I do not believe it is silly that we have this discussion 200 hundred years later, I believe it is a interesting subject that all good people of good will can have a rational discussion about. The other important reason is that we can all maybe can learn something from the discussion. As you pointed out, it depended on who wrote the history of the events that determined who won or who lost. As to my mentioning Canada/British, there were large numbers of volunteer fencible regiments raised in Canada, these were not professional soldiers like the British. I believe this an important point since it demonstrated that the settlers in Canada did not wish to be conquered by the Americans. Another historical point is that many of these fencibles were originally from America that left after the American Revolution. In Canada they were called United Empire Loyalist who came to Canada following the revolution because of threat to their liberty and safety ( they were on the loosing side in the revolution). I agree the Natives were the big loosers, especially in the America, in Canada they were given sanctury and treaties, which they have to this day. But even in Canada they did not win much. Canada did not win independence from Britain by revolution although there were some rebellions that pushed Britain to give more self rule to Canada. As a Canadian I am proud of the fact that we achieved our independence in a rather peaceful maner. Cheers, Joe from Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Gaddis" <rongaddis@neb.rr.com> To: <WARof1812-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: [WARof1812] Winner-Loser & Causes > It is a bit silly that after nearly 200 years are we still debating over > who > won this war. > > In this "current exchange", I think no one has recognized that neither > side > really won much of anything....not the Brits nor the Yanks. The gain for > both > sides was mainly psychological and whipped up by the leaders who felt > obliged > to point out that there really were advantages reaped by making the > sacrifices > endured. > > Too, this seems a fitting example of the glass half-full or half-empty > situation. > > While there were no real winners (or if you wish...two winners, each in > their > own ways), there is no doubt that there was a big loser, the Native > Americans. > > Has someone already mentioned that the US felt the control of the entire > area > then known as the "Northwestern Territory", gained from Great Britain > during > the Revolutionary War, was under threat of being controlled again by the > British? It seems the Brits enjoyed very profitable trade (furs etc.) > with the > Indians of that region and knew this trade would be lost if the area was > settled. It was claimed, that the Indians were furnished with weapons by > the > British and encouraged to rise up against the settlers in order to prolong > the > prosperity derived from the trade. So, the Native Americans were allied > with > the British, for the most part, and while they did win some battles and > help > win some others, their participation in the fights gave perfect excuse to > completely subjugate them when, in the final analysis, they were soundly > defeated. > > I am not sure why a current day Canadian would distinguish between > Canadian > forces and those of Great Britain during the War of 1812? Today there is > a > difference between Canadian and British. However, back in those days, > "Canadians" were out and out British subjects to a dimension not felt at > all > today in a country that is completely self-ruled and has been for a number > of > years. Canada did not rebel against the Crown. We in the USA did that. Is > the > distinction made between local British citizens/subjects in a militia as > opposed to regular British troops from the homeland? > > One list member reported that many Americans (here meaning citizens of the > U.S.A.) were living in certain portions of Canada at the time? Were they > just > visiting in Canada? Working there in 1812? Were they American > sympathizers? > Were they considered foreigners waiting to become British subjects again? > There > were many Loyalists who decided to move to locations where their prior > political choices were unknown after the Revolutionary War. They were on > the > losing side and feared or knew that neighbors would not always be > completely > kind to them. Some went to other states or territories within the US and > some > chose to go to Canada where they would not have to conceal their former > sympathies. > > The burnings apparently started with the Yanks who burned some British > government buildings in the British center of government in Canada (was it > York?), as I recall. But the burning thing seemed to be mainly of forts > on the > part of both sides in the land struggle. I understood that Its original > purpose was not to punish necessarily, but in the case where one side > could not > permanently occupy the fort of the other they burned it to destroy the > defenses > (and shelter for militants) so that the enemy would be forced to withdraw > from > the area. One situation comes to mind (I forget the exact location up > around > Niagara) where the US had captured a Fort on the Canada side and after > some > time began to run out of supplies in the face of a hard winter. They felt > no > choice except to withdraw (abandon, retreat from) the fort and did not > simply > wish to turn it back over to the opposition....so, they burned it. > > Where it got nasty was when, on either side, the burning seemed to get out > of > hand and result in burning down a whole town, leaving even non-combatant > families homeless and at the mercy of the harsh weather. Are there "good" > burnings and "bad" burnings? > > One would tend to think that all burnings are bad. > > Another list member said that the war seems to have been mainly a sea war. > That seems to me to be inaccurate. Indeed, it was both a sea war and a > land > war. I was surprised to learn that the battles of the navies were so > important > on the Lakes although now it is evident that whoever controlled the Lakes > had > an overwhelming advantage in terms of moving troops and supplies as well > as > bombarding shore installations. However, there were many battles on land. > > I have read accounts that lauded the US Navy as having pretty well held > its own > against the awesome and powerful British Navy, which at the time is said > to > have "dominated the seas"...not just over the US, but all of Europe. > Again, it > is the glass half-full. US officials said that the US affirmed itself as > a > sea power to be reckoned with by what it was able to do with its tiny > navy. > > On the land, one should not think that it was only the US who tried to > invade > Great Britain's Canadian Territory. The British also tried to invade our > territory. As best I can assess, both sides seemed to fight more > effectively > against invaders and have less confidence and determination when it came > to > invading the other side. Often advantage seems to be gained only to stop > forward progress and hesitate to regroup, eventually losing the advantage > gained and feeling (often wrongly) that they were forced by the situation > to > retreat. Partially as a result of this, I was surprised at the number of > battles which appear to be "get in and plunder and leave". I put the > Washington and Baltimore invasions in that category. I find nothing to > brag > about or take pride in for this kind of wanton destruction by whatever > side > might achieve it. > > Genocide? I guess I am unaware of instances of this on either side. > Sounds a > bit harsh, but since war is hell, I would be reluctant to deny that it > happened. > > One thing I learned rather quickly in studying the War of 1812 is that if > you > wish to really know about a specific battle, you need to try and read the > accounts rendered by both combatants, if possible. They will not be the > same. > One sides heros and military geniuses can be declared as blunders or > stupid > leaders by the other side. It is not just the war that folks dispute as > to who > won or lost...it applies to the battles also. Fled in panic retreat can > be > stated as a purposeful decision to effect an orderly withdrawal. We beat > them > back with withering firing when described from the other viewpoint can be > recorded as a command decision to press the attack in a different sector. > At > times the leaders on one side who are cited as performing brilliantly and > courageously are not even mentioned by the other side as having commanded > any > major element of the enemies forces. One may even wonder if both accounts > are > really describing the same battle. > > > ==== WARof1812 Mailing List ==== > WAR of 1812 LIST ADMINISTRATOR > <<<commander@sunlitsurf.com>>> > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx > >