals in Congress, they have no backing for this assertion. While some wanted Canada for fishing, trapping, and other economic reasons, others wanted to seize Canada to remove the British. Don't forget that many believed that the British were supporting natives opposing American expansion. There is as much proof of this as there is of your assertion, however.
From well documented accounts regarding the impressment issue - I think you're right on in your assessment, although I believe there was still much bad blood left over regarding the issue.
I don't understand your claim of British infringement of American trade a lie as a cause for war. Did not the British conduct a blockade, especially by the Orders in Council of 1807? Historians identify this as a major cause for war. In fact, didn't the British also reverse course and end this policy about the same time war was being declared by the US?
Claiming that taking Canada was the cause of hostilities and saying Canada was the "place to win the war and take the prize" are two separate statements, and do not mean exactly the same thing.
fer-de-lance
Airman
- 64
- Jun 12, 2007
Agree with the final two sentences ... but the first two!? Are we falling into the same trap as Madison's thinking about Canada being a walk-over?
History is also not on the side of the British Army having a successful campaign in New York - remembering Oriskany and Saratoga in a past conflict.
I think one of the lessons of these wars is that trying to fight in the backyard of a motivated local population / militia is not easy.
Canadian fencibles / militia knew their terrain - were motivated and fought well ... the same would have applied to the US forces in New York ... Vermont.
Prevost's British regulars being forced to pull back precipitously to Canada was pretty darned decisive. There was a simple reason, no Lake Champlain fleet - no supplies.
Even if Downie had defeated MacDonough on the lake, the land victory was by no means assured. Repeated attempts by Prevost's British regulars to cross the Saranac River had been repulsed by a small force of US regulars. Lt Col Willington of the Buffs being killed in the process.
Prevost's efforts in building fortifications around Plattsburgh were also frustrated by American use of red-hot shot and night raids. Downie's ships would have stood up even less well to such treatment by American guns. In that sense, a British victory on the lake was needed to assure the supply route to continue the land campaign but would not necessarily contribute to the land battle.
This British threat to New York also got Vermont into the war - that state had been against the war from the start and refused to send troops until their own territory was threatened. During the battle at Pike's Ford near Plattaburgh the Vermont militia ambushed and destroyed a company of the 76th Foot.
Thus, the land battle was going badly against Prevost before news of the September 11(!) naval action on the lake reached him. When it did, it became a rout, the retreating British left behind large quantities of supplies and their wounded.
Well, it was after Napoleon was exiled in mid 1814 that the attacks were made on Washington, Baltimore (August), Plattsburgh (September) and New Orleans (December).
It is perhaps trivializing these campaigns too much to say they were merely to convince Madison that the war was lost and he should negotiate.
At the negotiations in Ghent, the British had made territorial demands, particularly in the Great Lakes. That puts into serious doubt the assumption that "whatever Britain may have taken, it would all be handed back" had the British won at Plattsburgh / Lake Champlain.
The demands on the Great Lakes were only rebuffed by the news of the overwhelming US victory at Plattsburgh / Lake Champlain and the raising of the siege at Baltimore. Otherwise, the US would not have been able to secure a return to "status quo ante bellum".
Winston Churchill even referred to Lake Champlain as the "decisive battle" of the War of 1812.
Could the British had sent more troops and continued the offense and pressure on the US?
Perhaps, perhaps not. The defeat of the Peninsular War veterans at New Orleans in particular showed just how dangerous the Americans were on their own ground. A quarter of the British force (2,000+ out of 8,000) was killed, captured or wounded.
The fact that the experienced Peninsular War regiments were in America (and some of them badly mauled) meant that they were not available in Europe for the Hundred Days in 1815 which started 11 days after the US Congress ratified the Treaty of Ghent in Feb. 1815.
Had more troops been sent, might Napoleon have succeeded in his return from Elba ... the Iron Duke notwithstanding? (After all, he called Waterloo a "close run thing" ...)
It was good that everyone came to their senses in the end - just in the nick of time ... (for Christmas and the Hundred Days).
"While some wanted Canada for fishing, trapping, and other economic reasons, others wanted to seize Canada to remove the British. Don't forget that many believed that the British were supporting natives opposing American expansion. There is as much proof of this as there is of your assertion, however."
The natives, and their land, were a problem and it is true that Britain were in allegiance with them. If the U.S were after the natives, it's only sensible to assume that the American government would take their land - since it happened everywhere else.
"I don't understand your claim of British infringement of American trade a lie as a cause for war. Did not the British conduct a blockade, especially by the Orders in Council of 1807? Historians identify this as a major cause for war. In fact, didn't the British also reverse course and end this policy about the same time war was being declared by the US?"
The Orders of Council were a reaction to Napoleon's Continental System that disallowed all trading with Great Britain. Britain blockaded all French owned ports and removed neutrality from the oceans; making all ships trade with one or the other party at war.
President Jefferson did not like Britain's behaviour on this matter but the fact remains that it had no effect on the New England ship-owners who traded with Britain anyway. The U.S ship-owners and merchants were benefitting from the war with inflated prices; the only action of 1807 that hurt U.S trade was Jefferson's Embargo act.
If the Orders of Council were a major reason for the war. Why didn't the U.S declare war on France whose Continental system attempted to block U.S trading with Great Britain?
"In fact, didn't the British also reverse course and end this policy about the same time war was being declared by the US?"
As Napoleons Continental System began to collapse and Britain's economy began to dwindle both sides had to change. Britain abandoned the Navigation Act and allowed all vessels (not just British) to trade for Britain. The Orders of Council 1809 moved away from blockade and, instead, regulated trade. All ships, no matter the owner or nationality, were welcomed to Britain and allowed to trade as long as they came in under British convoy. This was no concern to merchants who enjoyed the protection of British convoy, and the high wartime rates.
The natives, and their land, were a problem and it is true that Britain were in allegiance with them. If the U.S were after the natives, it's only sensible to assume that the American government would take their land - since it happened everywhere else.
"I don't understand your claim of British infringement of American trade a lie as a cause for war. Did not the British conduct a blockade, especially by the Orders in Council of 1807? Historians identify this as a major cause for war. In fact, didn't the British also reverse course and end this policy about the same time war was being declared by the US?"
The Orders of Council were a reaction to Napoleon's Continental System that disallowed all trading with Great Britain. Britain blockaded all French owned ports and removed neutrality from the oceans; making all ships trade with one or the other party at war.
President Jefferson did not like Britain's behaviour on this matter but the fact remains that it had no effect on the New England ship-owners who traded with Britain anyway. The U.S ship-owners and merchants were benefitting from the war with inflated prices; the only action of 1807 that hurt U.S trade was Jefferson's Embargo act.
If the Orders of Council were a major reason for the war. Why didn't the U.S declare war on France whose Continental system attempted to block U.S trading with Great Britain?
"In fact, didn't the British also reverse course and end this policy about the same time war was being declared by the US?"
As Napoleons Continental System began to collapse and Britain's economy began to dwindle both sides had to change. Britain abandoned the Navigation Act and allowed all vessels (not just British) to trade for Britain. The Orders of Council 1809 moved away from blockade and, instead, regulated trade. All ships, no matter the owner or nationality, were welcomed to Britain and allowed to trade as long as they came in under British convoy. This was no concern to merchants who enjoyed the protection of British convoy, and the high wartime rates.
"Agree with the final two sentences ... but the first two!? Are we falling into the same trap as Madison's thinking about Canada being a walk-over?
History is also not on the side of the British Army having a successful campaign in New York - remembering Oriskany and Saratoga in a past conflict.
I think one of the lessons of these wars is that trying to fight in the backyard of a motivated local population / militia is not easy.
Canadian fencibles / militia knew their terrain - were motivated and fought well ... the same would have applied to the US forces in New York ... Vermont."
You are right and it must be added that the British Army had not proven themselves well in combat until 1814 - 1815. I must make it clear though that I did say it could have been made shorter, not would.
Not all of the United States were willing to fight for the government, especially those in New England - who were getting hurt by Madison's bizarre embargos on trade.
"Could the British had sent more troops and continued the offense and pressure on the US?
Perhaps, perhaps not. The defeat of the Peninsular War veterans at New Orleans in particular showed just how dangerous the Americans were on their own ground. A quarter of the British force (2,000+ out of 8,000) was killed, captured or wounded.
The fact that the experienced Peninsular War regiments were in America (and some of them badly mauled) meant that they were not available in Europe for the Hundred Days in 1815 which started 11 days after the US Congress ratified the Treaty of Ghent in Feb. 1815.
Had more troops been sent, might Napoleon have succeeded in his return from Elba ... the Iron Duke notwithstanding? (After all, he called Waterloo a "close run thing" ...)"
The numbers say it all, really. It's said that New Orleans was a large defeat for Britain, but 2,000 + really is a small number when you take into account the numbers that were fielded against France. During the Napoleonic Wars Britain put 150,000 men in the field and paid for 425,000 more to be deployed by Russia, Austria and Prussia. The East India Company alone had an army of 180,000 in India by 1818, and a tax revenue of £18 million. The U.S didn't have the numbers to hold up a British assault on a grand scale; and there's no question of halting the Royal Navy.
