I say no, we lost the war. Our main objective failed and DC was sacked. Sounds like a loss to me.

Except they ran.

I'd hardly call that losing the war.

We lost our mission (objectives), but we won the war.

I call it a draw...


its like in games, when you gotta save the hostages by sneaking in... but u really just go to the front door and blow the >you know< outta everyone. (Because you have the GOD MODE cheat in :awesome: ) and then just take the hostage to safety.

Your knowledge of the 1812 war must come from the back of a cornflake packet...

Tell me which of the US's strategic aims were met in the war?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/graham2.html

It was intended to be a war of conquest. Canada is still here. The U.S. lost.

Well we lost Washington; but delivered a beatdown at New Orleans (even if that was technically after the war)

Ok, they ran from New Orleans. What I tried to get across was that they left. They didn't stay and occupy America. They left. So, we won.

andrew jackson is a BA for taking New Orleans. and curbstomping through florida to get us florida.

Oh ok.... although we only left because we had signed a peace treaty and had this guy, you may of heard of him, called Napoleon to fight.

Every statement regarding America as it relates to British history always seems to be have a precursor of "We only left because...".

Draw. We didn't gain what we wanted (Canada) but it did cement our independence in that it finished off any idea among the British of trying to reconquer us. Militarily, it was mixed, DC was burned but we beat them at New Orleans. However, New Orleans was not important because it happened weeks after peace had been declared. Word just hadn't reached their yet that the war was over.

Yeah, I found that odd as well. I did note that the British seem to make excuses as to why they lost to us. Interesting.

As for Napoleon, well, come on now. We could have routed his army a few times, like how we routed the British Army back in the 1700's.

Oh yeah I forgot that the US was still part of the UK.

I didnt vote.

Classic.

Seems that the USA got beat.

you lost (horribly) on the battlefeild, but the idea ehind the british invasion failed so you won there, but when you invaded canada (you a-holes started it <_< ) we kicked your ass and the notion of manifest destiny.

I know there are some who would like to have the colonies back. So I say we beat them to the punch and make Britain our colony.

who'd want New Orleans? (I know it is the mouth of the Mississippi but it is an awfully placed city, as Hurricane Katrina proved)

and the British had bigger people to fight

A draw.

America didn't get Canada, British seizing of American ships stopped, borders stayed the same.

thats the only reason they left you during the revolution too. they had bigger problems then a few guys with guns and plantations who didn't like paying taxes.

I like the indoctrinated person who voted yes.

overview from wikipedia explains the draw that resulted in victories for both the brits and americians well. It was a draw where both sides won the war in thier own way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

They won almost every battle, but we got a cool poem/song out of it (Rocket's red glare, anyone?), so it's a draw. Nah, we both got what we wanted - they burned down our capital and got to keep soldiers along our borders, and we got them to stop handing out Letters of Marque and harassing our merchants.

The hardest national anthem to sing. Also the longest as far I know.

Poem. The tune is set to an old English drinking song called "The Anacreontic Song." The more you know!

Prior to the 20th century, New Orleans was a lot smaller and wasn't damaged as much as habitations stayed to the higher elevations. Not to say hurricane winds didn't destroy it or anything, since hurricanes have been regularly destroying New Orleans since it was founded. But it was not so much the city itself but its location and surrounding forts.

In addition to being the mouth of the Mississippi, the Ohio River also ultimately poured out into the Mississippi, which was a very important river back in the days when nearly all shipping and transport was done through rivers and canals. The Mississippi/Ohio Rivers were essentially the veins of the western US, vital to its growth westward.

Wouldn't it technically have become a song when it become common for people to sing it?

Yes. And it was common in England it appears and was thus a song. Francis Scott Key didn't write "The Star Spangled Banner": only the lyrics, which is what I'm trying to say.

Oh... so our national anthem is a work of plagiarism?

Could be, depending on how deep or shallow you view plagiarism. I don't really know if Francis Scott Key himself ever claimed to write the tune, so I can't say if it was for sure.

One of them was me. I clicked on the wrong bubble.

Whoops.

Well, the US tried to conquer Canada whilst their protectors were engaged in more important conflicts elsewhere. However, they were soundly repulsed by a smaller force, and Canada remains outside direct US control to this day.

