War of 1812 question

For a total British victory, let's look at the terms Britain demanded in August 1814 at Ghent (as things turned out, they were as unrealistic as the US terms of 1813 but again we are assuming a total British victory here):

The British held out for an Indian buffer state in the Northwest, and also demanded that the Americans not maintain warships on the waters of the Great Lakes or forts upon their shores. The British right of navigation of the Mississippi, agreed on in 1783, would be maintained, but with boundary adjustments to allow the British access to the river from Lake Superior; the northern part of Maine would also have to be ceded in order to provide more direct communication between Quebec and Halifax. The British retreated from these terms not only because of military setbacks in America and Wellington's refusal to go there but also because of the deteriorating situation in Europe--the victorious Allies were quarreling with each other, there were rumors of an impending Bonapartist coup against the French government, etc.

For details on the Indian boundary state:

"Within a week, Lord Castlereagh sent precise instructions which confirmed the worst fears of the Americans. The Indian boundary line was to follow the line of the Treaty of Greenville and beyond it neither nation was to acquire land. The United States was asked, in short, to set apart for the Indians in perpetuity an area which comprised the present States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois, four-fifths of Indiana, and a third of Ohio. But, remonstrated Gallatin, this area included States and Territories settled by more than a hundred thousand American citizens. What was to be done with them? 'They must look after themselves,' was the blunt answer." http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3004/3004-h/3004-h.htm

See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/greenvil.asp for the text of the Treaty of Greenville and http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/treaty_greenville/media/treatygreenvillemap.gif for a map.

To insist on this 1795 line in 1814 seems amazingly unrealistic in retrospect, but remember that in 1814 "Britain and Indians still held Michilimackinac, Prarie du Chien on the upper Mississippi, and most of Michigan and Wisconsin. With Wellington's veterans preparing to embark from French ports and the United States on the verge of bankruptcy, fighting its most unpopular war, Britain and the Indians became optimistic about making territorial adjustments." J. Leitch Wright, Jr., *Britain and the American Frontier 1783-1815* (Athens: University of Georgia Press 1975), p. 167.

treatygreenvillemap.gif
 
For a total British victory, let's look at the terms Britain demanded in August 1814 at Ghent (as things turned out, they were as unrealistic as the US terms of 1813 but again we are assuming a total British victory here):

The British held out for an Indian buffer state in the Northwest, and also demanded that the Americans not maintain warships on the waters of the Great Lakes or forts upon their shores. The British right of navigation of the Mississippi, agreed on in 1783, would be maintained, but with boundary adjustments to allow the British access to the river from Lake Superior; the northern part of Maine would also have to be ceded in order to provide more direct communication between Quebec and Halifax. The British retreated from these terms not only because of military setbacks in America and Wellington's refusal to go there but also because of the deteriorating situation in Europe--the victorious Allies were quarreling with each other, there were rumors of an impending Bonapartist coup against the French government, etc.

For details on the Indian boundary state:

"Within a week, Lord Castlereagh sent precise instructions which confirmed the worst fears of the Americans. The Indian boundary line was to follow the line of the Treaty of Greenville and beyond it neither nation was to acquire land. The United States was asked, in short, to set apart for the Indians in perpetuity an area which comprised the present States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois, four-fifths of Indiana, and a third of Ohio. But, remonstrated Gallatin, this area included States and Territories settled by more than a hundred thousand American citizens. What was to be done with them? 'They must look after themselves,' was the blunt answer." http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3004/3004-h/3004-h.htm

See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/greenvil.asp for the text of the Treaty of Greenville and http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/treaty_greenville/media/treatygreenvillemap.gif for a map.

To insist on this 1795 line in 1814 seems amazingly unrealistic in retrospect, but remember that in 1814 "Britain and Indians still held Michilimackinac, Prarie du Chien on the upper Mississippi, and most of Michigan and Wisconsin. With Wellington's veterans preparing to embark from French ports and the United States on the verge of bankruptcy, fighting its most unpopular war, Britain and the Indians became optimistic about making territorial adjustments." J. Leitch Wright, Jr., *Britain and the American Frontier 1783-1815* (Athens: University of Georgia Press 1975), p. 167.

I honestly think the buffer state will be the first thing to go, no matter how decisive a British victory. There were over 100,000 Americans living beyond the Greenville line, and America balked at it historically for obvious reasons. I'm willing to bet that an agreement is reached where Britain throws the Indians to the wolves in return for concessions elsewhere.
 
In summing up I don't see how either side can come away with a decisive victory.

That's my conclusion, too. Early in the war, the US wanted to end impressment, end the British piracy on it ships, and, if possible, conquer part or all of Canada. At the point, the British simply wished to retain their territory.

The US did not achieve its war aims at this point, but the UK did.

Later in the war, the UK wanted to conquer a lot of US territory--as much as 2/3-- as well as end American fishing rights off the Grand Banks. At this point, the Americans simply wished to retain their territory.