The Allies would have not faced Napoleon at Waterloo but given Napoleons arrogance and inability to contain himself; he would have driven himself into defeat again eventually.
"At the negotiations in Ghent, the British had made territorial demands, particularly in the Great Lakes. That puts into serious doubt the assumption that "whatever Britain may have taken, it would all be handed back" had the British won at Plattsburgh / Lake Champlain.
The demands on the Great Lakes were only rebuffed by the news of the overwhelming US victory at Plattsburgh / Lake Champlain and the raising of the siege at Baltimore. Otherwise, the US would not have been able to secure a return to "status quo ante bellum"."
If Britain seriously wanted to keep any of the U.S - they would have continued the war. The British claim on the area around the Great Lakes seems sensible enough; a strategic option to prevent future invasion. It still remains that Britain would not have dismembered the U.S or taken great tracts of land from them, it had no interest in an Empire - as long as it maintained trade.
The fact that it constantly handed land back to France and other European powers after wars is proof of this. All of the Dutch land in the Pacific, for example, was given to them by the British.
History is also not on the side of the British Army having a successful campaign in New York - remembering Oriskany and Saratoga in a past conflict.
I think one of the lessons of these wars is that trying to fight in the backyard of a motivated local population / militia is not easy.
Canadian fencibles / militia knew their terrain - were motivated and fought well ... the same would have applied to the US forces in New York ... Vermont."
You are right and it must be added that the British Army had not proven themselves well in combat until 1814 - 1815. I must make it clear though that I did say it could have been made shorter, not would.
Not all of the United States were willing to fight for the government, especially those in New England - who were getting hurt by Madison's bizarre embargos on trade.
"Could the British had sent more troops and continued the offense and pressure on the US?
Perhaps, perhaps not. The defeat of the Peninsular War veterans at New Orleans in particular showed just how dangerous the Americans were on their own ground. A quarter of the British force (2,000+ out of 8,000) was killed, captured or wounded.
The fact that the experienced Peninsular War regiments were in America (and some of them badly mauled) meant that they were not available in Europe for the Hundred Days in 1815 which started 11 days after the US Congress ratified the Treaty of Ghent in Feb. 1815.
Had more troops been sent, might Napoleon have succeeded in his return from Elba ... the Iron Duke notwithstanding? (After all, he called Waterloo a "close run thing" ...)"
The numbers say it all, really. It's said that New Orleans was a large defeat for Britain, but 2,000 + really is a small number when you take into account the numbers that were fielded against France. During the Napoleonic Wars Britain put 150,000 men in the field and paid for 425,000 more to be deployed by Russia, Austria and Prussia. The East India Company alone had an army of 180,000 in India by 1818, and a tax revenue of £18 million. The U.S didn't have the numbers to hold up a British assault on a grand scale; and there's no question of halting the Royal Navy.
The Allies would have not faced Napoleon at Waterloo but given Napoleons arrogance and inability to contain himself; he would have driven himself into defeat again eventually.
"At the negotiations in Ghent, the British had made territorial demands, particularly in the Great Lakes. That puts into serious doubt the assumption that "whatever Britain may have taken, it would all be handed back" had the British won at Plattsburgh / Lake Champlain.
The demands on the Great Lakes were only rebuffed by the news of the overwhelming US victory at Plattsburgh / Lake Champlain and the raising of the siege at Baltimore. Otherwise, the US would not have been able to secure a return to "status quo ante bellum"."
If Britain seriously wanted to keep any of the U.S - they would have continued the war. The British claim on the area around the Great Lakes seems sensible enough; a strategic option to prevent future invasion. It still remains that Britain would not have dismembered the U.S or taken great tracts of land from them, it had no interest in an Empire - as long as it maintained trade.
The fact that it constantly handed land back to France and other European powers after wars is proof of this. All of the Dutch land in the Pacific, for example, was given to them by the British.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The British were unwilling to wait until the results of the New Orleans campaign were in before concluding the Treaty of Ghent. The Americans were, which meant they were sanguine about those results. However the earlier peace treaties with the Indians pulled off by the US which negated the British efforts to establish an Indian Protectorate below the Great Lakes to act as a buffer between the US and Canada and then the stinging defeats at Lake Champlain and Plattsburg plus the defeat at Fort Erie and at Baltimore dashed any hopes the British had that the Americans would give in easily. That along with war weariness and growing social unrest at home and concerns about political instability on the continent led the British to give up any hopes of gaining new territory in America. The Treaty of Ghent essentially declared the War of 1812 a draw. The New Orleans battle punctuated the end of the war with a debacle for the British. By anyone's judgment a battle where 5500 troops suffer 2057 KIA is a disaster especially when the British troops were regulars whereas the Americans were a scratch group at best. It did prove one thing however, no continental army using conventional tactics will succeed against American riflemen behind field fortifications.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
Interesting debate, PD - I'm pretty much unable to spend time here making coherent posts lately, as I'm going to be homeless in 7 days 
"The British were unwilling to wait until the results of the New Orleans campaign were in before concluding the Treaty of Ghent. The Americans were, which meant they were sanguine about those results. However the earlier peace treaties with the Indians pulled off by the US which negated the British efforts to establish an Indian Protectorate below the Great Lakes to act as a buffer between the US and Canada and then the stinging defeats at Lake Champlain and Plattsburg plus the defeat at Fort Erie and at Baltimore dashed any hopes the British had that the Americans would give in easily. That along with war weariness and growing social unrest at home and concerns about political instability on the continent led the British to give up any hopes of gaining new territory in America."
