WI The US lost the war of 1812

I never called it a victory. In fact, I believe I see the phrase "not a win" in my earlier post. I guess I look at it like this: If a fool taunts a Grizzly Bear in its den and comes out with all his limbs attached and most of his blood still inside him, he's accomplished something. He hasn't necessarily beaten the bear, though.

Is it still such a great achievement if the reason he survived is because the grizzly was busy fighting a polar bear at the time? In your original post you said -

They went to war with the superpower of their day and and managed not only to survive, but to hold their own and to reach a treaty settlement.

Erm, no. If there was anybody who could be described as "the" superpower at the time it was Imperial France, which power was not only the USA's co-belligerent (ally is probably putting it too strongly) but locked in a death struggle with Britain at the time. It's probably fair to say that that war was when Britain definitively overtook France for hyperpower status, but it hadn't happened yet.

This isn't a trivial point - thanks to the overwhelming priority of the war in Europe, the entirety of the USA's effort was focussed on overcoming local militias, colonial troops, and such leftovers as could be spared from Europe commanded by a team of officers who could only be described as the B Team if you were feeling particularly generous. They still only just dragged out a draw - nothing to be ashamed of, but not really in "We fought the superpower to a standstill! woot!" territory.

Speaking personally, but I've always thought the best one line summary of the War of 1812 I've ever come across is "the British won, the Americans drew, and the Indians lost." To get a clear American defeat is probably doable, but I doubt it'd look mich different in the overall scheme of things - as already discussed, some border revisions in Maine and protection of the Indians for a generation or so until they get overwhelmed - although this does offer potential for butterflies, if the Indian Confederacy is still around if and when an ATL version of the Trail of Tears happens, do the Cherokee, etc. get herded up there instead?
 

Perkeo

Banned
With all due respect: If YOU declare war and end up with nothing more than status quo ante bellum, you ARE the looser.

However, there's more than subcategory of the term 'looser' and certainly the US did well in not having to pay a lot harder for the idiocy of declaring war in the first place.

As Abbé Correa said: There is a special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America
 
Depends on how badly the USA lose the war. I can see, if it's bad enough, change in borders on Maine, an independent Indian client-state and maybe some territory exchanged around the Great Lakes.
 
Achieving none of the goals at the start and getting off lightly only because the British had gained everything they could want from the Napoleonic Wars is not a victory or stalemate for the United States.

Of course impressment ceased to be an issue once Napoleon was gone. No vast navy needed against Europe meant no further need for impressment.
 
I think we should ignore the question of whether US lost OTL. (Which it did...:cool:) and discuss how bad it could go.

Let´s assume not only Washington but something like Boston and New Orleans get burnt down. An embarassing defeat on all fronts.

A mess up in New Orleans means perhaps no political career (or at least no presidency of) Andrew Jackson. (It was him right, the general there).

Also what kind of moral does it leave a nation if they have to cede some territory however small.

We will defenitely not see an unopposed Monroe if the general sentiment is a terrible loss.
 
Is it still such a great achievement if the reason he survived is because the grizzly was busy fighting a polar bear at the time?
Kudos for good timing on his part, then. He's still a fool, of course. :)

Erm, no. If there was anybody who could be described as "the" superpower at the time it was Imperial France,
Erm, yes. I would argue that the war's result settled that issue. France was amazing; Britain won. I guess I'm the sort of person to whom results speak loudly.

which power was not only the USA's co-belligerent (ally is probably putting it too strongly)
Oh, much too strongly. lol No argument there. If Britain hadn't been around, we probably would have been fighting France again.
 
certainly the US did well in not having to pay a lot harder for the idiocy of declaring war in the first place.
This I agree with- that the declaration was idiotic. And I won't waste anymore lines arguing the definition of "loss." I'll agree to disagree on that subject with all y'all.
 
For the British the war in America was never anything but a side show. Their primary concern was always defeating Napoleon. They had been fighting for over a decade and also been giving out huge subsidies to their continental allies. They had no intention of trying annex any US territory or fight the war to a finish. I would expect the peace to be about identical as the battle of New Orleans took place after the peace treaty had already been signed.

The main long term effect is that Andrew Jackson never becomes President. If he is not the hero of New Orleans he never gets nominated. Does the Bank of America survive? How is western expansion effected? Does South Carolina's threat of succession lead to a softer response from the federal government? Is Europe's view of America as a backward nation enforced?
 
The British were only ever worried about France and Napoleon. Once the war in Europe ended the reason for the war in America - impressment - was moot. Britain had no desire for extra territory at the expense of the US, and I doubt after nearly 20 years of almost continual warfare with France there was the stomach for it either.