The UK did not achieve its war aims, but the US did.

So it was a draw.

The Native Americans, though, arguably lost. Although the ninth article of the Treaty of Ghent theoretically restored their fortunes to status quo ante bellum, the US never upheld this article.
 
If the Battle of Lake Erie and Plattsburgh goes the other way a British decisive victory is easily achievable.

And if Hull doesn't surrender at Detroit, Fort Makinac puts up a fight and America can gain superiority on Lake Ontario (it was always a seesaw) then America could maybe obtain Upper Canada in the peace treaty. The risk America has though is that the more dire things look in Canada, the more resources Britain will funnel into the area.

Most of the time this war probably ends in a draw, but a decisive victory could happen if either side plays its cards right.

I can see a decisive British victory, but I'm more skeptical of a decisive American victory. Although American forces may be able to take Upper Canada, the US will never be able to deprive Britain of naval supremacy on the Atlantic. The Royal Navy can continue to ravage American shipping and raid the coast until the US decides to give up Ontario.

If they had conquered Upper Canada and Quebec, a smarter move for the Americans would have been to then sign a treaty in which the UK agrees to leave American shipping and sailors alone.
 
That's my conclusion, too. Early in the war, the US wanted to end impressment, end the British piracy on it ships, and, if possible, conquer part or all of Canada. At the point, the British simply wished to retain their territory.

The US did not achieve its war aims at this point, but the UK did.

Later in the war, the UK wanted to conquer a lot of US territory--as much as 2/3-- as well as end American fishing rights off the Grand Banks. At this point, the Americans simply wished to retain their territory.

The UK did not achieve its war aims, but the US did.

So it was a draw.

The Native Americans, though, arguably lost. Although the ninth article of the Treaty of Ghent theoretically restored their fortunes to status quo ante bellum, the US never upheld this article.

Then again, it's a pretty odd draw when one side goes from "We want x, y and z, and to conquer some territory!" to "We just want to survive intact!"

Also, Britain wanted to conquer 2/3 of US territory? Since when?
 
Then again, it's a pretty odd draw when one side goes from "We want x, y and z, and to conquer some territory!" to "We just want to survive intact!"

It's also an odd draw when one side has total naval dominance and can raid the coastline at will :p and one side has been put on the permanent defensive!

Also, Britain wanted to conquer 2/3 of US territory? Since when?

I think it's hyperbole.
 
Some good points there but IMHO the British political will wasn't there because of events in Europe while one might think it was more evident in the US, the vote to go to war was(I think) the narrowest in US history. Heck if I understand correctly some militia units refused to cross over into Canadian territory because they stated their job was defending the country not to invade another.

The will to prosecute the war fully wasn't really present on either side come 1814 due to events in Europe and the American populace having been divided on the war in the first place and becoming weary of the increasing economic struggle and seemingly pointless war.

Really Ghent was probably the most likely outcome barring a massive change in odds for one side early war.
 
Then again, it's a pretty odd draw when one side goes from "We want x, y and z, and to conquer some territory!" to "We just want to survive intact!"

Also, Britain wanted to conquer 2/3 of US territory? Since when?

But did the US really want to conquer some territory? I don't think the NorthEast really did did it? Now one might be able to make an argument some in the West did BUT it seems those just wanted British out of North America because they felt the British were behind inciting the Indians. However as it turned out the power of the Indians was broken anyways so those in the West got what they wanted anyways. In fact in mid-1815 the Indians basically realized they had been stabbed in the back.

Now per impressment? Well Catleleagh during Napoleans 100 days assured Adams that orders were being issued by the Admiralty to insure no trouble happened per this issue. Why did he go out of his way to do this if British felt they were so right and/or could be worried much about the Colonials? The British as I stated earlier did come around to the US point of view to neutral rights when they accepted the Treaty of Paris of 1856.
 
Also, Britain wanted to conquer 2/3 of US territory? Since when?

Yes, that's right. Louisiana, the Northwest north of the Greenville Treaty line, northern New York, Vermont, and eastern Maine are roughly 2/3 of US territory.

The British dropped the Louisiana issue pretty quickly. You can read the reply of the American commissioners here. But the British very much wanted control of eastern Maine in order to have a reliable land route between Quebec and Nova Scotia.

The American commissioners offered their counterparts status quo ante bellum in the summer of 1814. It was only after being defeated at Baltimore and Plattsburgh that the British gave in and accepted it. Hence my description of the war as a draw.
 
Now per impressment? Well Catleleagh during Napoleans 100 days assured Adams that orders were being issued by the Admiralty to insure no trouble happened per this issue. Why did he go out of his way to do this if British felt they were so right and/or could be worried much about the Colonials?
Because by that point the British government had finally accepted that Napoleon could now be defeated without the RN needing those extra sailors, so we weren't giving up anything there that we really wanted any longer...
 
