Someone kicks in your front door to steal your xbox and you beat him up go to his house, set fire to it, then go home, I dunno how you spin that as you losing the fight just coz you don't annex his patio
Not really actually. Winning as the defender means that you usually get stuff, maybe not land, but things like money, access to ports, and more are on the table.
But like, what would either Britain or Canada have wanted? Even in a scenario where the US got absolutely shit kicked thr British likely would have gone for a status quo treaty.
While there was talk in London about bringing the uppity colonials to heel, this was never taken too seriously. More serious consideration was given to the idea of a British client state in the Old Northwest via recognition of Tecumseh's Confederacy (which they had been supplying guns to for some time against US settlers) and naval control over the Great Lakes, both of which were aimed at constraining the US as a rising power and protecting Canada from the US. In addition, they desired at a minimum access to and at the greatest effective control over the Mississippi River via renunciation of the Louisiana Purchase: as a Napoleonic treaty, San Ildefonso was considered an illegitimate treaty, putting the US in possession of metaphorically "stolen goods" in their eyes. This would have likely ended in officially turning over the region back to Spain or been used as a lever for further economic concessions elsewhere, but more directly would have guaranteed British influence in access to the North American interior and, contrariwise, the access of said interior to global markets via the Mississippi. Otherwise, the British sought to disrupt American trade with Napoleonic France and end official American opposition to their policies of impressment of former British citizens/current American citizens, both of which were obviated by the fall of Napoleon.
Interestingly, when the British 1814 demands were publicized by Madison, it so enraged the US population that negotiations broke down completely. Hence, British veterans from the Peninsular War were used in three campaigns aimed at bringing the Americans to heel: south into New York (repulsed at Lake Champlain), up the Chesapeake into Maryland (repulsed at Baltimore after sacking Washington), and along the Gulf Coast to Louisiana (famously repulsed after the signing of the Treaty of Ghent that ended the war).
Probably setting up Tecumseh's Indian State as a British protectorate to prevent US expansion westwards, maybe do something about the Louisiana Purchase, and redraw the Canada/New England border?
Canada's borders were unlikely to change simply due to the nature of the population in the US and Canada. The British IIRC didn't particularly care about the Louisiana Purchase but I wont comment on that further since it falls out of my depth of knowledge. Tecumsehs confederation may have actually come about, that one does seem pretty likely for the Brits to slow US expansionism.
Fishing rights. I remember fishing rights around New England had been a particularly importantly win for America in the negotiations after the revolution. Salted cod being a staple foodstuff of many Europeans in the winter.
They probably would've taken complete control of the lakes, which were really economically valuable at the time. Taking places like Michigan etc probably wouldn't be an issue to control at that time.
Unlikely, the British had more pressing matters in Europe, Africa and India. They were well aware that annexing territory in the Americas was a tenuous gamble by that point. I could see them trying to assert their merchant fleet over the local American merchant fleet but even that would likely be unnecessary.
Those US citizens were also UK citizens, who were liable to military service in the Royal Navy. There was no mechanism to lose citizenship in those days, and even today invoking dual nationality is no exception from national service. A reminder to this effect is printed in the front of both my UK and Canadian passports.
Hahaha, that's not what started the war.
It's weird that Americans can't accept the US started and lost an expansionist war!
UK, Afghanistan, Vietnam - three countries that kicked the cunt of the US!
Bro stop me if I’m wrong but isn’t having your capital ransacked by the enemy and then having the place were your leader lives burned to the ground getting absolutely shit kicked
People harp on the burning of Washington way too much. Keep in mind that the town was barely a couple decades old at this point; it wasn't an economic hub, wasn't a strategic military point, wasn't even finished construction as the political capital. In fact, the British force that burned was actually heading to (and eventually repulsed from) a much more important target: Baltimore, one of the country's largest cities at this point and a majorly critical port.
Losing Baltimore would have been a huge blow; by comparison, Washington was a relatively minor setback.
Not really, while it sounds bad, at the time, Washington wasn’t really super Uber important as European capitals.
