Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for discussions of "who won the War of 1812"

[edit] Another question as to who won the war...

I have a riddle for you all. What do the Sino-Indian War, the First Italo-Ethiopian War, the Falklands War, the Gulf War and the War of 1812 all have in common? They all have a clear military victor. Don't get it? Let me explain to all those who cannot (or will not) wrap their minds around that fact.

The Sino-Indian War. China attacked and advanced, then a cease fire was called by both sides. End result, things returned to normal. China gained no land and are still considered the victors. The First Italo-Ethiopian War. Italy attacked Ethiopia, Ethiopia stops them. Ethiopia asserts its independence from Italian colonialism. Ethiopian victory. Falklands War. Argintina attacks Britain. Bitain retaliates and takes back its land. Quote "Decisive British military victory (status quo ante bellum)" (which is what I think war of 1812 page should say). Gulf war. Iraq takes land. Iraq pushed back. Kuwait liberaited, Saddam stays in power. Obvious coalition victory. War of 1812...blah blah blah...Obvious (to most) British military victory. I can run more precise parallels if someone wishes to challenge the similarites of these. I'm also not saying the US didn't gain but I'm saying, militarily, that the British won. Most other war pages have simply "X military victory", no political or diplomatic victory, just military, which I hope we can agree that the British did achieve.

I realize that these wars are not identical to the War of 1812 but they posses striking similarities in at least one aspect. It is because of those historic precidents that I say that the result section be replaced to say either what I suggested above or something along the lines of "(disputed) British military victory". I welcome discussion but saying any of those are "flawed comparisons" is irrelivant. There is no war identical to the War of 1812 but there are those that are similar, of which these are some. This is not a democracy, this is history. The majority opinion about something does not make it so. That is how injustices are created, when a majority oppresses a minority, and even more so when a minority are 100% right...Ok that s kinda silly but it still remains valid. I await your responses and if no one can convince me that the page should remain as-is, it will be changed (I am a resonable person).70.54.17.167 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the heading section and understand that no contributing editor will bother responding to this sort of thing again. --Tirronan (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the heading section and I feel I have presented new evidence. My source? Wikipedia. I have read no mention of these wars in archive 8 or 9 (I read someone said the falkland war comparison was flawed but that was it). I have read no suggestion to put disputed in front. I have heard no one ask why we are talking about other factors when the military aspect of the result should be British military victory. I also see no NPOV tag or disputed tag above this article when there have been enough people complain that there should be. If all of these have been addressed then please point me to them as I have looked and obviously have failed to see all of these points because you are more knowlegable of the discussion page. While your at it I would like to take a look at the definitave source that trumps all other sources that says that this was not a British military victory.70.54.17.167 (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. The Falkland War example is flawed....I don't recall us launching a counter invasion of Buenos Aires. In this article the result is far more complex, as the constant arguments indicate, so rather than present people with a flawed two or three word result, we instead state the unquestionable result (That the treaty returned everything to the status quo) and encourage people to read the article and make their own mind up as to who really won. Narson (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No they didn't launch a counter offensive against Buenos Aires..... and they still are considered the victors. Seems you are hurting yourself with that one. The result needn't be complex. It was a military victory for Britain, do you agree or disagree. I am not saying the US didn't gain some stuff, but militarily they lost, that is what should be reflected. In the falklands war you could say the Argintine people won the war because they overthrew a dictaorship three days later. That's great but they still lost militarily as is reflected by the article. Thank you for speaking to me properly and trying to answer one point of my many point argument btw. And wikipedia is a source on how to present information and facts in wikipedia.70.54.17.167 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood. The War of 1812 /started/ as a defensive war, then it manifested into something else unlike the Falklands, which was purely a defensive war. That was my point about invading Buenos Aires. If we had done so, the very nature of the war would have shifted. As it is, we launched an invasion of the United States and thus the goalposts shift somewhat. The result of a war is also not necessarily military in nature, certainly not in that period. The idea of 'Total War' as we have now (Where total destruction of the enemy is the only acceptable result) was not prevailant at the time. Britain won a majority of the military battles and ended the fighting of the war in possesion of American land. Yet we ended the war with no gains. The phrase 'Winning the war but losing the peace' comes to mind (though not quite accurate). As for sources, as many sources say it is a draw or even hint at American victory as say the British one, probably less sources say it was a British victory infact, as it is a fairly forgotten war in the UK so most of the writing is done by American historians. So we have what we have now, where we state the result and let people make up their own mind as to 'Who won'. It is an infobox, not an encyclopedia. Don't like the answer in the infobox? Read the article, make up your own mind. Narson (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a British submarine torpedoed an Argintine ship outside the 200 mile radius and the British did consider launching an attack on Argintine soil "in defence", although they didn't. I am sorry to say but any historian who says that the US won a military victory in the war of 1812 is the most biased unprofessional in the field, although I would still like to see definative sources that say the US won for some laughs. Again, the British won militarily, the US won "in spirit", which is something a soccer team tells themselves when they hold the other team to a goal or two victory. More writing is done by American historians furthur skewing the truth which is why it must be corrected here. "Britain won a majority of the military battles and ended the fighting of the war in possesion of American land." That means it was a British military victory from your own mouth. Winning the war but losing the peace = British military victory(status quo anti bellum). And also no doubt American readers will consider they won, Canadian readers will be outraged that its not a British victory and still consider they won, and British readers will not know the sacrifices that their fore fathers made to achieve a clear military victory. And I have made other arguments about this that don't seem to be getting addressed either.70.54.17.167 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, if Britain had launched an invasion of Buenos Aires and it succeded, as the invasion of Washington did, and burnt it to the ground then I think it would still be a British victory, even if they didn't take land. Also there is such a thing as scorched earth warfare. It was a strategy of many powers, not to conquer but just attack and do as much damage as possible and then retreat. This war seems to be the one exception to universal measurements as to who wins a war. Now that I think about it even more you guys really don't have a leg to stand on with this, but I look forward to your counter argument.70.54.17.167 (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already said it. Both sides achieved their war aims, so both sides won.GABaker (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

