Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Did Americans win the war of 1812?

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 3:50:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've only collected minor details of the war, but it seems to me as if America didn't actually win that war. I've read conflicting opinions on the matter and while I wouldn't say America lost the war, it seems as if it was a truce rather than an all out victory for the Americans.

If I am completely wrong, please forgive me. I just wish to understand what happened better, while also not really having the time to look into it any further at this current time.

Can someone who is knowledgeable on that particular war please break it down for me?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 6:46:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:50:34 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've only collected minor details of the war, but it seems to me as if America didn't actually win that war.
We invaded Canada, so yes. Although the British were arming Indians beforehand.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Subutai
Posts: 3,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 10:48:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It depends really on how you define "won". The US declared war on Great Britain, and therefore had the responsibility for offensive action. The only one it took was against Canada, which failed. By all accounts, the offensive war was a failure. However, the Americans stopped the British at Baltimore, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans, and also broke up the Indian Confederacy under Tecumseh, so they technically won the defensive war. All and all, it was a draw. Land wise, neither country gained anything. Essentially, the only things gained by the Americans were the stopping of impressment and the creation of a united Indian state as a jumping off point for raids in America.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 10:52:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 10:48:19 PM, Subutai wrote:
It depends really on how you define "won". The US declared war on Great Britain, and therefore had the responsibility for offensive action. The only one it took was against Canada, which failed. By all accounts, the offensive war was a failure. However, the Americans stopped the British at Baltimore, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans, and also broke up the Indian Confederacy under Tecumseh, so they technically won the defensive war. All and all, it was a draw. Land wise, neither country gained anything. Essentially, the only things gained by the Americans were the stopping of impressment and the creation of a united Indian state as a jumping off point for raids in America.
Didn't our amphibious borders increase to include all of Huron, Erie, and Superior.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
Subutai
Posts: 3,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 10:57:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 10:52:49 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/18/2014 10:48:19 PM, Subutai wrote:
It depends really on how you define "won". The US declared war on Great Britain, and therefore had the responsibility for offensive action. The only one it took was against Canada, which failed. By all accounts, the offensive war was a failure. However, the Americans stopped the British at Baltimore, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans, and also broke up the Indian Confederacy under Tecumseh, so they technically won the defensive war. All and all, it was a draw. Land wise, neither country gained anything. Essentially, the only things gained by the Americans were the stopping of impressment and the creation of a united Indian state as a jumping off point for raids in America.
Didn't our amphibious borders increase to include all of Huron, Erie, and Superior.

Wikipedia says (sorry, I had to look this up myself), "The Treaty of Ghent established the status quo ante bellum; that is, there were no territorial losses by either side."
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 11:06:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 10:57:20 PM, Subutai wrote:
Wikipedia says (sorry, I had to look this up myself), "The Treaty of Ghent established the status quo ante bellum; that is, there were no territorial losses by either side."
No land borders, but the UN amphibious border lines weren't established yet, so nations couldn't claim water. But we had established de facto control on tree lakes, previously controlled by Britain. I know this, because I have to learn about Michigan history for my curriculum.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
mattkeeb
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 6:17:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course not you burnt the Canadian parliment so we burned the whitehouse to the ground not just that your target was to invade british territory which you failed to take any not just that you declared war on us and lord Liverpool was willing to negotiate a peace but you said no so we kicked your asses. Not just that more of your troops died than british troops (they ain't canadian thats a myth) however there was a treaty which in other words said it was a draw end of.

Something I'd like to point out you only won the war of Independence because you had the french without them you would of lost so quit spying on them and respect them because without them United states wouldn't exist at all.
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:54:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd say it's a draw. We lost in Canada, but defended the heartland.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:56:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 10:52:49 PM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/18/2014 10:48:19 PM, Subutai wrote:
It depends really on how you define "won". The US declared war on Great Britain, and therefore had the responsibility for offensive action. The only one it took was against Canada, which failed. By all accounts, the offensive war was a failure. However, the Americans stopped the British at Baltimore, Plattsburgh, and New Orleans, and also broke up the Indian Confederacy under Tecumseh, so they technically won the defensive war. All and all, it was a draw. Land wise, neither country gained anything. Essentially, the only things gained by the Americans were the stopping of impressment and the creation of a united Indian state as a jumping off point for raids in America.
Didn't our amphibious borders increase to include all of Huron, Erie, and Superior.

They were already there from the end of the Revolutionary War. We gained no territory from that war.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:03:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 6:17:04 AM, mattkeeb wrote:
Something I'd like to point out you only won the war of Independence because you had the french without them you would of lost so quit spying on them and respect them because without them United states wouldn't exist at all.
That's actually false. France used the war as an excuse to reclaim territory in India and the Caribbean. They were of little help on the ground. The Continental Army had secured most of the 13 colonies by the time the French became of major help. They mostly blocked the coastline to prevent British reinforcements from moving by sea. Same with the Spanish. Allying with them was a joke. They just stole "British" territory from the rear. If I was the continental congress, I wouldn't of settled for peace without maintaining our land in the Bahamas and Acadia. Who do you think died in Louisburg? Massachusetts militias.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:05:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 9:56:14 AM, lannan13 wrote:
They were already there from the end of the Revolutionary War. We gained no territory from that war.
I assure you that Britain had control of both Lake Erie and Lake Superior. That's how Britain moved troops back and forth.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:08:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:05:24 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/22/2014 9:56:14 AM, lannan13 wrote:
They were already there from the end of the Revolutionary War. We gained no territory from that war.
I assure you that Britain had control of both Lake Erie and Lake Superior. That's how Britain moved troops back and forth.