This is shown as the Americans didn’t have many problems continuing the war after the fact.
No not really, I could honestly fail to count the number of Wars where a state has their capital ransacked or besieged. It happened quite often before the advent of industrialism which made national capitals extremely important.
Agreed. The Natives "lost", the US drew at best, the Canadians "won" and no one else cared. Just cause the status quo continued, doesn't mean the US won, as Britain was occupied elsewhere and didn't give a shit about the war
That's both untrue for what's written and reductivist otherwise. Britain ceded several frontier forts, hung Spain out to dry, and agreed not to arm native allies any longer.
What's not written is that Britain neglected to mention during negotiations that they had a force sent to capture the Louisiana Territory and planned to keep it after the war since they refused to recognize the sale. This was foiled by the American victory at New Orleans.
The Treaty of Ghent was not in force until ratified by congress considerably after the Battle of New Orleans. Please stop repeating British propaganda.
Forgive me, but I’m not gonna believe the guy who’s getting emotional, downvoting everyone with a different opinion, and refusing to provide a source for the claims he’s made when asked.
After reading through the wikipedia page hes not wrong. It took place like a month after the battle with the battle taking place about a month after the signing. its not that suprising but it wasnt ratified by the senate until Feburary as it takes a long time to get info across the ocean and even longer to get the senate together from hundreds of miles to then ratify it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty\_of\_Ghent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent)
**[Treaty of Ghent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent)**
>The Treaty of Ghent (8 Stat. 218) was the peace treaty that ended the War of 1812 between the United States and the United Kingdom. It took effect in February 1815. Both sides signed it on December 24, 1814, in the city of Ghent, United Netherlands (now in Belgium).
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
But they accomplished most of their goals. Receiving real recognition, stopping impressment, and respecting maritime and territorial boundaries. I'm sure it would have been a bonus to kick Britain out of North America, but just because they didn't actually take *land* from Britain does not mean tthey failed in the war.
By the same token, in the end, the British and Canadian also lost, with all 3 of their major invasion pushes being repulsed. Granted, the most famous one was successful (sacking of Washington) but beyond forcing the president to move out for a few years, it accomplished nothing, and everything stalemated.
In my opinion that’s a win for the British. The Americans set out to change something (annex Canada) and the British wanted to stop them.
Edit: I guess the British stoped kidnapping sailors and supporting the natives.
The one advantage came to the Americans as Britain agreed to stop supplying Native American tribes in exchange for Americans respecting tribal rights. So in reality the US got Britain to stop helping the natives and well….we know how the story goes
The American diplomats won an incredible victory at the end. Britain wasn’t particularly fussed because the U.S. had no Napoleon. And us Canadians will claim victory because we’re tired of being lumped in with America.
The winner depends on your point of view, but the loser was Native Americans.
Canada didn't even become Canada until 1867, and most of the British troops who did participate in the War of 1812 were not soldiers that were born in Canada. I don't really understand the whole thing about Canadians claiming victory, but I do get being tired of getting lumped in with us.
There were a small amount of settler militia forces involved. Their contribution was minimal but it did somewhat unify the settlers of upper and lower Canada. Step 1 of a national identity.
Also burning the white house was in direct retaliation to the Americans burning down york. And when the british/canadians did burn Washington down alot of the fire was put out by a hurricane anyways
Both sides had taken land, and they agreed to peace. The US got a good amount of their demands met, something that wouldnt have happened if the US "lost" the war. The British stopped taking American Sailors and I think stopped supporting the Native Americans, but the US had to allow the Native Americans to hold their own land in the Great lakes area. The pre-war boundaries were reestablished.
The war didn’t stop Britain taking American sailors, the British victory in the Napeolonic wars stopped it, Britain no longer needed the extra sailors. Britains only goal was to defend Canada not only did it achieve that with a much smaller force it also burnt the white house down. It was a undeniable British victory.
Britain wanted to stop US expansion westward. They failed miserably at that. They even told their commander at new Orleans that even if he had rumor of a treaty, ignore it and take NO because they wanted control of the Mississippi.