...You all seem to be sidestepping the issue of a MILITARY VICTORY. I cannot recall any page that does not list who won militarily. There are other pages that indicate what each side gained and lost but in the box it must say that Britain beat the US militarily.70.54.17.167 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And if you read the bit right next to your selection quoting, Anon, you will notice the bit about how wars arn't just about the military results. The war was a wash. We signed a treaty to that effect with the yanks almost 200 years ago, the Treaty of Ghent, which was the end result of the war. In the result we could put 'Treaty of Ghent' and then people can go to that article and read 'Status Quo Ante Bellum'. If a select group of canadian readers will be outraged, as you put it, I suggest they might consider that their country didn't exist and that the two Colonies of Canada were controlled by the UK, their beef over the inability of the UK to gain concessions should be addressed to the long dead Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, not on this page. Believe me, I would be more than happy if we had won the war and had taken Vermont and New Hampshire and maine, securing control of extra lobsters and maple syrup, but we didn't. The result of the war was a wash. Both sides got some of what they wanted. Both sides didn't get all of what they wanted. As for failing to recall any other war page that doesn't list military result? American Revolutionary War would be a good contemporary example. The result is not simple so we don't have a result. As I said before, that is an infobox. This is an encyclopedia, not a reference card system, so, read the whole article rather than just the infobox. Narson (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

May I tell you about the Sino-Indian war. They fought, China advanced then peace was called and they returned to their previous lines....and China won even though it gained nothing. Exact same thing happened here. I have read countless other articles that indicate who won militarily, why not this one? It more about article composition and layout than anything else now. It is irrelivent whether Canadians were a country or not (that is the last thing I want to start). I fight solely for history. The ARW page is pretty clear to me. Britain lost because America is indepedent. The reason there is no result like that is because two nation states were not fighting eachother. You are citing a non traditional war not between two powers but internal rebellions. Please cite a proper war. Many people don't have the time to read the article. They want a concise summary of the event. AND you are still sidestepping....70.54.17.167 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I would like to know if someone amongst you disagrees with the following statements. 1)The US were the agressors in the war. 2)The US were pushed back from their conquests. 3) Britain and her colonies won more battles than the US. 4)Britain took land from the US in their counter offensives. 5)Britain were very inefficent at the negociating table. If those statements are true then that means that 1) Britain won a military victory over the US and 2) that they lost the negociation war. That translates to British military victory with status quo ante bellum (sorry for my previous spelling) I don't see what is so hard about that. They lost militarily, they gained diplomatically hence, british military victory with status quo ante bellum and a link to results of the war of 1812... please tell me where I am wrong.70.54.17.167 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"military victory" is meaningless. The US won the military victory in Vietnam. so what? The soviets won the military victory in afghanistan. again, so what? military victory in the context of an entire war doesn't really tell the reader anything nor does it even really mean anything.Zebulin (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is infact so meanless I'm sure you will not object to it being put in the result section...lol. OK, Firstly you are again quoting non tradional wars. I would agree with you that if the US government was beaten and dissolved and there were no more official US armies just gurrilla forces scattered across the country side and the world recognized that Britain was the only occupier with no official opposition and then were forced to be driven out because of said gurrilla forces (takes breath), then the US rebels would be considered the victors (unless Britain set up a govenment of loyalists who managed to keep the country together and at Britain's side)...... but that was not even close to the case so why are we talking about it. As for Vietnam that is like comparing apples to a chesterfield. I am also not very familiar with that war but I think it is arguable they actually did win militarily. True they beat the Viet Cong (usually) when they emerged to fight but they really didn't win. They never took Hanoi and I don't think they ever breached the 17 parallel. Their air campaigns were not perticularly effective and they did not manage to stop NV from supporting the NLF. They could not train SV troops well enough and they lost moral and support because of all of those reasons. That is not the sign of a desicive military victory as the British achieved. You people are really not supporting your side as to why not put British military victory in the Result section. Arguments like "so what" are very childish. If no one can state why the Result section should not be changed other than "that's the way it's always been and there are more of us than you" then I am afraid I will seek out some sort of an arbitration. Consider what I ask, I ask only that British military victory be written. Not any other kind of victory. I am not being unreasonable and I am not seeking to rewrite history. I am not being childish and changing the result myself because I believe in diplomacy but you guys are not presenting a good case and answering my questions. You are infact tiptoeing around the issues and changing the subject. And thank you Narson for correcting the formatting earlier btw70.54.17.167 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not gotten any serious responses to my last couple of comments so that leads me to believe that one of two things are happening. 1) Everyone is doing reasearch in some form or another to counter my logic or 2) you are incapable of objecting to my logic because it is so air tight. I think I will go with the latter until I am told otherwise. Jks, but come on, we had a huge back and forth and then a tenth of that... Anyway lets sum up what has been discussed. I will admit who won the war is a complex issue and I am not claiming that anyside won. I may even go so far as to say that overall, the US did win. Maybe. That is for the people to decide on their own and we have a whole page explaining that. As for militarily, there can be no question the British and their colonies won. I believe if it says British Military Victory it will appease everyone. Links should be provided to results of the war of 1812, the treaty of ghent and status quo ante bellum as well, that way, all bases are covered and complexity of the result is not an issue. Unless someone objects and furthurs our discussion I will change it in a couple of days. I figure that will start a dialog again :-)70.54.17.167 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No-one is arguing the US solely won the war, I don't think. We have a result, one that doesn't tell half truths or give a short answer to a complex question. The only other option, IMO, is putting:

See this section or this section for details

Similar to the solution used in the Bismarck article due to the controversy over her sinking. The reason debate curtailed was the selective quoting and the fact we /have/ been over this god knows how many times and you arn't bringing anything new to the debate. Narson (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I still think you are purposely expanding this one issue to a large one, that of who actually won versus my smaller issue of a military victory, I commend you for proposing a change from the status quo (not the status quo in the result section, the status quo of how the article has always been). This also leads me to believe that a mere proposition of change of the article indicates that I /have/ brought something new to the table, whether it be arguments or simply the fact that I have a clear concise argument. At any rate this is progress and this is a possible solution, although I still don't think it is the best one for me or potential readers. I will give other people time to comment. Also, do you alone, Narson, have the ability to implement such a change, or must you confer with your clique or have you already? I must say though I don't understand the reluctance to put military victory when we seem to have established this. Is it because you think it is misleading or the Americans out there don't want to say they lost militarily anyway? I am quite confused about this one issue.70.54.17.167 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Acctually, my dislike of stupid one line answers to complex issues in infoboxes is a long term thing, not your influence I'm afraid...and there is no 'little clique', I have very little to no dealings with Tir or the others outside of this page (And it is generally considered bad form to accuse others of engaging in them). Why must we pick one or the other. Not only is it misleading to put a British military victory (As people may make the same mistake you seem to believe in, that the military outcome is the result of a war) but also it will raise ire in the American editors. We clearly document in the article the various campaigns and their military result, there is no need to duplicate the info in the campaign box where it could be misleading. This is a long standing consensus so, really, more than 'I think so' is required (And honestly, thats all you have provided other than other wikipedia articles....no MOS or other guidelines that encourage it etc). If someone is willing to go through and provide overwhelming sources claiming that the result was a British Military Victory, rather than drawing the conclusion of a status quo or various similar results....then they should provide it. N.B. I said that my suggestion was the only other alternative I considered vaguely acceptable now, not a preferred alternative. It is a long long way in second place at the moment. You could try and get Tir or one of the others to back you up, you don't need my approvel or consent or assent or any such. Narson (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fat chance of that happening, hell I am an American and I think America lost that one but if asked to prove it, sheesh... The problem is reading the British side THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY COULD WIN IT EITHER. Which makes the argument rather mute. Argue till the pits of hell come but both sides sat down and signed because by their own evaluations this was a war with no end in sight with nothing to gain by continued fighting. Then there is that irritating fact that neither side every really had a complete military defeat of the other in mind in the 1st place but were playing for chits in a forseen negoiated settlement. --Tirronan (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen any of you even suggest a possible change to the way the article is now which is what lead me believe that I had presented a better case than the others in the first place but I guess I was wrong so I apologize. Now, I by no means called it a "little" clique. It is by all logic a moderatly sized clique, and I do not subscribe to that school of thought, that of "that it is bad form to accuse" I maintain it is a clique by definition whether you acknowledge it or not. Now let me try and clear some things up. Firstly I do not believe that the military outcome /is/ the result of the war (if anything it should be the other way around IMO). I have been preaching from the beginning that they are independent of one another. Have you read all my posts? That is why I proposed a military only victory and not simply "victory" or "decisive victory". I have searched the MoS but, to my knowledge, they don't have a specific guideline for this, so I am simply presenting evidence that the rest of wikipedia goes by these "unofficial" guidelines so we should too.