Because by that point the British government had finally accepted that Napoleon could now be defeated without the RN needing those extra sailors, so we weren't giving up anything there that we really wanted any longer...

The British had actually dropped the impressment issue just before the war as well so it was actually a moot point before the war even broke out.
 
Because by that point the British government had finally accepted that Napoleon could now be defeated without the RN needing those extra sailors, so we weren't giving up anything there that we really wanted any longer...

or maybe they just realized they couldn't be distracted? or they realized the US wasn't going to be pushed around on the issue? Anyways they still came around to the US position when they accepted the 1856 Treaty of Paris's Accommodations. Castleagh's assurances just didn't mention impressment it also addressed economic issues like US ships being stopped and seized.
 
Last edited:
The British had actually dropped the impressment issue just before the war as well so it was actually a moot point before the war even broke out.

Well the Orders in Council were certainly repealed before the war before too bad communications weren't better back in those days however IMHO those were only ordered in the first place not because of wartime need,i.e. to stop supplies from getting to France, but for economic reasons or in other words to ruin US merchant trade which they seen as a competitor. The British merchant marine traded directly with France from French possessions in the West Indies to French ports carrying French supplies but US ships doing the same were stopped taken to a British port where they may languish awaiting Adjudication per carrying contraband. IMHO way too much stock is put into impressment being the cause of the war and not enough into economic reasons & the Indian trouble in the West.

If the British had just invested a fraction of the money they spent on fighting the US towards making conditions better for their sailors they wouldn't have had so desertions.
 
Last edited:
The British had actually dropped the impressment issue just before the war as well so it was actually a moot point before the war even broke out.

They dropped the seizure of American ships, but not the impressment of American sailors. From the Encyclopedia of the War of 1812:

When the British repealed the Orders in Council at almost the same time as the U.S. declaration, only the doctrine of impressment officially remained as an obstacle to peace. The British refused to abandon the doctrine, however. In the summer of 1814, U.S. peace commissioners at Ghent finally removed the U.S. demand that Britain formally forsake impressment, mainly because its practice had assuredly ceased upon the conclusion of the European war.
 
But did the US really want to conquer some territory? I don't think the NorthEast really did did it?

the south was dead set against it too. In fact, it's a bit surprising that the Federal government made the decision to attack Canada at all, considering that seemingly a big majority of the USA's population was against it. From what I've read, the decision to invade was partly because the leadership in DC completely misread the opinion of Canada's population, thinking they were just aching to be liberated from Britain. They got this impression by talking to American merchants who did business in Canada, who were often told by Canadian merchants that they wanted to become part of the USA (apparently, British regulations were tighter than in the USA). Of course, 'Canadian merchants' weren't that big a part of the Canadian population, most of which were dead set against the idea of being liberated by the USA. Add to this the desire of the western states to stop British incitement of native attacks against their settlements, and thus the decision to invade...
 
Yes, that's right. Louisiana, the Northwest north of the Greenville Treaty line, northern New York, Vermont, and eastern Maine are roughly 2/3 of US territory.

Yeah, but did they actually want that, or was it just a case of them making ridiculously OTT demands at first so that they could then look reasonable by dropping them? That's quite a common negotiation tactic, after all, and given that Britain had rather more pressing matters to deal with on the Continent I doubt they'd go to war seriously hoping to make gains which, by any reasonable assessment, would require years of large-scale war to extort.

or maybe they just realized they couldn't be distracted? or they realized the US wasn't going to be pushed around on the issue? Anyways they still came around to the US position when they accepted the 1856 Treaty of Paris's Accommodations. Castleagh's assurances just didn't mention impressment it also addressed economic issues like US ships being stopped and seized.

Yes, they came around in the 1856 Treaty of Paris... forty years after the War of 1812 ended.
 
The War of 1812 was one of those wars that wasn't in anyone's best interests to fight- but we did it anyways. For this reason, I don't think a decisive victory can be achieved by either side, because both of them benefited more from a peaceful partnership.
 
Yeah, but did they actually want that, or was it just a case of them making ridiculously OTT demands at first so that they could then look reasonable by dropping them? That's quite a common negotiation tactic, after all, and given that Britain had rather more pressing matters to deal with on the Continent I doubt they'd go to war seriously hoping to make gains which, by any reasonable assessment, would require years of large-scale war to extort.



Yes, they came around in the 1856 Treaty of Paris... forty years after the War of 1812 ended.
and the UK had no interest and didn't make any attempts in trying to stop Northward,Westward and Southern movement by the US right from 1783-1812? It seems all there was a lot leading up to the start of the war,the Indian issue was a hot issue back 25 years before 1812.

You think maybe the problems with impressment /seizure of ships and the war with the US just may have influenced the UK a bit even if 40 years later? In between 1812 and 1856 the US seemed to come out pretty good in border negotiations.
 
Last edited:
Top