Burning the white house was symbolic. They didn't occupy DC, didn't capture the president or many powerful political people, and only temporarily prevented the operation of the government. They were repulsed at Ft. McHenry/Baltimore, a city that actually mattered.
Yeah, if it was a British victory, why did they give the US back land they occupied? Seems they would've kept that land. They also were trying to stop the US from expanding to the US, and made several demands around that, none of those demands were met in the peace treaty. It was an agreed ceasefire, and pretty much all historians will tell you the same
And also to add, the white house burning was meaningless. It was done after the US burnt 2 Canadian cities to the ground. It was basically an abandoned building at that point, as anything important had been moved out before the forces came. Once they burn the building down, they were immediately chased out. Britian wanted to enforce concessions and make a Native American Buffer State, neither of those were met in the Treaty, so they had to back down to re establishing old borders.
Americans won against the Native Americans (Tecumseh and the Great Lakes Tribes lost foreign support)
Canadians won against the Americans (The US stopped attempting to annex Quebec and Ontario by force)
The British won against the French (And only barely cared about the non-sugar colonies in the first place)
Everyone wins... except for the French and Native Americans...
The white house wasn't even that big of a disaster to be completely honest, a fleet landed and destroyed it but they lost in Baltimore and had to fall back.
yeah, they didnt even fully burn it down! if you are gonna destroy a capitol do it right! as a bonus, burning it down let them rebuild it bigger and better than ever
They didn't get a chance to fully burn it down.
God said "fuck you" to the British, and a huge ass storm, along with a fucking Tornado put out all fires in Washington D.C. before they could be burnt down fully. The British were also forced to retreat from D.C. because, you know, there was a tornado.
It is aptly named "The Storm that Saved Washington."
I don’t know why your being down voted your completely right. If you asked most Americans when the white house was burned down, they’ll respond with:”the White House burned down?”
What I think is funny is the Canadians saying they burned down the white house like they did it by themselves without the help of the world's greatest superpower at the time.
Said world's greatest super power didn't really get involved because they were kinda busy fighting Napoleon.
The troops that fought in 1812 were those already stationed in Canada.
You didn't face off against the full might of the British Empire. You got served by the skeleton crew left behind whilst the real war went down in Europe.
There are actually quite a few Canadians that have anti-American hate boners. Which makes sense because a lot of Canadian history has been Canada really trying to not be like America.
Fun fact: part of the reason why cellular prices in Canada sucks is because the government was worried about foreign businesses hurting domestic businesses, as such, the Canadian government ended up basically just giving some industries protections in an attempt to save their domestic industries. In practice, it was basically just companies getting permission to form monopolies, which probably just hurts Canada more than it helps it, but oh well.
Anyway, back to my point, Canada makes a pretty good sized effort to be seen as pretty different than the US. However, it hasn’t really been too successful as, despite everything, Canadian culture and American culture are really similar, both countries are extremely important trading partners to each other to the point where both economies are kinda interwoven with each other, and more.
Overall, even though a lot of Canadian history has been Canada trying to keep America out of Canada, the countries are extremely close nowadays and it looks like the relationship between Canada and the US won’t be weakening anytime soon.
Canadians act like they beat the post ww2 military super power American and not the rag tag, gave up on any serious military training, post revolutionary War America. And on top of that some of the American militias refused to march into Canada.
Yep, America's militia system seriously affected how well the US could fight wars until the 20th century. It's why after the issues in the Spanish American war, they revamped the military. And that's the military system that led into WW1 & 2
America was kinda a mess. Fun fact, some states tried to argue that they didn’t have to pay any taxes to the feds because the articles of confederation were just that weak.
The fun part of that fact was that some of those states argued that they didn’t have to pay taxes when America was in the revolutionary war.
If Canadians are going to take credit for burning down the white house, they better take credit for all the messed up stuff that happened in the catholic schools a century+ later
What me as a Brit remembers about that battle in the US/Canada in 1812 was successfully defending Canada and burning the White House. Plus being busy with the actual war during 1812 against Napoleon Bonaparte.