No need to duplicate the info?!:?!?!?! That is the only reason the box exists, to sum up and duplicate the info..... you will have to explain that one to me. It is misleading now to non-American editors and it would not be misleading to indicate who won militarily because it is the accepted truth. We have already come to a concensus for that, havn't we. It also may "raise ire" amongst the American editors... so they come before all other editors?!?!?! And I have indicated guidelines for the box where they indicate who won militarily. I submit to you, sir, that the wording now raises ire amongst everyone else. I just re-re-read the article from top to bottom and I also submit to you sir, that the mere fact the British did ask for land (coupled with the fact that the US did not ask for land [because they controlled none]) indicates the British did see themselves as the victors (be it an ever so slight victory) and the Americans the losers. They couldn't follow through at the table but that is independent of the field of battle. Narson you, in a previous post, said that "the goal posts shifted" because the British went on the offense. I submit to you that they did not, not entirely that is. They counter attacked and did some stratigic attacks and raids (Washington), but they did not go on any sort of large-scale offensive per-se. But that is irrelevent. Narson, you are the only person who is being polite about this. Everyone else is either saying "so what", "fat chance" or downright refusing to answer my guideline centered questions. Again I have browsed the archives and I don't recall anyone speaking about guidelines. Your other proposed solution is not what I had in mind either but I say it is a start that we are talking. I doubt I will ever get the consent of another editor. I am increasingly thinking that if all other editors refuse to give even an inch I will have to be forced to find other alternatives for a solution. Lastly @ Tirronan. See this para as to how the British felt they were doing in this war (demanding land and such). I will admit that Britain absolutly didn't want to continue the war because there were a gazillion more pressing matters at hand, making them hurry to get a peace, but that in no way diminishes their military victory.70.54.16.238 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are misunderstanding wikiterms again :) By guidelines I am referring to wiki style etc. guidelines, rather than other articles (Which form a precedent but, wikipedia articles are not precedents for the others....it is a weird bureaucratic wiki-world). If you cede that the military result is not the result of the war, why have it in the result box of a war? Now, for the campaigns and battles? Most should indeed read as British victories in the result box (Not sure if they do, I havn't looked /that/ far into the other articles). As for raising ire, well, this compromise reduces disruption on the page itself (By not raising the ire of the Americans just to make a point), sticks to what most sources we currently use indicate....the compromise that you see in the infobox (The treaty) has the benefit of being accurate, not /overly/ disruption baiting and true to sources. I can understand the frustration in not seeing something you think should be there in the page, and believe me, many things would be different if I got to write wiki the way I wanted, however, we all have to work within guidelines and policies for the well being of the project. I'd suggesting trying a few content edits, creating an account and getting involved in less...contentious...discussions. THen you'll quickly learn about the wiki guidelines and policies...not to mention likely find sources to back you up. Narson (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I already mentioned I checked wiki manual of style and its specific extensions (namely infoboxes). I was looking solely for what information to put in info boxes. The info box page was not helpful because it didn't say specifically what to put in the Result section of a war template. It gave general guidelines but not specifics for Results. Maybe I missed it somewhere and if a specific guideline for this particluar debate exists I would adhere to it (how I interpreted it that is :) ). But as far as I can tell it dosen't so I am simply citing the tradition already established by countless other wiki pages. Why have it in the result box you ask? Good question. Because it makes up a part of the war and the result. It is informing you of key aspects of this conflict. It indicates how the peace process was won by American negociators. Those are the principal things people want to see. The military aspect and the gains and losses aspect. There are no set number of things that can be included in the result section. In the ACW there are lots of diffrent results. Abolisment of slavery, reconstruction and Union victory. I do see where you are coming from but some things to note. No one, at least not me, is trying to anger American readers. Although I know full well that such a change would solicit negative reactions from some of the more vocal Americans. I see this compromise as still being overly generous to the American side though. It is just kinda wrong to not say something because it will anger people. It not like a giant injustice is going on but bowing down to appease the majority shouldn't happen. I also don't think it is particularly accurate to completely ingnore the military aspect. It's like a half truth or something I can't quite put my finger on it. And yes, it is frustrating. I read sportic posts by people from the past who want to have the result changed, then 3-4 users come down on them and tell them that it is not going to be changed and they fade away, not to say they don't deserve it (total British military victory isn't right either), but I feel if I had a team behind me I would be getting furthur. It's just that the infobox is clearly important thats why so many people complain. It should be irrelevent if Americans complain and change it though. I'm sure the holocaust page gets vandilised all the time but there is no way that page is going to be changed to appease the holocaust-never-existed minority. I'm not trying to equate this to the holocaust or say this is more important in any way btw, just using an example. And I have been a long time reader of wiki and I often read the discussions (because I find sometimes they say things more clearly than in the page itself) so I like to think I have an understanding of policies. As far as involving myself in other topics I'm afraid I would have nothing to contribute..... so I can devote all my time to this page :)70.54.16.238 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Even trying to argue that this was a pure military victory would be open to lots of argument, for ever victory there was a defeat with the only resounding success being the blockade and even that ended only so so. Anytime you try to say one side or the other was winning you have a battle of platsburg ect where the other side retreated for no apparent reason. I have litterally had to force myself to read the Canadian campaigns as the are the most half assed sorry excuses for logistics planning or operations to the extent that they read like a banana republic war. Sorry I just can't support that argument. --Tirronan (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you interpreted the information the way you did. That kind of thought is why it should say to people "Britain won militarily", for the people who are biased and refuse to acknowledge that. They literally have to be told that they lost and smack them in the face with it. I find it particularly interesting you thought the Canadian campaigns were the worst of the British Empire's battles. They were the battles where they were out numbered by the yanks without experience or training and they still managed to push them back to American soil. Too bad the US got beaten by some of "the most half assed sorry excuses for logistics planning or operations". If you think that those were the campaigns where the Brits preformed worst you should seriously re-read the article. The point of military victory is only open to argument from the American side, where the US military can always win militarily but loses the peace. This is the exact opposite scenario and I think some people will try to evade the truth. Just randomly this http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/19thcentury/articles/militaryhistoryofwarof1812.aspx [43] source agrees with me as well as thestraightdope of the top of my head. I will find other sources to confirm a military only victory if need be but I'd rather not have to because anyone who reads the article (and dosen't have a pre-existing bias) would come to that conclusion so it's just easier to sum it up for people in the box. There were more American deaths and there were more battles won by GB, as well as land held by GB. Those are basically the only things that determine the victor militarily and they literally define who wins militarily so there can be no serious question about it, unless someone would like to prove me wrong (which I have a feeling a "half-assed" attempt will be made at it). I have re thought about my demands and now maintain that I will accept nothing less than "British Military Victory" being included in the results section no matter what else is put there. There is not a single valid or logical reason why it shouldn't be like that. FYI at " The Battle of Plattsburgh" they had to retreat because they lost the naval engagement (a rare occurance late in the war).70.54.16.238 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to both sides but for the 1st 2 years of the war in the Canadian Campaign the faults I was mentioning was mainly on the US side. Military operations were just flat sorry, command control worse and logistics all but laughable. However saying one side of this rather complex war had these problem is in fact even more problematic. We give you General Hull who surrendered a fort with twice the numbers of the attacking force with hardly a shot being fired. We have the mightly General Dearborn who wasn't the least bit better. However Brock was the only General that was worth much on the British side of the Canadian campaigns and with his death things got worse. Anytime you get to making much over the this however you get the Battle of Lake Erie and the Battle of Lake Champlain, the 2nd being worse in someways than General Hull's idiocacy, you take 10,000 battle hardened troops then watch your naval squadron get defeated then run away leaving your sick and wounded to a force 1/3 your size mostly of American Militia. There are equally bad examples on the British side. Then you have the Burning of Washington followed by the serious defense of Baltimore and again a rather ignominous retreat. Adm. Cockburn seemed to be able to defeat undefended hamlets and the American militia that formed just hours before the battle of bannenburg but seemed lost when fighting properly led and motivated American troops. As General Wellington pointed out despite the taking of the undefended Astook Valley they couldn't even clear the upper Canadian point of entry of the American forces. I've got some news for you, I really think that the US lost this one but what I think doesn't matter, its what I would have to prove and that evidence is sorely lacking by most of the major historians that have covered it. After reading the sources I have come to understand why. Every single time I went to point to a US and/or British reason for claiming victory here was a-b-c why I couldn't say so. --Tirronan (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't even have a source that says that the war of 1812 was a "military victory" for one and now you're going to demand the article describe it as such? You opened this troll/rant whatever it is with reference only to other wikipedia articles. Have you looked at the Korean War infobox?Zebulin (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I just mentioned two sources that claim military victory (well one claims overall victory, but that's not what I'm pushing), in addition to the logics that I previously stated (more battles won, enemies killed, and land held for the British). It is a widly accepted fact to all but the most patriotic and/or ill-informed Americans. The Korean war??????? I hadn't realised that one side had beaten the other..... oh wait that war is still on-going. The award for worst reference goes to.......I can't read it........Zebulin. Congrats man. Anyway no one has proved any points as to why it shouldn't be that way. I said it before, no wiki guideline exists for this type of thing so I am using the only other references I have, other wiki pages. You guys (generally) are being pretty think headed about this. Just levying counter claims of non-sense against me when the only half logical answers you've given are that it would offend Americans to put British military victory and it may be a little misleading. Both of which are steeped in the utmost of irrelevance. I'll give more time for counter-arguments however please inform yourself of the recent conversations before making claims of lack of sources and citations....gute Nacht70.54.16.238 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That bloc of text with it's two non sources was in fact exactly what I was referring to. Your http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com source has many problems. It stumbles straight out of the gate by citing this very war of 1812 wikipedia article we are discussing as it's first source. Wikipedia articles can't use a source who cites that same wikipedia article as their source to improve that same Wikipedia article. This would-be source uses wikipedia articles for roughly half it's references. All of the authors conclusions about "victory" appear to be original unsourced conclusions which would need to stand on the credentials of the author, which given his choice of sourcing would appear to be about as credible as a random blog. note that MHO expressly refuses to vouch for the content of the article. You've already noted that the straight dope article doesn't discuss this notion of military victory. and even in terms of victory it hardly offers an unambiguous answer. It's main source supporting that conclusion is the Hickey quote: If the causes of the war are unclear, so too are the consequences. The United States has won most of its wars, often emerging with significant concessions from the enemy. But the War of 1812 was different. Far from bringing the enemy to terms, the nation was lucky to escape without making extensive concessions itself. hardly a clear source for citing a "military victory"Zebulin (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A larger issue is, what purpose does including original synthesis commentary in an infobox really serve? How are results like "military victory" even defined for a war? How can we make any such definition meaningfully useful for comparison across multiple info boxes? The obvious safest route is to place the most specific information possible in the result field and avoid general terms entirely. The other wikipedia articles originally offered would be well served by having such general terms removed from their respective infoboxes.Zebulin (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You raise some good points about that source. Whilst I agree that it can't be the sole basis for such a claim I don't think it should be completely ignored. That person is studying history in university. But you are right I will find some other sources when I have some time. As for what pupose it serves to include such a statement in the infobox, I believe it would actually improve the specifics. It specifies one aspect of the war that is IMO lacking. As the other aspects of the war seem to be specified in the infobox, this aspect should be treated with equal rights. And I disagree that the other pages should have "general terms" removed. They just go to sum up one particular thing which is a convienient way to relay information. As for how a military victory can be defined, I already gave some criteria (battles won, casualties inflicted and land held) but maybe there are others that would factor in to the equation. I'm being serious if any of you can think of more factors I would like to hear them to determine if it was infact an undisputed (albeit slight) military victory or closer to a complete stalemate. The scale is very tight so maybe a particular factor would be enough to not quite call it a british military victory. We are talking general terms for determining who wins militarily not specifics to this war necissarily. Sorry it took me so long to answer I feel a bit under the weather today.70.54.16.238 (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

