The Instigator
Bored_Debater
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
adey604
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Who won the War of 1812?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Bored_Debater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 93399
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

Bored_Debater

Pro

I as pro will argue that the United States was the victorious party in this debate. As con, he/she will argue that the British Empire was the victorious party.

War: A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Won: The desired territorial, economic, military or other benefits expected following successful conclusion of a war.
adey604

Con

Well one of the biggest reasons why the war strated was for the rule over canada and to cripple the french economy (british goal was to cripple the french ecnonomy by not letting the french trade with america.
Won: Crippled french economy and kept canada.
Debate Round No. 1
Bored_Debater

Pro

The United States declared war for several reasons, including trade restrictions brought about by the British war with France, the impressment of as many as 10,000 American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support for Native American tribes fighting American settlers on the frontier, and outrage over insults to national honor.

So the benefits expected following the war for the United States were the following.

Honor preserved
Traveling the oceans unmolested
Expansion westward and northward (possibly)

British goals were to defend Canada, great a new nation out of American territory, and prevent the United States from getting any bigger than they already were.

So the benefits expected following the war for the British Empire were the following.

Canadian colony preserved
Conquest of American territory to create a new nation
Stop American expansion westward and northward

The conquest of Canada or rather a means to wage war against Britain is a toss up really and so voters can put that under American expansion. I personally think the US with her small navy had no means whatsoever to invade Britain itself, they knew that, and so they waged their war by attacking Britain's colony.

I've heard plenty of claims that the United States lost more battles than they won but they isn't true.

After the war, for the the United States, a minor power during the time, had defeated Britain's Native American allies destroying British and Native plans to stop American expansion and carving a nation out of American territory, and stalemating the world's most powerful nation in the world on the battlefield. By doing that their honor was preserved, national unity, and patriotism was highest ever to that date. With the defeat of British forces and Tecumseh's Confederacy at the Battle of the Thames westward expansion would see no further serious challenges from Native Americans or their allies and the lost cause that it was after the war, Britain stopped supplying Native Americans to fight American settlers. Doing so would see that United States achieve the massive size that it is today surpassing the British in commerce and strength. Something that was attempted to prevent from happening in this war. The United States would then traverse the oceans unmolested from any European power for next 100 years.

After the war, for Britain, they would watch as their Native American allies lose more and more ground, the United States expanding more and more, and the balance of power close more and more over the years. They would see national identity grow rampant in Canada which would lead to rebellions. Britain would eventually pretty much concede the Americas to the United States with the Monroe Doctrine.

The benefits that the United States received following the war was incredibly beneficial, whereas for Britain the benefits from this war was pretty much close to nada.
adey604

Con

however the United States did not expand westward until the war was over therefore that had nothing to do with the war.

The main us objective before was to gain trading rights but after a while the Americans decided that they wanted Britannia out of the new world.

I admit that america declared war for several reason but conquest was the only reason it continued after 2 months.

did the U.S gain any more land during the war?

NO!

Did Britain hold onto their land until the war was over?

Darn Right they did.

Not to mention the fact that the french economy was Crippled by the time was over.

I now wait for my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2
Bored_Debater

Pro

The United States offered an armistice in 1812 following Britain promise that they would stop bothering the United States. The United States was asking to be respected and Britain refused and war continued. In 1813, Russia offered to mediate a peace. At this time Britain was doing well and refused their offer. They wanted to see that American expansion ends by the end of the war, that the United States won't get any bigger than they already are, to carve a nation out of the United States. British goals were not solely to defend Canada but they had territorial goals of themselves. said goals were equally important to them as protecting Canada.

The main objective of this war for the United States was to be respected as an independent neutral nation. Britain would, sometimes in America's territorial waters, attack, board, and take people from US ships. They did this for years before the United States finally took action militarily.

Britain was blatantly disrespectful and wanted to see America's expansion end by the end of the war.

As was told to James Monroe, "There are so many who delight in War that I have less hope than ever of our being able to make peace. You will perceive by the newspapers that a very great force is to be sent from Bordeaux to the United States; and the order of the day is division of the States and conquest. The more moderate think that when our Seaboard is laid waste and we are made to agree to a line which shall exclude us from the lake; to give up a part of our claim on Louisiana and the privilege of fishing on the banks, etc. peace may be made with us".

The British wanted to keep fighting to accomplish said objectives. Duke of Wellington told them "I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America. You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success, and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power. Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any".

After the defeats on the ground British stopped trying to get uti possidetis. They would then make efforts to keep America happy by not attempting to interfere with American commerce.

This can be seen here up into the 1930s

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Honor, national unity, and patriotism rose to news highs from this war. The war left westward expansion defenseless from British and Native Americans. Arguably Canada was simply a means to wage war against the British and not territory to acquire. Even if it was, the benefits that the United States gained following the conclusion of the war is leaps and bounds greater than the benefits that the British fought for, which were by the way complete opposites of the benefits that the United States was fighting for.

After this war, Britain would respect American rights indefinitely weighing the options with America in mind. That is the respect that the United States was looking for and that is what they got. As well has millions of square kilometers more territory following the crushing irreparable defeats at the hands of Americans.
adey604

Con

The US did want to be respected however the united states only lost national honor since a quarter of their population was turned on them. Nearly four decades ago the American Revolution occurred forcing over 25% of Americans(the loyalists) out of their homes. They hated they Americans and it was no surprise when they turned on their own nation when war emerged.
War with America was a direct consequence of the Napoleonic conflict. Britain relied on a maritime economic blockade to defeat France. When American merchants tried to exploit their neutral status to breach this blockade, the British introduced new laws, the "Orders in Council", to block this trading. In the same spirit, when British warships stopped American merchant ships, they forcibly impressed any British sailors they found into the Royal Navy. While some of these men were Americans, most were British. Some had deserted from the Royal Navy, a hanging offence. Britain was in a total war with France. There would be no place for neutral traders, no amnesty for deserters. Although American statesmen complained in public, in private they admitted that fully half of the sailors on American merchant ships were British subjects.

Some in Britain thought the Orders in Council could be relaxed, and in fact, the Orders were suspended in June of 1812. But no one doubted Britain"s right to impress her sailors, and all blamed the Americans for employing British seamen when the Royal Navy needed them. A decade of American complaints and economic restrictions only served to convince the British that Jefferson and Madison were pro-French, and violently anti-British. Consequently, when America finally declared war, she had very few friends in Britain. Many remembered the War of Independence, some had lost fathers or brothers in the fighting; others were the sons of Loyalists driven from their homes.

Britain"s Response to the American Declaration of War
The British had no interest in fighting this war, and once it began, they had one clear goal: keep the United States from taking any part of Canada. At the outset, they hoped that, by pointing out that the Orders in Council had been revoked, the U.S. would suspend hostilities. Instead, President Madison demanded an end to impressment, well aware that Britain would not make such a concession in wartime. And so Britain went to war, with no troops to spare to reinforce Canada; it would be defended by a handful of British regulars, Native Americans and Canadian militia.

The British imposed the same devastating economic blockade that had crippled France, carefully targeting states like Virginia that had voted for war. By autumn 1814 the American economy had collapsed. British followed up with amphibious forces raiding around Chesapeake Bay, raising regiments of former slaves as they went. In August, 1814 four thousand British troops captured and burnt Washington, D.C.f their home land. Nearly 40 years later the loyalists hated the Americans.
The borders between British North America and the United States might not have changed when the fighting stopped " the old lines were reconfirmed in the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the war on December 24, 1814. But once the treaty was signed, there wasn"t simply a return to the prewar status quo. There were wins and losses on both sides, and a new world order to navigate " not least for the continent"s native people.

"For Canadians, the War of 1812 is the story of American invasions of Canada and the successful defence of British America by British regulars, Canadian regulars and militia, and First Peoples warriors," says Peter Macleod, pre-Confederation historian and curator of the Canadian War Museum"s 1812 exhibition. "In short, we won because we repelled the invaders. The shared experience of standing up to the United States " in terms of resources and manpower, a Goliath to British North America"s David " united formerly separate British colonists and recent American immigrants. It forged the beginnings of a distinctly Canadian identity, even if it was negatively defined as "not American." "

Britain effectively won the War of 1812 by successfully defending its North American colonies. But for the British, the war with America had been a mere sideshow compared to its life-or-death struggle with Napoleon in Europe. This is why Britain agreed to maintain the prewar boundaries between the U.S. and British North America in the Treaty of Ghent, even though the Royal Navy"s blockade had effectively bankrupted the U.S. by mid-1814.

"The British people were sick of war and unwilling to maintain a protracted battle with the Americans," says Alan Taylor, the Pulitzer Prize-winning U.S. historian. "Meanwhile, the Royal Navy no longer needed to take British-born sailors off U.S. ships and impress them into involuntary service. This resolved the very issue that had ostensibly caused the conflict."

The United States, meanwhile, could claim to have won the war because they didn"t lose any territory in the Treaty of Ghent, says Wesley Turner, a retired associate professor of history at Brock University. "But more importantly, the British ceased supporting First Nations people in their fight against American settlement in the Midwest."

The Americans also looked on the conflict as a victorious second war of Independence against Britain, says Macleod. "Seeing themselves as bullied and oppressed by the British Empire, they resorted to war and compelled Britain and the world to acknowledge American sovereignty and American power."

While Canada, Britain and America could all claim to have won the War of 1812 with justification, the people who were here first " North America"s indigenous population " definitely lost.

"Native Americans that fought as British allies hoped that the support of a powerful European ally would allow them to roll back the American settlement frontier and secure their homelands and independence," says Macleod. "Instead, they suffered a catastrophic defeat." And the consequences for the winners and losers continue to play out today, 200 years after the War of 1812 began.

I would say Canada and Britain won," said Robert Lauzonis, of Youngstown, N.Y.

Oddly enough, the War of 1812 brought some lasting benefits to British North America; there was a new sense of pride among the people, a pride in having defended their lands with courage and skill. There was, too a better understanding between French speaking and English speaking Canadians, for each race had fought a common foe.

Certain practical advantages resulted from the conflict. Large sums of British money spent in the British provinces on war supplies brought a degree of prosperity previously unknown. In Nova Scotia, additional funds had been gained from the sale to Britain of captured American ships and cargoes. In New Brunswick, merchants had profited by a brisk business in food and other supplies with the blockaded states of New England. In Lower Canada (Quebec), such towns as Quebec City and Montreal had become prosperous centres of trade and transportation. In Upper Canada (Ontario), the flow of British funds affected the economy of the province from one end to the other. York recovered rapidly from it's misfortunes, and Kingston thrived on the work provided by it's busy shipyards. Farmers located near military centres had no trouble in selling their produce at high prices.

It was not realized at the time but the conflict with the United States was the first step toward the ultimate union of the provinces of British North America. The war had, in effect, forced the provinces to co-operate with one another in the urgent matter of defence. As the Canadian historian, Arthur Lower, says: " It therefore does not seem too far out to say that the War of 1812 is one of the massive foundation stones of modern Canada".The war helped set the two countries on different courses. National characteristics were evolving: American ebullience, Canadian reserve. The Americans went wild over minor triumphs, the Canadians remained phlegmatic over major ones. Brock was knighted for Detroit, but there were no gold medals struck, no ceremonial swords, banquets, or fireworks to mark Chateauguay, Chrysler's Farm, Stoney Creek or Beaver Dams. By contrast, Croghan's defence of Fort Stephenson was a signal for a paroxysm of rejoicing that made him an overnight hero in the United States.American hero worship filled the Congress, the Senate, and the state legislatures with dozens of war veterans. Three soldiers - Harrison, Jackson and Zachary Taylor - became president. But there were no Canadian Jacksons because there was no high office to which a Canadian could aspire. Brock and de Salaberry were Canada's only heros, Laura Secord her sole heroine. And Brock was not a Canadian.In the end we ask who won and who lost the War of 1812. The clear loser in this conflict without any doubt is the Native People of North America. In the summer of 1815, the United States signed fifteen treaties with the tribes, guaranteeing their status as of 1811. But it did not return an acre of land. The dream of the Indian state never came true.If any one could claim victory it was Canada. The United States declared war on Great Britain and set out to make Canada states in the union. Ten American armies crossed into Canada and all were driven out.There are even court martial charges laid against some of the American Generals after the Second Battle of La Colle. President Madison tries to put a lid on it, and intervenes, but too late. The American public quickly becomes disillusioned, and support for the war starts to fall away after the burning of Washington. The war should never have been fought. It was motivated by merchants and greed. It had little to do with patriotism, or national pride. The US gained nothing in territory that had not been surrendered to it by the Treaty of Paris.
Duke of Wellington"I think you have no right" is just a myth.
Debate Round No. 3
Bored_Debater