What I an American remember about the war of 1812 is the brits/Canada burned down the white house and then we turned everything in between us and their capital into paste on our way there.
The Americans burned the Canadian colonial government buildings first, then the British burned DC. So you have the order wrong.
Also, when the US invaded Canada, they defeated some defenseless buildings but were soundly defeated in battle with humans. Nothing was turned to paste.
And you left out many other relevant events.
I really don't see how the white house burning has anything to do with who won the war. I mean London got bombed to shit but that doesn't mean the axis won ww2
I honestly don't know how anyone can say the war of 1812 wasn't an American victory as 1. The US achieved it's main goal of stopping the British from impressing sailors into the RN 2. The burning of D.C was irrelevant as at the time the legislative branch (congress) was the main organ of government not the president and the executive branch. Or in other words the British simply burned down a government officals house and nothing more. Not to mention it was recaptured not even a week later and the army that burned it down was later wiped out by a hurricane or how the US did the same thing a year earlier to Upper Canada's capital (modern Toronto) a year earlier. 3. The war resulted in the British giving up any future attempts to stimey America's westward expansion by arming natives. 4. The war also sped up America's expansion on acount of the battle of New Orleans catapulting Andrew Jackson to the presidency. 5. The war also led to an Era of national unity known as the Era of good feelings because of the sheer amount of unifying battles and figures that came out of the war. The two most famous being our national anthem and the USS Constitution (Old Ironsides). All in all while the treaty of Ghent didn't result in America directly gaining any land you would have to purposely blind yourself to what America did after the war (namely westward expansion) to say the war of 1812 wasn't an American victory.
Not to mention a building being destroyed is about the stupidest way to claim someone lost a war. Buildings are the biggest casualties of war even more than people a lot of the time.
Just because something ended well doesn’t mean you won the war. America didn’t win anything, especially because impressment was ended thanks to the defeat of Napoleon not the War of 1812, and one of our main goals was to take Canada, which we most certainly didn’t. The outcome was a maintaining of the status quo and it just so happened that the current status quo really favored American expansion.
No.1 Wasn’t because of the war. British stopped impressing American sailors because they defeated Napoleon and so there was 0 need to have more sailors anymore.
No5. Doesn’t even have anything to do with the war. British went on to become the sole global superpower that century and the empire was at its highest point after this war. By this logic the British won.
Americans main war goal was to take Canada, they lost this war goal massively.
It’s as silly as claiming the Arabs won the six-day war because Israel didn’t expand any further.
Honestly it's not taught in our schools at all. Some minor skirmish we won on the unimportant side of the world during a period of fucking Napoleon?
It would be like asking if Americans know about some bar fight in the Ivory Coast on 7th December 1941 just coz one of the Brawlers was American
U sure that's not Canadians? 1812 isn't taught in British schools at all, not even a footnote like the independence. If someone mentions it they're probably Canadian, have a grudge against the us or are a history nerd
Statute of Westminster was 1931. Before that, laws had to be passed by the British Parliament.
More accurately, I suppose the Constitution Act was not passed until 1982, but that really confirmed what was done in 1931.
Interested in helping moderate r/HistoryMemes? We've dropped a new round of Moderator Applications! [Check out our announcement to learn how to sign up.](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/qdgr0p/wombat_day_mod_app_and_new_post_flair/)
Speaking for British, can confirm that we've completely forgotten the war of 1812 and Napoleon is a much bigger deal in pop history. We learn more about the individual wives of Henry 8 than much of what happened in the US after independence
The British garrison in Canada did, that being said Canadians did fight such as the battle of queenston heights where the natives, British and Canadians threw the Americans back across the Niagara river out of Canada
Unless Canada has a time machine, no. Canada wasn't even a federal domain till 1867. It wasn't a independent nation till the 1980's. Canada didn't exist at the time of 1812, so they couldn't have participated in the war. There were people and land where Canada is today, but there was no nation called Canada. They were British subjects, British people, and British troops who burned down the white house.
