When one side starts a war and ends with none of the starting goals and the other defends and achieves all of the starting goals that's not a stalemate.
Grimm, we've argued this before, and you've never shown any real evidence for America waging a war of aggression to annex Canada like you seemed to think it was. Yes, there were certain
individuals who would've welcomed that, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the reason some members of Congress voted for the war, but it was absolutely
not national policy.
The US declaration of war is basically summed up by this (from Madison's War Message):
We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.
America's leadership saw Britain as waging a de facto war against American commerce and sailors, and saw Britain aiding Native Americans fighting against America. It was absolutely
not just a case of Madison saying "Canada loves us, let's go liberate them from those stupid limeys!"
Most of America's wargoals were rendered obsolete for one reason or another. You yourself admit that impressment was a non-issue after the war. Hell, it would've been a non-issue
before the war, if only things had been delayed a while and the US had the chance to learn that Liverpool had become Prime Minister and opportunities for better relations and greater cooperation had opened up (I can't remember if Liverpool had actually ended impressment or had only planned to; either way, it would've happened shortly). The economic concerns, Britain interfering in American trade, ended with the Napoleonic Wars. Tecumseh's coalition was smashed, and so ended large scale, unified Native American rebellion in the midwest.
If we look at the actual terms of the Treaty of Ghent:
Articles 1-3 just declares peace, and states roughly a status quo ante bellum. Both sides return any property to the other, withdraw forces, and return POWs. Britain actually ended up paying indemnities rather than restoring some property (specifically, slaves).
Articles 4-8 are an agreement to settle some territorial disputes, creating various commissions to do so.
Article 9 is an absolutely toothless agreement that Canada and the US should treat their respective natives better, ends the state of war between Britain and the US and the respective natives, with a nice little out clause saying "You should give them back their land and stuff, unless they ever act hostile to any US citizen" and with absolutely no way of enforcement.
Article 10 is another toothless unenforceable agreement saying "Slavery is bad and we should probably get rid of it some day."
And finally article 11 is just an administrative thing, "this treaty shall go into effect when blah blah blah."
So, I'm just kind of wondering, given that the US more or less achieved what they wanted (if we don't give attention to the ridiculous assertion that the US was trying to annex Canada), the UK more or less achieved what they wanted, and the actual peace treaty doesn't give preference to either side, how anyone could consider the US losing the peace (the US losing the military situation is a given, and one I don't think I've ever seen anyone seriously argue)?