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.