The US had the territorial possesions, but remind you that Brittian also had military forts on American soil. Like at Detroit. That was one of the reasons the US declared war against Brittian.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:12:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:08:30 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:05:24 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/22/2014 9:56:14 AM, lannan13 wrote:
They were already there from the end of the Revolutionary War. We gained no territory from that war.
I assure you that Britain had control of both Lake Erie and Lake Superior. That's how Britain moved troops back and forth.

The US had the territorial possesions, but remind you that Brittian also had military forts on American soil. Like at Detroit. That was one of the reasons the US declared war against Brittian.
Technically Fort Pontchartrain was under Indian chief Tecumseh's hands, although Tecumseh's army declared fealty to Britain, so yes and no. The war mostly started because Britain was arming natives that were occupying and raiding our towns on the frontier.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:14:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:12:36 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:08:30 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:05:24 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/22/2014 9:56:14 AM, lannan13 wrote:
They were already there from the end of the Revolutionary War. We gained no territory from that war.
I assure you that Britain had control of both Lake Erie and Lake Superior. That's how Britain moved troops back and forth.

The US had the territorial possesions, but remind you that Brittian also had military forts on American soil. Like at Detroit. That was one of the reasons the US declared war against Brittian.
Technically Fort Pontchartrain was under Indian chief Tecumseh's hands, although Tecumseh's army declared fealty to Britain, so yes and no. The war mostly started because Britain was arming natives that were occupying and raiding our towns on the frontier.

One cannot forget about the Brittish abduction of US sailors into the Brittish Navy since they did not have enough sailors to support their large Naval Force.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:16:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:14:30 AM, lannan13 wrote:
One cannot forget about the Brittish abduction of US sailors into the Brittish Navy since they did not have enough sailors to support their large Naval Force.
Back to your earlier point though, Fort Pontchartrain was actually under American hands I believe. But yes, capitulation on the seas was a major cause of the war. I guess it was the pre-requisite introduction to the war on terror.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:18:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:16:07 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:14:30 AM, lannan13 wrote:
One cannot forget about the Brittish abduction of US sailors into the Brittish Navy since they did not have enough sailors to support their large Naval Force.
Back to your earlier point though, Fort Pontchartrain was actually under American hands I believe. But yes, capitulation on the seas was a major cause of the war. I guess it was the pre-requisite introduction to the war on terror.

But if one really wants a pre-req, one can see that the colonists were concidered the original terrorists. We assasignated political and military leaders from behind trees and walls. According to the Brittish we didn't fight 'fair'.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ChosenWolff
Posts: 3,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 10:24:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 10:18:28 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:16:07 AM, ChosenWolff wrote:
At 7/22/2014 10:14:30 AM, lannan13 wrote:
One cannot forget about the Brittish abduction of US sailors into the Brittish Navy since they did not have enough sailors to support their large Naval Force.
Back to your earlier point though, Fort Pontchartrain was actually under American hands I believe. But yes, capitulation on the seas was a major cause of the war. I guess it was the pre-requisite introduction to the war on terror.

But if one really wants a pre-req, one can see that the colonists were concidered the original terrorists. We assasignated political and military leaders from behind trees and walls. According to the Brittish we didn't fight 'fair'.
Britain's idea of warfare was meeting the enemy and tight, closely knit lines, and flanking with cavalry. There tactics were overused and stale, not to mention that the northern colonies weren't ideal for batteries or anything other than infantry. It wasn't exactly the fact that the colonists were fighting fair, but that Britain wasn't fighting good enough. We saw the same failures with Britain in the Napoleonic Wars and WW1. In the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon tried to imitate Scipio Africanus and Hannibal Barca, by leading off Britains tightly knit lines with dragoons, dividing up the army, and leading Britain into massive ambushes.

Napoleon obviously learned a thing or two from the American colonists.
How about NO elections?

#onlyonedeb8
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 11:56:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 3:50:34 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've only collected minor details of the war, but it seems to me as if America didn't actually win that war. I've read conflicting opinions on the matter and while I wouldn't say America lost the war, it seems as if it was a truce rather than an all out victory for the Americans.

If I am completely wrong, please forgive me. I just wish to understand what happened better, while also not really having the time to look into it any further at this current time.

Can someone who is knowledgeable on that particular war please break it down for me?

As everyone has been saying, it was basically a draw for the Americans and the British. However, the real losers of the war were the Native Americans, who were forced to secede vast amounts of their territory.

The final treaty of Ghent was not upheld by the British, and the Americans held to their Treat of Fort Jackson which surrendered 23 million acres to the US.

That definitely seems to be a common theme in American history. Whoever wins.. they lose.