Pro

Honor: During the declaration of war people were pretty opposed to the war. Events throughout the war began to change opposition. By the end of the war, the Federalist Party disintegrated and ushered in the 'era of good feelings' national honor and patriotism was at the highest it had ever been [1]. Due to successfully repelling British invasions [2] and their victories in their duels [3].

Britain didn't declare war, however, when war did start Britain preferred war then to make peace. They wanted and tried to take the states surrounding the Great Lakes and apart of Maine. British goals were just as offensive as defensive [4]. Britain had no interest in ending the war until major defeats and equally opposition in Britain made them to [5].

My opponent is copy pasting entire articles with no credit to the original work [6]. My opponent should be penalize on grounds of conduct. Furthermore, the idea of American leadership being pro-France and anti-British is pretty absurd. The United States fought an undeclared war against France years before the United States declared war on Britain for blatant disrespectful behavior and incidents at sea. The United States dismantled the alliance that they had with France and remained neutral, not even supporting France directly, officially, unofficially in any way during the War of 1812 [7]

Canada, a British colony, having nationalistic fever and eventually rebelling against their overlords is in no way a good thing for Britain.

American goal to to annex territory is a myth, confuse logical target in waging war with a war of conquest. In 1807 the entirety of the United States wanted to go to war with the British for the reasons that the United State later on cited when declaring war in 1812, however the United States restrained itself to exhaust diplomatic options [8]. The United States did indeed go to war for these reasons. By that time a great deal of people in the northern states just forgave and forgot. The British however did want to carve out a nation out of American territory, and curbed American expansion. This is irrefutable, they first set their sites on a treaty of uti possidetis, they wanted to carve out American territory for their benefit [9]. Duke of Wellington was blunt stating that they, the British Empire, didn't have any real leverage at all to make any demand of territorial concessions, simply go with the status quo [9].

After the war British decision making had the United States in mind. There policy came to be not to anger the United States but to make them happy. This would come about with compromises and concessions following treaties and British policies long after the war [10], [11].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.usni.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.pbs.org...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://www.pbs.org...
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org...
adey604

Con

American Deaths:11,300 killed, wounded or missing in action.
British Deaths: 8,600 killed, wounded or missing in action.

I am a Canadian citizen where most people claim to have won the the war.In america the people there claim to have won the war.This site is american so people will vote for you regardless of the opposition debate.I ask for a chance and that the voting system is changed to judge voting people in the comments can (as well as my opponent) wheter of not i deserve a chance.

Additional answer: I'd like to add to his slightly. I am in Canada, where most Canadians claim to have won the war due to the American failure to capture Canada. I, however, look at it from this point of view: The British were forced to give up all the land gains they'd made during the war (true, the Americans also had to give back land, but it was not nearly as large an area). As well, the Americans were granted fishing rights in the St Lawrence river, which had previously been solely British. But lost the right to place warships in the great lakes. I believe it was strategically an British victory, as they successfully achieved their sole purpose.