More or less arbitrarily choosing criteria to define "military victory" on an article by article basis will destroy whatever value providing such information is meant to have as nobody will know what standard or definition is being used. We already show casualties in the infobox, why not add the specific information you would like to use to define "military victory" directly? surely it would be better to say how much land was occupied at the end of the war elsewhere in the infobox than to simply say "British military victory" and leave the reader guessing? One problem that should be apparent is that "military victory" does not in fact represent a "result" by some of the definitions you gave. For instance land occupied would fluctuate through the war and would not reflect the "result" in any sense unless the war happened to end with Uti possidetis. What information exactly is it you would like to convey with your military victory addition?Zebulin (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In campaigns in key territory, the defenders won--both U.S. and British. The war itself was status quo ante bellum. I still say it was a double victory, because both sides accomplished their war aims.GABaker (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol........ok first the criteria I chose arn't "arbitrary". They are what people always use to define who won a military victory in every traditional war. These criteria arn't used obviously if there is a clear victor like in say, WWII where there was a very obvious victor due to dissolutions of governements and peace treaties enforced on nations. I said if I was forgetting a criteria also used to define a military victor, to please point it out. If you can't think of any that means that those are the only criteria that dictates who militarily wins a war. Nothing arbitrary about it. Most articles don't have fervent nationals looking out to make sure that nothing bad is thrown out there for everyone to be told that their country lost something or did something bad. As for "why not add the specific information you would like to use to define "military victory" directly? surely it would be better to say how much land was occupied at the end of the war elsewhere in the infobox than to simply say "British military victory" and leave the reader guessing?", well then that would make everything too specific. I've said this a couple of times now so to all reading take note. The infobox is there to sum up a conflict/battle/whatever else. It provides a very quick summary of causes, results, casualties and other more general things. I am saying that there should be a military result there no matter what. Other pages such as the Iran Iraq war have the military result as stalemate because they abosolutly couldn't break the others lines and depleat the other country sufficiently to extort a favourable peace. If you truely think that Stalemate should be there as part of the military aspect then make a case for it. If you got support from the rest of the so-called moderators of this page then I bet you could enforce that. It would obviously be wrong because the British were still taking towns and making military offensives but you can try and I bet you might succeed. This whole page has just omitted what every other traditional war page has. They don't source who is the military victor. Its just a known fact just like it should be here. It just like the reason America doesn't have universal healthcare. Because Republicans say that if you "socialize" healthcare then you are on a slippery slope to communism. That of course is not true even a shade but people think it is. Just like if you say US didn't lose militarily. It's not true but if you say it enough then people believe it is. Not a very good example but I wanted to throw in how I feel about healthcare :). "What information exactly is it you would like to convey with your military victory addition?" I want to convey that the British won a military victory. What a difficult question to answer... And what do you think the reader will have to guess about by putting British military victory? They will be told something obvious. They object? They read the article and find out why it was a British military victory. There is much more to be guessed about by readers by not putting anything. British military victory is a result. I don't know what definitions you are refering to but I will clarify them for you if you require. @ GABaker. You are being too generous with the Americans defence of their country. The British did and were still making gains on their if I may say, weak, counter attacks and minor offensives (furthur indicating who was winning the war). If the war had gone on any longer and Britain put even more troops in North America and truely dedicated itself it would have started looking even worse. Anyway you sound like a broken record stating that they both achieved some but not all of their war aims (even though in reality America achieve none on paper, they are just lucky it turned out like that). Britain didn't achieve any either except the defence of Canada. Again though, that is irrelevent (how many times have I used the word irrelevent?). I am talking strictly military so please lets confine our scope to that. I will have to delay my search for sources though. The internet is full of pro-America propaganda. I almost thought America had completely won for a minute. I will have to go to the library when I have the time maybe contact some professors at UofT to write up a paper or something. I souldn't need a source for logic but I obviously am for this. P.S. This was an awfly long post wasn't it? And would you like it more if I got an account of should I just comment like this?70.54.16.238 (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just letting anyone who is concerned(...) know that I have not gone away and have not looked for sources yet as I have been too busy to go to the library but I plan to go soon. Of course you guys could help me out :). Anyway I have gotten the last word in and no one has commented back in defence so I guess I've won this argument. (I'm sure that will solicit some responses.) As soon as I find a source or two I'll change the box post-haste70.54.16.238 (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to put this page on my watch list. The infobox is there for specific, easily summarised and unoriginal information. It's certainly not there for commentary of any kind. "military victory" is a nebulous phrase that certainly doesn't have a set definition and is precisely the sort of thing that should not appear in an infobox. The word stalemate doesn't appear in the infobox so I'm not going to use any of your time propping up that strawman. We might be better served postponing continuation of this debate until you have listed the sources you're finding. This will give a better sense of how if at all we could use the ideas you're offering to improve the article.Zebulin (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the result to this war should be changed to "British military victory" but "Political stalemate" on the following grounds:

British military victory: Nearly all the aims of the American war department failed in some sense or another.
Invasion of Canada for expansion of the republic's territories: This failed very miserably, and suffered numerous defeats at Queenston, Crysler's Farm, Chateaguay and Lacolle Mills. The US could not push into Canada and suffered more defeats than victories.
Preventing invasion of the United States: This also failed. Though the invasion of the northern states was turned back at Plattsburgh, the British invaded Virginia, which resulted in the Burning of Washington, despite being outnumbered. The British also launched an invasion of the southern states, though the attack on Louisiana failed at New Orleans, the British launched a new offensive against Mobile, which saw some success at Fort Bowyer but then the peace treaty ended the war.
Blockade of the United States: The British blockade, despite the over-celebrated victories of huge 50 gun frigates facing small 36 gun frigates, continued despite the American opposition. Much of the American navy was destroyed at the end of the war, and the blockade had a stranglehold on the American economy which devastated agricultural imports. Due to the blockade, the British could raid the coast at will and land armies at will.
Impressment of sailors into the Royal Navy: This did not stop until Napoleon's final defeat in June 1815, despite popular belief.
Support of tribes: Probably the only objective succeeded for the US, the Battle of the Thames resulted in his death, and thus the collapse of his dream of a united Indian nation.

A reason why this can be labelled as a British military victory could include the following:

The successful blockade of the United States
The invasion of Canada was repulsed
The British launched several invasions of the USA at will
Washington was burnt to the ground by British troops
The Americans surrendered an entire army at Detroit, they surrendered Mackinack Island, at Beaver Dams, Fort Niagara and Fort Bowyer. They lost the battles that were important, except for the Thames.
The impressment of sailors did not stop until the war with Napoleon was totally over in June 1815.
Most of the American Navy was destroyed, and the US army suffered heavy defeats.

In my opinion, since it is American historians doing most of the writing for this war, then it is bound to come out as a draw, or hints at an American victory, for some unjustified reason. Therefore, I believe, that after 100 years, the British should finally get a say in the outcome of this war.

I believe, due to how the war was going, the British could have easily won the war if the Treaty of Ghent had not been signed. I can't see how the war is a draw, considering how many PRIMARY objectives had been failed, and the fact that the British were invading all over the United States throughout the war, the US couldn't even defend its own borders. Obviously someone is going to mention the Battle of New Orleans, probably the only impressive American victory of the war and use that as a justification for victory, despite the fact that the British had invaded Mobile more than a month after New Orleans had occurred. By political stalemate, I mean the lobbying by both sides for a truce should go on those grounds. The result box could include "British Military victory", "Political Stalemate" and a link to this thread for discussion. (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

