Revisionism ? or Bad History ?

In a thread still progressing on page 2, a Forumite wrote about "The British, who lost two wars, The Revolutionary and the War of 1812". This demonstrates another instance of historical over-simplification and, in the case of the War of 1812, an incomplete grasp of the story. Consider the following:

(1) The American declaration of war was ostensibly because of Royal Naval impressment of American mariners. Yet the British had conceded the point to the Americans just prior to the American declaration of war. News of this concession having being communicated to Washington, it was to be expected that the American would rescind their declaration.

(2) That the declaration war was not rescinded was due to other aims - principally the American invasion and annexation of Canada, a goal pushed by what were then considered "western" states and territories but of marginal interest to the seabord states.

(3) Virtually every American victory on land (Moraviantown, Plattsburg, Chippawa) was matched by a corresponding American defeat (Detroit, Queenston Heights, Stoney Creek, Beaver Dams, Lundy's Lane, Chrysler's Farm, Chateauguay). Every expedition despatched to invade Canada had been forced to withdraw, sometimes owing to provisioning problems, sometimes following ignominious defeat. As of the Treaty of Ghent, the Americans were in possession of no portion of British North America - clearly a failure in war aims.

(4) Notwithstanding American naval victories in a succession of high-seas single ship actions, as of 1814 American Atlantic seabord commerce had practically ground to a halt, in large measure due to commerce raiding by the Royal Navy as well as privateers from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (the LIVERPOOL PACKET, out of Liverpool, Nova Scotia) was possibly the most successful privateer on both sides). New England maritime insurance rates had gone through the roof; local commerce had largely switched to slow, expensive road transport.

(5) On the Great Lakes, as of the Treaty of Ghest, the two sides were stalemated on Lake Ontario (as each side built a bigger ship, the other side retired to base to comlete construction of a STILL BIGGER ship); American control of Lake Erie was unexploited; American warships operating near Mackinac had been captured by small boat parties that included Newfoundland soldiers.

(6) Support for the war was sliding in New England, which had borne the brunt of the maritime war and where talk of seccession was rampant. Meanwhile, British troops in Canada drew substantial rations, thanks in large measure to the willingness of New England farmers to sell beef to the supposed national enemy.

Objective assessment of the War of 1812 will call it a draw.

Say what?!?!?!??

[Craig]

If what Hugh say is accurate, I'd say that the little bit of history we call the War of 1812 needs a little revising, to reflect what really went on.
I'm sure there are those who will disagree, with bitter glee. I wonder who they'll be?

[leo]

No menton of New Orleans?

[Kirby]

I'd say for the most part Hugh hit the nail right on the head. The "Battle of New Orleans" should never have happened. The war was over but the opposing armies hadn't gotten the word yet. The fact that the Americans won was due more to British mistakes than superior American tactics.

All in all, we were pretty lucky to have come away with a draw decision. Heck, the Brits even got to Washington City and burned the White House.

The War of 1812 has been discussed in this forum several times already. For some reason, the Battle of New Orleans keeps being cited as proof that the U.S. won the war, as though it had been agreed in advance that the last team to score would win.

If you think in terms of victory conditions, at best the war was a draw; at worst it was a loss for the U.S. The conflict ended with the status quo ante bellum restored; this marked a failure to achieve a major war aim of the U.S., as promulgated by the War Hawks in Congress.

The Battle of New Orleans was fought on 8 January 1815 - but the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed on 24 December 1814. News of the treaty took time to reach the Gulf of Mexico. Jackson, of course, later made much of the battle, suggesting that if the British has won they would have abbrogated the Treaty and kept right on going. That, of course, satisfied both Jackson's ego and his own poltical needs. See Thomas Fleming's article in THE QUARTERLY JOUNRNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY, Winter 2001 issue, which repeats Jackson's claim without questioning it.

More relevant are the actual prior negotations at Ghent. The British had been claiming "uti possidetis" (i.e. the Americans have none of our territory but we have some of theirs - we keep it") and pressing for Indian automomy in the Northwest (i.e. Michigan Territory". The American negotiator, Henry Clay, refused any consideration of an autonomous Indian territory and insisted on "status quo ante bellum" (reversion to pre-war boundaries). That the British finally agreed to American conditions rather than press their own had nothing to do with what had happened so far on the battlefield. I quote from Pierre Berton, "Flames Across the Border, 1813-1814" (McClelland and Stewart, 1981):

"France is in turmoil; the preparations over the coming Congress of Vienna are unsatisfactory from a British point of view; the revolt in England against continuing the property tax is becoming alarming; rents are depressed. Britain has larger concerns - the balance of power in Europe being one - than the border war in North America. It is 'desirable to bring the American war if possible to a conclusion' Liverpool tells Castleeaugh. Parliament would violently oppose its continuance."

"If what Hugh says is accurate..." Do we have a credibility problem here ? For those who may believe nothing unless they read it on the internet, check http://www.britannica.com/seo/b/battle-of-...f-cryslers-farm OR http://www.britannica.com/seo/b/battle-of-...eenston-heights (can't seem to get into a Chateauguay site today)

[Craig]

Less:
Forgive me, if you will, for not already knowing what Hugh related in his post. You see, I had learned about the War of 1812 before those Evil Revisionists told us the whole story.

It certainly was a draw in regards to battles fought, relevance to war aims, etc. Yet something very vital had happened to the United States during the conflict. I always remember the point made by the author of "Dawn's Early Light"(I'm at work- can't remember the author or if that's the correct title, but DO remember the point). Before the war, people in the U.S. referred to the country's name in the plural,i.e. "The United States ARE..." whereas after the war, it was "The United States IS...". even though grammatically incorrect, the states had been perceived by the public as more solidified as a nation than ever before. Remember, more victories had been won in the 1812 conflict than in the Independence conflict. Ending it on a victory in New Orleans did wonders for the morale of the nation.
One outcome is certain. The frigate actions came as a bad shock to the British navy. While some may say that America did not win at sea, it CAN be said that no one expected them to gain as much as they did, and the conflict established the nation on a course toward eventual maritime supremacy.
It's interesting that this war is so misunderstood because of the propaganda of the times AND the myths established later. In this regard it is very similar to WW1. I know what the schools taught me were the causes and results of WW1, but I ponder what the reality was, and what might have been if the propaganda hadn't worked.

Very Best Regards,
Mark Daymont