Another Answer: The Americans had their fighting rights in the Maritimes and Great lakes taken away shortly after the war, and not returned until the 1850's. Also, most of the US war aims were never achieved. The returning of territory to the US does not mean that strategically the US won, if that were the case, then the British/Canadians won the war while the US won the peace treaty. Although the US had numerical superiority during the war, the British had more experienced commanders and soldiers for the most part in the early part of the war and by the time the American troops could fight the British on even terms, the British had sent thousands of additional battle trained troops from Europe in 1814. Overall it may be a stalemate militarily, but strategically and politically, if that was true, then the Korean Wars and the Vietnam War, up until the Americans left were also draws.

The Americas didn't win. The objective was to first take Upper Canada which they couldn't do. As I read the stats The Canadians/British controlled more lakes and rivers and killed more Americans. Plus America retreated back to America burning some villages on their way out. That's not winning, that's being a poor loser. No matter which way one looks at it the Americas objective was plain and simple to take over Canada and they retreated. strategically stand point they took more weapons when more British troops arrived they never returned. It's A Canadian win because this is not the first time America had tried to invade Canada and it was also not the first time America had failed.

if you go to the link below
you will notice that Britain never had majority defeats and that war with Napoleon was their main concern nor did the British empire try to take land from the United States You will also notice that neither won majority duels.
https://www.youtube.com...

The Wikipedia is not a very reliable source(which is your only source).
I will list all of mine at the end of the debate.The main reason the war continued was because the British did not want Napoleon trading with the Americans.
Won: successfully defending land against US invasions. The British did not declare war therefore they were the ones defending.Which was done successfully. The British wanted war to keep the us from trading in Europe until war was over.
The British tried to take the states around the great lakes and a part of main to get the US to surrender.In fact it was the US who had no interest in ending the war.
War with Napoleon was over and as the British offered peace the US rejected the offer. The British had no choice but march down(this time with 4000 soldiers and burn the White house to the ground ending the war.The war ended after a
British victory in a duel. The US started it but the British empire ended it.

So do you disagree that ending the war with burning down the white house was not a British victory?

There is much debate as to who won and lost the War of 1812. While most believe that the British won and the United States lost the war, there is even debate among those who answered this question. Below are the full arguments on both sides.
The British won due to the fact that they completed their objectives; defend Canada by killing the Americans who tried to invade.

American Deaths:11,300 killed, wounded or missing in action.
British Deaths: 8,600 killed, wounded or missing in action.

See related links below.
I would also like to add that Britain won the last battle between the two countries - "Battle of Fort Bowyer" and that during the time of this war Britain was also involved in the napoleon war. The Americans having failed all their objectives, forfeited and wanted to sign a peace treaty.

There is much debate as to who won and lost the War of 1812. While most believe that the British won and the United States lost the war, there is even debate among those who answered this question. Below are the full arguments on both sides.
The British won due to the fact that they completed their objectives; defend Canada by killing the Americans who tried to invade.

American Deaths:11,300 killed, wounded or missing in action.
British Deaths: 8,600 killed, wounded or missing in action.

See related links below.
I would also like to add that Britain won the last battle between the two countries - "Battle of Fort Bowyer" and that during the time of this war Britain was also involved in the napoleon war. The Americans having failed all their objectives, forfeited and wanted to sign a peace treaty.

Additional answer: I'd like to add to his slightly. I am in Canada, where most Canadians claim to have won the war due to the American failure to capture Canada. I, however, look at it from this point of view: The British were forced to give up all the land gains they'd made during the war (true, the Americans also had to give back land, but it was not nearly as large an area). As well, the Americans were granted fishing rights in the St Lawrence river, which had previously been solely British. But lost the right to place warships in the great lakes. I believe it was strategically an British victory, as they successfully achieved their sole purpose.

Another Answer: The Americans had their fighting rights in the Maritimes and Great lakes taken away shortly after the war, and not returned until the 1850's. Also, most of the US war aims were never achieved. The returning of territory to the US does not mean that strategically the US won, if that were the case, then the British/Canadians won the war while the US won the peace treaty. Although the US had numerical superiority during the war, the British had more experienced commanders and soldiers for the most part in the early part of the war and by the time the American troops could fight the British on even terms, the British had sent thousands of additional battle trained troops from Europe in 1814. Overall it may be a stalemate militarily, but strategically and politically, if that was true, then the Korean Wars and the Vietnam War, up until the Americans left were also draws.