It's all been said before Trip. As a first step let's identify your sources and we could quote their analysis in the outcome/results sections. One problem is you identify primary objectives that there is no source for and for which we have sources explicitly disavowing those objectives on both sides of the conflict. I'm referring to the US plans to annex Canada as a war aim foremost among these. The war was a means to an end and annexing Canada does not appear to have been one of those ends.Zebulin (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody above has provided any kind of sources, and my source is Wikipedia. Why else would the US invade Canada? For a laugh? To prove that it could invade? It had a desire to expand the territory of its republic. Taking Canada was essential to the US war strategy. It failed, miserably, which qualifies as a British military victory, especially on the ground that Britain finished the war holding American territory too. What if I added in to the result, British military victory, political stalemate and a link to this thread for discussion? (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also a link to a talk page from an article is bad form, I believe. Trust me, if there were sources for it, I'd have it reading that the British kicked the red-headed step child America up one side of the continent and down the other, but that just isn't what we see. There is confusion over the US war aims, even from primary sources, so it becomes more difficult to assertain whether they achieved them. If we look at the war aims of the British, for example, they seemed to be some half assed belief they could put an end to the 'American question' among some at Horseguards. THey obviously failed in this. It is a complicated and mostly forgotten war, so historians will still be shuffling this one around long after we are done here. Until they make a call, we can't. Narson (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah but, that is further linked to "Caffery, Kate pgs 101-104", which is the source for my information. So, the war aims listed ARE the war aims of the United States. It failed in every one of them, except for destroying Tecumshe's confederacy, which it did succeed in. Britian's primary war aim was to defend Canada, which succeeded with flying colours. It also burnt washington to the floor, which was another psychological victory for the British. We finished the war holding American territory, and had their economy at a stranglehold. I think the best bet at this point in time, is to list it as a "Disputed British victory" and link it to this discussion. (Trip Johnson (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Any result that has to link to a bunch of anonymous amateurs mumbling on a talk page will never be acceptable. Narson (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just found evidence on how this war could be classed as a victory for Britain. The United States has been included in the Napoleonic Wars on the grounds that they purchased the Louisiana Territory, aided the French Empire and fought Great Britain. Therefore, since all powers fighting the Coalition lost the war, the United States lost the War of 1812. There is no denying it on that account. (Trip Johnson (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

You're using wikipedia as a source again.Zebulin (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because everywhere else is written by American historians saying "The war was a draw but in effect because of New Orleans the United States won". Its a load of twaddle. If Wikipedia is so unreliable, whats the point of having it online? How do we know that the war was a draw? If I did cite a reference I had in mind, it would be deleted anyway saying it is an unreliable source, so with all these pro-America New Orleans fanatics, its hard to actually get a say in the matter. I never used Wikipedia for a source that the US was strategically defeated on the grounds that their war aim of invading Canada failed because its global-wide knowledge that it DID fail. Therefore they were defeated. There is no denying that claim. They also lost their capital city, an event which was considered drastic by European standards. I say that "Britisih Strategic victory, Tactical Draw" SHOULD STAND as it is in the Result box, since technically it was a draw tactically but a strategic victory for Britain on the grounds that the US war aim failed. I do have a source, but everyone will only go and say its not a good source just to get out of the fact the US was defeated in this war. I'll re-add what I did add to the results box, and cite the reference, if people don't like it then DISCUSS IT before changing it. (Trip Johnson (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

Until you present a verifiable source, any additions to the article on the matter of who won the war are original research and unacceptable. Editorial decisions are made by consensus, so you will have to convince other editors that your source is reliable. Your addition to the article has been reverted in the meantime. Sunray (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The source you presented seems to be, at least to me, reliable (The author doesn't appear to have studied history but does appear to have been recognised as being knowledgable with the grant of honorary degrees). The issue you have is that it clearly says in its first paragraph (The 'lead section' if you will, which is basically what the Infobox here is helping, info at a glance) that the war was a stalemate. The procedure is Edit -> Revert -> Discuss, so lets keep this on the discussion page for now. It is not Edit -> Revert -> Edit -> Discuss, in that way lies edit wars. Narson (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More to the point Trip, you insert things in articles without any supporting citations or sources not just this one but others and then demand that no one change it without the discussion that you yourself didn't partake of... So that you know I myself think that America lost that war, I think that Narson does as well but he will have to speak for himself. What you are seeing here is a consenus that there isn't enough historic proof to make that declaration. Reading Lloyd George's instructions to his negoiators, and both of Wellington's letters, as well as popular British newspapers at the time makes me very aware of just how sick unto death the UK was with this war and the US didn't enjoy it even slightly more, add to that fact that Madison was willing to continue the war rather than give up territory and things don't look at all clear anymore. There is no point at which you can point and say its all a victory on one side or the other. The 1st 2 years of the Canadian operations were horrid from the US perspective and yet became pretty good later often fighting British regulars to draws or winning. The sea wars went the other way but still no major gains were ever made on either side. Tirronan (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

He's interpreting the Hickey position which I myself expound. As an American I would say that I would be biased to claim a US victory, but I think the evidence speaks for itself "What did the war accomplish? Although militarily the conflict ended in a draw, in a larger sense it represented a failure for Republican [Madison's party] policy makers. The nation [US] was unable to conquer Canada or to achieve any of the maritime goals for which it was contending. Indeed these issues were not even mentioned in the peace treaty, which merely provided for restoring all conquered territory and returning to the status quo ante bellum." You can also consider other factors as well: 1. Bladensburg/Washington DC sacked; 2. Public finances in disarray; 3. sectionalist (Federalist) discontent with the war has the country teetering on secession (Hartford Convention)

To call this war the Second War for Independence is SPIN and nothing more because to do so would be to imply an American victory by the sheer fact that the United States remained independent. To call this war anything other than a US loss is to put your head in the sand.

It is also a clear indication of the inherent weakness of the 'states' rights' camp. When state governors are telling the Federal President that state militia will not operate outside of the state; nor cross into Canada; it seriously calls into question the ability of the early Republic to act cohesively for any purpose.Cw1865 (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC) According to Donald R. Hickey, author of 'The War of 1812 - A Forgotten Conflict' the war between the US and the UK, from the US perspective, was a tactical draw and a strategic failure inasmuch as the object of the war was to compel the British to agree to maritime concessions that the Treaty of Ghent obviously did not address. I quote, "The nation [United States] was unable to conquer Canada or to achieve any of the maritime goals for which it was contending."

Vis-a-vis the United States and the Native Americans in the Northwest and Southwest (19th century NW and SW for purposes of clarity), the United States prevailed and I quote "The war also broke the power of the Indians in the Northwest and the Southwest...In the peace negotiations at Ghent, Great Britain failed to secure a permanent reservation for the Indians, leaving them at the mercy of an expansive people determined to engross lands up to and even beyond the Mississippi."

Obviously from a Canadian point of view, simply preventing annexation is a victory inasmuch as it was (at the very least) a tactical objective of the United States.

From the point of view of the British, the war is, quite literally a footnote in their struggle against Napoleon - "The overriding objective of the British government was to secure the defeat of France, and all else was subordinated to this aim. Britain's policy, in other words, was preeminently European. Her aim was not to subvert American independence, but to win the war in Europe. Once this objective was achieved, her infringements [impressments, etc.] on American rights would cease." - And cease the British did, but not because the United States forced them to, but because Britain no longer needed to continue the policy in light of France's defeat. In this respect, Britain wins the war inasmuch as the American sideshow did not seriously threaten victory against Napoleon (and they continued to hold Canada)

Since this is the discussion board it might be noted that the United States, in the prosecution of the war, actually occupies part of Spanish West Florida (those two thin portions of Mississippi and Alabama that border the Gulf of Mexico). Obviously at the time Spain is in turmoil and is obviously occupied with Napoleon's invasion but is an ally of the British who actually occupy Pensacola en route to New Orleans. While its a stretch to say that the United States defeated Spain in the War of 1812, its true that the only true territorial acquisition by the United States was at the expense of Spain. Cw1865 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would leave the Hartford Convenion alone as it was nothing close to session and most of the elder representatives went with the express concern of keeping the hot heads out of trouble. In any case why this war is so tough to call a victor is just that, You can count Bladensburg but then you have to call Platsburg as well. You can balance the burning of Washington (which was more a measure of Armstrong's incompetence than Blazing British victory, but if you do then make the same check against Baltimore and New Orleans. When serious defense was offered then things failed pretty quickly. Also understand that both sides really just wanted an end to the war, the American's went into it expected to be defeated and thus went to war with dread, when they were still hanging in there 3 years later I think it was a shock. The other thing that gets talked up was that the US couldn't enforce the end of impressment by the Royal Navy, regardless of the treaty I have two sources that talk directly to the fact that the RN went to great pain to not impress American ships during the 100 days. Whatever may be said of the war America had proved it could be a royal pain in the ass if she decided to be.

The Hartford Convention is what it is, its simply a symbol of sectional discontent. Notwithstanding, you have to weigh many factors. Personally I look at the following factors: 1. the poor state of the nation's finances and economy (British blockade); 2. inability to project land power into Canada. I tend to discount Plattsburg and New Orleans for a very simple reason, it wasn't the purpose of the war to defend US territory, the British weren't agitating for territory.Cw1865 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But what really interested me the most about this war was not who won or lost, but how it changed the relationship between Britain and America permanently, note that not once was there a serious threat of war between the nations ever again. When a Civil War era General of Irish decent was stirring up trouble in Canada using American bases, the American War Department stepped on the bases and the General PDQ. This at a time when the US was strong enough to have thumbed a nose at Britain if it so desired. Tirronan (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"note that not once was there a serious threat of war between the nations ever again." - depends how you define 'serious' - there remained antagonisms with the British with respect to the boundary in Maine (not particularly serious), over the boundary in Oregon Territory (the whole 59 50 or fight! slogan during Polk's presidency (more serious) and right after the Trent Affair during the US Civil War (probably the most serious because this was a potentially macrohistorical eventCw1865 (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. Sunray (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Even then, there seemed to be a rush to a negoiating table, and again the US gave up the British representatives pretty quickly and with appologies, again pointing to the fact that the respective countries had earned a certain respect in one another's eyes at the least. Tirronan (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatically, the US fared much better than it deserved considering the circumstances when the Treaty was negotiated, albeit the repulse at New Orleans probably would've resulted in the same terms.Cw1865 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, New Orleans was not the crushing defeat it is often made out to be, yes some brass died, but reinforcements moved up. The British /could/ have maintained the siege with the fresh troops but instead decided to move to Alabama to cause some mischief there. As for the British not wanting terratory well....I'm sure some people thought about it. Especially considering the aristocracy ran the military and I am sure many of the wealthy military families either had entitlement to land in the thirteen colonies or were owed land or were just hoping for a nice big grant from the king should they secure one of the colonies back for the crown. While taking land permanently may not have been a war aim, there was certainly an attempt to ensure the fighting took place on American soil and at least temporarily to take some portion of the thirteen colonies back. Narson (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the odds and numbers involved in the expedition, 2000+ casualties out of an 11,000 man expeidition, New Orleans was certainely a defeat. Yes, the British retreat to Mobile, AL - but before the war this was owned by Spain, in this sense, the British aren't going there to cause 'mischief' per se. If the Treaty of Ghent hadn't been signed and the British had taken New Orleans, that would've been a major bargaining chip at the negotiating tables....Mobile? Wouldn't rate in 1812...Cw1865 (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status quo ante bellum.

'Status quo ante bellum' does not describe the outcome of this war. Americans may have noticed that at the start of the war they had a White House and at the end they didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.13.95 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Then what's that big building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

The British didn't get Baltimore, however. The Cheseapeake campaign was a successful raid, but nothing more.GABaker (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this goes to the who won the war section please take that discussion there. --Tirronan (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved here. Sunray (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)