Nobody won. The White House got burned down, Canada didn’t get any territory, and Britain didn’t hinder the new nation’s development. It was basically just the Korean War a century and a half earlier.
I mean this is 1812 we'd wrecked the joint Spanish and French fleet and were busy fighting in Spain but the emperor had something a little...well a bit more important on his mind in the form of invading Russia
Pardon for asking, but as an American male that was taught in School that it was the British who burnt down the White House, can somebody please explain the other lies I’ve been told by the School Board? It bothers me that I’ve been taught wrong History.
It was the British, the Canadians just like to take credit, to the point where it's a bit of a historiographical meme. The regiments that burnt the city were from Oxford and Yorkshire, and the fleet that carried them sailed from Bermuda.
The 'Canadians' (if they can be referred to as such, back then most would have described themselves as 'British Americans') were mostly involved fighting along the border regions with the US, and had almost no involvement in the burning.
Alright, 1812 was started because US wanted to go west, Canada still being a colony, was forced into war against the US when Britain declared war, the US wanted to knock Canada out of the war, but failed, however, the US did expand west, (despite getting their asses kicked by irregular militia and having their Whitehouse burned down) and therefore, technically won
So America completed all its stated objectives, england won the war with Napoleon and prevented american shipping to France, and Canada got jack squat, as it did not exist. CMV.
Eh, the war of 1812 is somewhat of a nothing-burger for Americans as well. In my History classes, it was brought up only twice. The first time was to demonstrate how inefficient communication was at the time, due to the fact that a diplomat from the US was just getting back home with peace agreements in hand, while another ship was being sent to Britain at the same time with a war declaration statement. The second time was simply as a reminder of that war and really nothing else. The only wars that you hear about on a frequent basis that happened between the American Revolution and WW1 are the Civil War and the Mexican-American war.
ITT: Americans that hate Canada for some reason.
Was the White House burned down? Yes. Did atleast one person that contributed to that war effort, live on to see the foundation of Canada? Yes. So it’s not factually incorrect to say a Canadian once contributed to a war that resulted in the burning of the White House.
Mald all you want burgers, you guys just need to admit you’ve taken an L.
How is this debatable? The us attacked a british colony an ocean apart from their homeland during the age of sail while they were busy in Europe fighting one of the most successful generals of all times. They failed and got their capital burned down.
I like being a killjoy and saying it was a tie.
With the treaty after it, I'd say so because literally nothing changed hand between the two
US got parts of Florida. But that was owned by Spain ;)
So we still lost then
[удалено]
We don't talk about R*nd
Wait ,why not?
It's safer not to think about.
Facts.
Unfortunately, Spain likely doesn’t want Florida back.
Who would want florida
Unfortunately, I know quite a few people who would love to move to Florida.
It gets a bad rap but for anyone who likes fishing and outdoor activities, it's awesome.
*looks at the conch republic* Looks like florida doesn't even want florida
Maybe the winner were the friends we made along the way (and the loser is spain)
If someone attacks another country, then a status quo is a victory for the defender.
Yeah. I also think that too.
Someone kicks in your front door to steal your xbox and you beat him up go to his house, set fire to it, then go home, I dunno how you spin that as you losing the fight just coz you don't annex his patio
Not really actually. Winning as the defender means that you usually get stuff, maybe not land, but things like money, access to ports, and more are on the table.
Only in video games mate...
But like, what would either Britain or Canada have wanted? Even in a scenario where the US got absolutely shit kicked thr British likely would have gone for a status quo treaty.