Britain got all it ever wanted out of that war - an end to it with minimal cost or diversion from the main act in Europe. America chanced it's arm while Britain was focussed elsewhere, almost got burnt for it but somehow emerged okay.

The real thing to come from the war was more of a "Canadian" national identity of sorts - perhaps the more interesting question might have been what would it mean for OTL Canada if the war never took place?
 
The British got pretty much what they wanted out of the war. (and they didn't want the war) If they had really decisively won rather than landing in a stalemate, they would have demanded possession of the Great Lakes, and possibly part of Maine, at the least.

Generally though, the British wouldn't have a lot to gain from war with the US at this time, other than bragging rights. For them, the war was a distraction from war with Napoleon, a threat to the Canadian colonies, and a disruption of trade with their largest trading partner. More than anything else, the British wanted the US to continue spreading across the continent and exporting agricultural products to them, and therefore NOT developing domestic industries or a navy.

If the bolded part were British goals, then they failed in achieving those goals.
 
How badly?

For one P.O.D I suggest "The Dead Skunk" by Lycaon Pictus.

An earlier victory probably means the survival of a native state in the Northwest as a British client, and maybe a few border disputes resolved in Britain's favour.
Indeed, or mine, although the PoD's a touch earlier.
 
Had Napolon not come to power but the wars of the following years are fought between a cadre of competent Republican generals and USA maintains its relations with Republican France wouldn't UK be inclined to remove as much fighting potential from the USA as possible in the 1812 war.
 
I learnt years ago to never argue with an American about their history. The same people who claim they never lost Vietnam will never admit they lost the War of 1812.
 
I learnt years ago to never argue with an American about their history. The same people who claim they never lost Vietnam will never admit they lost the War of 1812.

I claim we lost Vietnam and the War of 1812 was a draw. When you have a war that ends in 'status quo doesn't change, ends with a treaty enforcing the status quo', it's a draw. The whole 'one side loses because it didn't meet it's war goals even though nothing changes' is a bit daft. Historians call the Korean war and the Iran/Iraq war both as draws, for the same reason... nothing changed. The one book I have on the War of 1812 claims the US won because it did so well in the post war treaty, but that's going too far. If I had to guess, I'd say that those Americans who know anything at all about the War of 1812 regard it as a draw (and a waste of time), not a win...
 
If the bolded part were British goals, then they failed in achieving those goals.

Yes, but those weren't goals of the War of 1812, in fact the war itself ran counter to those goals.

And these were protectionist goals, after the early 19th century the economic policy changed to become more free-trade, so it didn't matter any more. (Actually the economic theory was already less protectionist than it was in the past, the 18th and 19th centuries were pretty much a straight line from more to less protectionist as time went on.)

I'm just pointing out that war with the US ran against all British goals of the early 1800s, so even if the British won an overwhelming victory they wouldn't try to pursue any war gains that might lead to a future war with the US.

And the War of 1812 did in fact do a lot to kick-start the industrial revolution in the US.
 
Last edited:

arlindi193

Banned
If US Lost War of 1812

* US Will Cease to Exist
* White House and the Capitol Hill maybe will be Burned down by the British
* no Uncle Sam
* in 1842 or 1850's the Britsh will Declare war on Mexico and California and Texas will be Part of British America
* in 1880's or 1890's British will Colinize hawaii
 
* US Will Cease to Exist

No.

* White House and the Capitol Hill maybe will be Burned down by the British

Already were.

* no Uncle Sam

In your fairyland the US already doesn't exist, so that doesn't really matter, does it?

* in 1842 or 1850's the Britsh will Declare war on Mexico and California and Texas will be Part of British America

N~o. :eek:

* in 1880's or 1890's British will Colinize hawaii

Why?
 
* US Will Cease to Exist
* White House and the Capitol Hill maybe will be Burned down by the British
* no Uncle Sam
* in 1842 or 1850's the Britsh will Declare war on Mexico and California and Texas will be Part of British America
* in 1880's or 1890's British will Colinize hawaii

Most wars don't end with the losing side being wiped off the map. It happens but it's the exception. Prussia, Austria, France, Spain, and the British empire all lost wars without being exterminated. The US was never in any danger of ceasing to exist no matter how poorly they performed. The country would have continued fighting and the British had absolutely no interest in waging a war of total conquest.

The fact the US survived is NOT de facto proof they won the war.
 
If I had to guess, I'd say that those Americans who know anything at all about the War of 1812 regard it as a draw (and a waste of time), not a win...

This pretty much says it. I don't remember anyone ever trying to teach me about 1812 that treated it as a US victory. A draw, a waste of time. I remember one author (I can't remember who) calling it an important reaffirmation of national identity. Personally, I think he was just looking for something different to say.
 
Top