The Americas didn't win. The objective was to first take Upper Canada which they couldn't do. As I read the stats The Canadians/British controlled more lakes and rivers and killed more Americans. Plus America retreated back to America burning some villages on their way out. That's not winning, that's being a poor loser. No matter which way one looks at it the Americas objective was plain and simple to take over Canada and they retreated. strategically stand point they took more weapons when more British troops arrived they never returned. It's A Canadian win because this is not the first time America had tried to invade Canada and it was also not the first time America had failed.

Another Answer: The Americans had their fighting rights in the Maritimes and Great lakes taken away shortly after the war, and not returned until the 1850's. Also, most of the US war aims were never achieved. The returning of territory to the US does not mean that strategically the US won, if that were the case, then the British/Canadians won the war while the US won the peace treaty. Although the US had numerical superiority during the war, the British had more experienced commanders and soldiers for the most part in the early part of the war and by the time the American troops could fight the British on even terms, the British had sent thousands of additional battle trained troops from Europe in 1814. Overall it may be a stalemate militarily, but strategically and politically, if that was true, then the Korean Wars and the Vietnam War, up until the Americans left were also draws.

The Americas didn't win. The objective was to first take Upper Canada which they couldn't do. As I read the stats The Canadians/British controlled more lakes and rivers and killed more Americans. Plus America retreated back to America burning some villages on their way out. That's not winning, that's being a poor loser. No matter which way one looks at it the Americas objective was plain and simple to take over Canada and they retreated. strategically stand point they took more weapons when more British troops arrived they never returned. It's A Canadian win because this is not the first time America had tried to invade Canada and it was also not the first time America had failed.

I would also like to pint out how different the views are: In fact the four views(American+British+Canadian+native) ar
Debate Round No. 4
Bored_Debater

Pro

North Vietnam: 1,100,000
United States: 60,000 [1]

Casualties in war don't determine victory.

What my opponent says regarding the placement of warships on the Great Lakes is false. Each side agreed to have a fixed number of their military units on them. Being that American ships were better quality was more of a strategic success for them and not the British whom had the largest number of ships in the world.

I have also explained that defending Canada was not their sole objective. It was equally important for Britain to carve a nation out of the United States and prevent the United States from expanding any further. Britain would blatantly refuse Russia's attempt to mediate peace. They wanted the treaty to be uti possidetis, it was after the string of defeats the British suffered and Duke of Wellington's statements that its unrealistic demands did they accept status quo [2]. The United States won more of the battles big and small [3].

The United States had a number of objectives, honor, be respected, and expansion. British actions insulted America's honor which could have started a war just over honor in 1807 [4]. The United States was expanding westward but there was stiff resistance cause the Natives were getting supplied by the British, the United States wanted that to stop. The United States thought it would be a easy task to take Canada and use it as leverage to be left alone at sea and be able to expand westward without dealing with a well supplied Confederacy. The United States didn't take Canada but it still got what it wanted in the end.

The battle hardened troops from Europe were used in the invasions of the United States and they failed worse then we did. Militarily it was a stalemate, politically and strategically it was all American victory. The United States became a nation that touched the Atlantic and the Pacific, The British gave up her advantage of her numerical superiority of ships on the Great Lakes, Britain shared her fish with the United States, she would pay the United States for the slaves that escaped, she would then make policies of appeasement. Britain would give up any imperial ambitions she had in the rest of North and South America to the United States. These things are not a victorious nation, it is a defeated one that kept its distance afterwards...

Furthermore, British forces lost lake Erie in the Battle of Lake Erie [5], American victories destroyed British efforts for territorial concessions [6]...

Britain ceded the rest of the Americas to the US after the Monroe doctrine. British policies and compromises was designed to appease America.