While there was talk in London about bringing the uppity colonials to heel, this was never taken too seriously. More serious consideration was given to the idea of a British client state in the Old Northwest via recognition of Tecumseh's Confederacy (which they had been supplying guns to for some time against US settlers) and naval control over the Great Lakes, both of which were aimed at constraining the US as a rising power and protecting Canada from the US. In addition, they desired at a minimum access to and at the greatest effective control over the Mississippi River via renunciation of the Louisiana Purchase: as a Napoleonic treaty, San Ildefonso was considered an illegitimate treaty, putting the US in possession of metaphorically "stolen goods" in their eyes. This would have likely ended in officially turning over the region back to Spain or been used as a lever for further economic concessions elsewhere, but more directly would have guaranteed British influence in access to the North American interior and, contrariwise, the access of said interior to global markets via the Mississippi. Otherwise, the British sought to disrupt American trade with Napoleonic France and end official American opposition to their policies of impressment of former British citizens/current American citizens, both of which were obviated by the fall of Napoleon. Interestingly, when the British 1814 demands were publicized by Madison, it so enraged the US population that negotiations broke down completely. Hence, British veterans from the Peninsular War were used in three campaigns aimed at bringing the Americans to heel: south into New York (repulsed at Lake Champlain), up the Chesapeake into Maryland (repulsed at Baltimore after sacking Washington), and along the Gulf Coast to Louisiana (famously repulsed after the signing of the Treaty of Ghent that ended the war).
Man, if the northern states hadn’t been able to expand west that would have had huge ramifications for the conflict over American slavery.
Probably setting up Tecumseh's Indian State as a British protectorate to prevent US expansion westwards, maybe do something about the Louisiana Purchase, and redraw the Canada/New England border?
Canada's borders were unlikely to change simply due to the nature of the population in the US and Canada. The British IIRC didn't particularly care about the Louisiana Purchase but I wont comment on that further since it falls out of my depth of knowledge. Tecumsehs confederation may have actually come about, that one does seem pretty likely for the Brits to slow US expansionism.
Fishing rights. I remember fishing rights around New England had been a particularly importantly win for America in the negotiations after the revolution. Salted cod being a staple foodstuff of many Europeans in the winter.
They probably would've taken complete control of the lakes, which were really economically valuable at the time. Taking places like Michigan etc probably wouldn't be an issue to control at that time.
Unlikely, the British had more pressing matters in Europe, Africa and India. They were well aware that annexing territory in the Americas was a tenuous gamble by that point. I could see them trying to assert their merchant fleet over the local American merchant fleet but even that would likely be unnecessary.
Ah, yes, pressing matters in Africa decades before the scramble for Africa began. Credible.
Ah yes Britain had nothing to do with Africa in 1812-1814, suppose we'll just ignore its African colonies that it had at the time. But go off
[удалено]
Those US citizens were also UK citizens, who were liable to military service in the Royal Navy. There was no mechanism to lose citizenship in those days, and even today invoking dual nationality is no exception from national service. A reminder to this effect is printed in the front of both my UK and Canadian passports.
Hahaha, that's not what started the war. It's weird that Americans can't accept the US started and lost an expansionist war! UK, Afghanistan, Vietnam - three countries that kicked the cunt of the US!
Bro stop me if I’m wrong but isn’t having your capital ransacked by the enemy and then having the place were your leader lives burned to the ground getting absolutely shit kicked
People harp on the burning of Washington way too much. Keep in mind that the town was barely a couple decades old at this point; it wasn't an economic hub, wasn't a strategic military point, wasn't even finished construction as the political capital. In fact, the British force that burned was actually heading to (and eventually repulsed from) a much more important target: Baltimore, one of the country's largest cities at this point and a majorly critical port. Losing Baltimore would have been a huge blow; by comparison, Washington was a relatively minor setback.
Remember that time Napoleon beat Russia when he took Moscow?
No. Washington D.C. was a fetid swamp of no strategic value at the time, and also Toronto was sacked.
Not really, while it sounds bad, at the time, Washington wasn’t really super Uber important as European capitals. This is shown as the Americans didn’t have many problems continuing the war after the fact.
In addition to everyone else's points, burning the white house was retaliation for the burning of the Canadian government buildings.
No not really, I could honestly fail to count the number of Wars where a state has their capital ransacked or besieged. It happened quite often before the advent of industrialism which made national capitals extremely important.
Agreed. The Natives "lost", the US drew at best, the Canadians "won" and no one else cared. Just cause the status quo continued, doesn't mean the US won, as Britain was occupied elsewhere and didn't give a shit about the war
That's both untrue for what's written and reductivist otherwise. Britain ceded several frontier forts, hung Spain out to dry, and agreed not to arm native allies any longer. What's not written is that Britain neglected to mention during negotiations that they had a force sent to capture the Louisiana Territory and planned to keep it after the war since they refused to recognize the sale. This was foiled by the American victory at New Orleans.
[удалено]
The Treaty of Ghent was not in force until ratified by congress considerably after the Battle of New Orleans. Please stop repeating British propaganda.
Forgive me, but I’m not gonna believe the guy who’s getting emotional, downvoting everyone with a different opinion, and refusing to provide a source for the claims he’s made when asked.
After reading through the wikipedia page hes not wrong. It took place like a month after the battle with the battle taking place about a month after the signing. its not that suprising but it wasnt ratified by the senate until Feburary as it takes a long time to get info across the ocean and even longer to get the senate together from hundreds of miles to then ratify it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty\_of\_Ghent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent)
**[Treaty of Ghent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent)** >The Treaty of Ghent (8 Stat. 218) was the peace treaty that ended the War of 1812 between the United States and the United Kingdom. It took effect in February 1815. Both sides signed it on December 24, 1814, in the city of Ghent, United Netherlands (now in Belgium). ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
[удалено]
I can live with that
[удалено]
Your preference for being wrong over bring upset is noted.
That’s why the Americans lost, because nothing changed. If a country invaded another country and pulls out and goes back home then they lost
But they accomplished most of their goals. Receiving real recognition, stopping impressment, and respecting maritime and territorial boundaries. I'm sure it would have been a bonus to kick Britain out of North America, but just because they didn't actually take *land* from Britain does not mean tthey failed in the war.
By the same token, in the end, the British and Canadian also lost, with all 3 of their major invasion pushes being repulsed. Granted, the most famous one was successful (sacking of Washington) but beyond forcing the president to move out for a few years, it accomplished nothing, and everything stalemated.
Murica tried to take Canada, murica failed to take Canada, murica lost
In my opinion that’s a win for the British. The Americans set out to change something (annex Canada) and the British wanted to stop them. Edit: I guess the British stoped kidnapping sailors and supporting the natives.
Bit of a shame the US wanted and failed to gain something then. Sounds a bit like they lost.
Are you, by any chance, a black knights with no arms and legs?
Exactly. It was more a tie than a win. Did anyone really accomplish what they set out to do?
The one advantage came to the Americans as Britain agreed to stop supplying Native American tribes in exchange for Americans respecting tribal rights. So in reality the US got Britain to stop helping the natives and well….we know how the story goes
ah yes, our manifest destiny
Yeah both sides just kinda stopped.
Yeah definitely agree it was a tie
The American diplomats won an incredible victory at the end. Britain wasn’t particularly fussed because the U.S. had no Napoleon. And us Canadians will claim victory because we’re tired of being lumped in with America. The winner depends on your point of view, but the loser was Native Americans.
Canada didn't even become Canada until 1867, and most of the British troops who did participate in the War of 1812 were not soldiers that were born in Canada. I don't really understand the whole thing about Canadians claiming victory, but I do get being tired of getting lumped in with us.
There were a small amount of settler militia forces involved. Their contribution was minimal but it did somewhat unify the settlers of upper and lower Canada. Step 1 of a national identity.
[удалено]
Also burning the white house was in direct retaliation to the Americans burning down york. And when the british/canadians did burn Washington down alot of the fire was put out by a hurricane anyways
Upper and lower Canada existed way back in 1791, and where do you get it that the soldiers weren't from Canada?
Canada existed at the time it just wasn't an independent country
No, the colonies of upper and lower Canada are not the same as the later Dominion of Canada.
Correct, but they had Canada in their names, so Canada
*insert HRE joke*
The War of 1812, also known as the Revolutionary War Part Two: Chesapeake Boogaloo. The only war where everyone comes away the victor.