In usual circumstances, this might be thought of in terms of failing to achieve the main objective of a war. However, we must take special considerations for a certain small section of the American public. A proportion of the population apparently depends upon the belief they are the infallible Master Race, and that it is impossible for anything associated with America to go badly. This is especially so when it comes to military matters, since there is a very high degree of unconditional respect towards the military there. To openly admit that America may not have actually done that well in a war might push these people over the edge, and cause widespread mental breakdowns.

Therefore, we can use the fact that America managed to hold out against a post-war siege, ignoring the fact that besiegers are at a massive, massive disadvantage when storming cities, to claim it was a glorious victory. America only wins wars, by definition. ;)

Seriously though, it wasn't really an auspicious war for either side - just a waste of time, money and lives that achieved very little. However, since the US was the aggressor and intended to conquer Canada, whilst Canada/Britain only wanted to defend it, technically it was a defeat for the US. I don't buy this argument that the US never intended to conquer Canada, only to end pressing of it's sailors and trade restrictions. After all, the British offered to revoke the trade restrictions, and the pressing of sailors wasn't going on any more when the war started. Some of those involved probably did have genuine belief that it was about a noble defence of American rights, but the majority just wanted control over the whole continent.

So with the British fleet and army tied up with defending Spain and fighting France, you are proud of the fact that you where not re-conquered after being driven out of Canada, with the relatively small British fleet pounding your coasts and launching raids?

Solomon Short said it best, "The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky."

Well your obviously just flaming now... I suspect that you do not really think that the US won...

but seriously if you think that occupation is 'not winning' a war, then who won the War of Independence?

Well you guys weren't occupied, so you win.... but neither were we, so we win.... erm ROFLMAO

Was that not the other war of 1812 :P

Seriously though the real victor of war were US/UK relations.... all that special relationship stuff started there... :J

<clap>

Sums it up really, plus during that time the British empire increased in size.

No, that 'special relationship' didn't even come into play until the turn of the 20th Century. The United States and United Kingdom were close to war in the 1840's over a border dispute in the Oregon Territory. ("54'40" or fight!") Also, the British supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War and very nearly intervened after the Trent incident.

The War of 1812 is a contentious subject on the internet. Flag wavers on both sides tend to overstate their successes and downplay their failures. Yes, the American invasion of Canada was repelled at great cost to the invaders. Several British invasions of the United States were repelled as well. The Battle of Sackets Harbor and the Battle of Plattsburgh come to mind, as well as the oft-mentioned New Orleans action. The British succeeded in burning Washington, but failed to capture the government. That same army was driven back a couple weeks later at the Battle of Baltimore (where the Star Spangled Banner was written), only to be defeated by Jackson at New Orleans several months later.

In regards to the actual outcome of the war, we need to look at the American aims in declaring war. There was a faction in the United States Congress (the War Hawks) who were looking for an excuse to expand American territory, this is certain. This does not explain why the United States declared war. It declared war due to the impressment of American seamen into the British Navy, British naval interdiction into American commerce, and the UK's support for and arming of hostile native tribes in the Ohio River valley. All those actions were ceased as a result of the war. Neither side can claim victory in the war however, since the Treaty of Ghent provided for status quo ante bellum. The British were more inclined for uti possidetis, but American victories in the final stage of the war at a time when the British were no longer fighting Napoleon indicated that they should get out while they still had Canada left to defend. It was looking like the Americans had finally figured out how to fight and it was only a matter of time before they undertook a proper, professionally led drive on Quebec. If Quebec fell, all of Canada would follow.

It was a draw. Had the war continued, it most likely would have been an American victory. Like in the revolution, the sheer distance between the British Isles and North America made winning any war there an extremely dicey proposition for the British without massive local support - which they just didn't have. Canada was sparsely populated.

Both the North and South Korean Anthems are as long if not longer. Much easier to sing though.

I'd say it was a draw, but it did benefit America in the fact that it showed that even as a country still trying to cement itself in the world, we could go toe-to-toe with the British Empire and force a return to the status quo, rather than being squished, which is what many countries at the time were only capable of.

Shakespeare plagiarized, so what? This was before copyright laws so there were probably other songs set to that tune that we haven't heard about.

No, they were neutral due to the US being very clear that any sort of support for the CSA would mean war. Had the CSA won a few more victories, maybe the UK would have considered supporting them. The UK could get cotton elsewhere, but it needed goods produced by the US.