What did the United States get after the war? Her honor back, cease of British actions at sea, a cease in British support for Native Americans, which has made the United States one of the largest nations in the world, compensation for slaves, a drastic change in British policy which wouldn't compromise for the United States before to making compromises and giving up any further imperial ambition in the Americas.

What did Britain get after the war? To fight a rebellion in Canada, less fish, umm.. I can't really think of anything really good for Britain's gains in this war.

Britain defended Canada but in the end the United States got what it always wanted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org... Tally up the battles if you wish to fact check me.
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...
adey604

Con

the us did not get what they wanted it was status quo.
Casualties don't always determine victory however they do in some cases(eg when a war was in status quo).
maybe their offensive goals were not met (which i am pretty sure they didn't have) but there defensive ones were.
The white house was burned to the ground. The British also got what they wanted defeating Napoleon. They saw 'the second war of independence as a nuisance" in fact ask a Brit about it and you will get a blank stare because it wasn't exactly a priority for the british.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bored_Debater 10 months ago
Bored_Debater
I'm sorry, I forgot to give my last source.

http://www.eighteentwelve.ca... It is down on closing shots.
Posted by adey604 10 months ago
adey604
every one I Adey604 a Canadian citizen ask for a chance since most of the people here are american. I ask that the voting system is changed from open voting to judge voting. let my opponent and me know if you think i deserve a chance and the voting system should be changed.
Posted by Bored_Debater 10 months ago
Bored_Debater
Canada was not a country during the war. It was between the British Empire and their Native American allies vs the United States and the few Native American allies that they had. The reasons for which this war got started are for the reasons I mentioned in round 1. The British Empire fought for the same reasons as I explained. The Native Americans fought for the territorial ambitions that the British tried to get. Britain refused to make peace several times and when they wanted peace the terms for peace wasn't something the United States was going to agree with.
Posted by missmedic 10 months ago
missmedic
I think it should be pointed out that there may have been only one War of 1812, but there are four distinct versions of it"the American, the British, the Canadian and the Native American. leading to widespread disagreement about the causes, the meaning and even the outcome of the war.
For Canadians, the war was, and remains, the cornerstone of nationhood, brought about by U.S. aggression.
http://www.eighteentwelve.ca...
Posted by Bored_Debater 10 months ago
Bored_Debater
I think the definition in this debate to winning a war is the best one I have found to date. The desired benefits expected following the conclusion of a war is what wars are started and fought I think American desired benefits following this war outweighs British desired benefits from this war.
Posted by DavidMancke 10 months ago
DavidMancke
The primary war goal of the British was not realized. They sought to create a buffer state between the early United Stats and the Western Continent, to restrain US expansion westward. It didn't happen. The british lost, in terms of historical goals achieved/not achieved.
Posted by Ragnar 10 months ago
Ragnar
In short: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by DavidMancke 10 months ago
DavidMancke
I debated this topic a while back and it is pretty tough to make the case the Brits won, especially how you have the topic framed. I think the BOP is imbalanced on the neg side.
Posted by CharlesGrey 10 months ago
CharlesGrey
While the British achieved their war goals and the Americans did not at the end the results were mutually beneficial.
Posted by ThinkBig 10 months ago
ThinkBig
If you change the voting period from 6 months to 30 days, I will accept the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 10 months ago
RoyLatham
Bored_Debateradey604Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: To say who won the War, it must first be established what the goals were for each side. Neither side used any references to back up the dozens of assertions each made in the early part of the debate. So with unsupported assertions pitted against other unsupported assertions, all those arguments are a tie. In R3, Pro used one source, but it was not relevant to the key assertions. Finally, in the opening of R5, Pro cited some sources to back up some of his assertions. That's too late for a proper debate, where all the arguments and data should have been presented in the early rounds, except for rebuttals from the immediately previous round. But Con did have a chance to respond in the last half of R5, and passed the opportunity, There is no problem including long quotations as arguments, but Con should have acknowledged the source. Failure to acknowledge is a conduct penalty. This was a weak debate because neither side supported their assertion when they made them.