The British government was uninterested in American terrority; the truth of the whole matter is that in 1812-1815, Britain was concerned with Napoleon and the rising national debt from paying for Wellington's Army and, then, Russias, Austrias and Prussias.
"The Treaty of Ghent essentially declared the War of 1812 a draw."
How? British war aims were the defence of Canada - they achieved that; so it's a British victory. It seems to me that American history makes out as if the War of 1812 was important and tries to make people believe that the U.S stood up to Britain - when in reality Britain was just trying to shut Madison up because he was being a pain in the ar*e.
"By anyone's judgment a battle where 5500 troops suffer 2057 KIA is a disaster especially when the British troops were regulars whereas the Americans were a scratch group at best."
That's a bad loss rate but given the fact that 5500 men was hardly a force worth mentioning when hundreds of thousands were being deployed in Europe; it's all a pointless boast.
In fact, I cannot quite believe that the U.S believes that Britain signed a peace because America inflicted some kind of damage to the British military. It was only British prestige that was bruised ...the military machine was massive and would have crushed America if the same effort against Napoleon was used.
5,000 men was a mere raiding party... by European standards.
"It did prove one thing however, no continental army using conventional tactics will succeed against American riflemen behind field fortifications."
Oh yeah, because Continental armies were useless against American riflemen...
The British government was uninterested in American terrority; the truth of the whole matter is that in 1812-1815, Britain was concerned with Napoleon and the rising national debt from paying for Wellington's Army and, then, Russias, Austrias and Prussias.
"The Treaty of Ghent essentially declared the War of 1812 a draw."
How? British war aims were the defence of Canada - they achieved that; so it's a British victory. It seems to me that American history makes out as if the War of 1812 was important and tries to make people believe that the U.S stood up to Britain - when in reality Britain was just trying to shut Madison up because he was being a pain in the ar*e.
"By anyone's judgment a battle where 5500 troops suffer 2057 KIA is a disaster especially when the British troops were regulars whereas the Americans were a scratch group at best."
That's a bad loss rate but given the fact that 5500 men was hardly a force worth mentioning when hundreds of thousands were being deployed in Europe; it's all a pointless boast.
In fact, I cannot quite believe that the U.S believes that Britain signed a peace because America inflicted some kind of damage to the British military. It was only British prestige that was bruised ...the military machine was massive and would have crushed America if the same effort against Napoleon was used.
5,000 men was a mere raiding party... by European standards.
"It did prove one thing however, no continental army using conventional tactics will succeed against American riflemen behind field fortifications."
Oh yeah, because Continental armies were useless against American riflemen...
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I believe New Orleans was a blip on the screen the natives there were sure to put up a tough fight as many were Acadians (Cajuns) who were booted out of Eastern Canada by the Brits in the 1760's and I'm sure they weren't looking forward for another move so they would fight
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
To me, the 1812 War was a useless and unfortunate war. To the extent it gave the US a certain amount of self respect and self confidence about it's ability to defend it's own soil, both on land and sea, it was a positive. It also laid to rest finally any ideas of the land hungry faction in the US that had designs on Canada. It also made the frontier safer because of the treaties extracted from the Indians and because Britain finally quit encouraging the tribes to attack the Americans. Probably the greatest gain for the US was that it was a step toward making the European powers realise that the US was a permanent fixture in the western hemisphere. It was not long after the Treaty of Ghent that Britain proposed that a joint declaration between themselves and the US be made that they would not tolerate any more meddling in the western hemishere by the European powers. One will remember that President Monroe turned down that proposal and issued his own declaration. Most of Jackson's troops at NO were militia from Tenn., Ga., KY and the other Southern regions. Of course Lafittes men helped out also. Knowing Cajuns pretty well, I doubt many on them contributed.