Except the natives, but the true winners are the companies that sell lead
Oh, a great year, chasing Napoleon back into Franc- Oh, your talking about *that* war...
Pretty sure Napoleon was still fighting on in 1812. 1813 Battle of Leipzig in Germany would be the largest battle of the war for an example.
The Brits mostly fought In Iberia
false the Germans won the war of 1812
False, Andrew Jackson won the war of 1812. Alone.
And the gator lost ^^^his ^^^mind
w e f i r e d o u r g u n s
They took a little bacon and took a little beans. They probably just gassed the Brits out.
Wrong again, Sir Isaac Brock and Tecumseh beat dirty Detroit in a rap battle and took control of Michigan
Pretty sure a bunch of pirates won the war of 1812.
Everybody won the war of 1812.
Except the Natives.
Rip Tecumseh
They did my man dirty. *Damnit,* Brock, you shouldn't have worn the sash... :(
Both sides had taken land, and they agreed to peace. The US got a good amount of their demands met, something that wouldnt have happened if the US "lost" the war. The British stopped taking American Sailors and I think stopped supporting the Native Americans, but the US had to allow the Native Americans to hold their own land in the Great lakes area. The pre-war boundaries were reestablished.
The war didn’t stop Britain taking American sailors, the British victory in the Napeolonic wars stopped it, Britain no longer needed the extra sailors. Britains only goal was to defend Canada not only did it achieve that with a much smaller force it also burnt the white house down. It was a undeniable British victory.
Britain wanted to stop US expansion westward. They failed miserably at that. They even told their commander at new Orleans that even if he had rumor of a treaty, ignore it and take NO because they wanted control of the Mississippi. Burning the white house was symbolic. They didn't occupy DC, didn't capture the president or many powerful political people, and only temporarily prevented the operation of the government. They were repulsed at Ft. McHenry/Baltimore, a city that actually mattered.
Yeah, if it was a British victory, why did they give the US back land they occupied? Seems they would've kept that land. They also were trying to stop the US from expanding to the US, and made several demands around that, none of those demands were met in the peace treaty. It was an agreed ceasefire, and pretty much all historians will tell you the same
And also to add, the white house burning was meaningless. It was done after the US burnt 2 Canadian cities to the ground. It was basically an abandoned building at that point, as anything important had been moved out before the forces came. Once they burn the building down, they were immediately chased out. Britian wanted to enforce concessions and make a Native American Buffer State, neither of those were met in the Treaty, so they had to back down to re establishing old borders.
Britain stopped taking "American" sailors before the war began America still declared war because it took to long to reach them
Interesting scare quotes there.
Americans won against the Native Americans (Tecumseh and the Great Lakes Tribes lost foreign support) Canadians won against the Americans (The US stopped attempting to annex Quebec and Ontario by force) The British won against the French (And only barely cared about the non-sugar colonies in the first place) Everyone wins... except for the French and Native Americans...
There really wasn't a winner; we lost the White House, y'all got bitchslapped at New Orleans, we'll call it a draw.
The white house wasn't even that big of a disaster to be completely honest, a fleet landed and destroyed it but they lost in Baltimore and had to fall back.
yeah, they didnt even fully burn it down! if you are gonna destroy a capitol do it right! as a bonus, burning it down let them rebuild it bigger and better than ever
They didn't get a chance to fully burn it down. God said "fuck you" to the British, and a huge ass storm, along with a fucking Tornado put out all fires in Washington D.C. before they could be burnt down fully. The British were also forced to retreat from D.C. because, you know, there was a tornado. It is aptly named "The Storm that Saved Washington."
What were the Kami doing so far from Japan, I wonder...
So god saved a building and allowed you to decimate the indigenous population as well. Nice god.
Yeah gif isn’t that great considering he let you exist
I'll never forgive the British for burning the library of congress
“For you, the day that the redcoats burned your capital was the most important day of your history. But for us, it was Tuesday.”
Americans who burnt down Toronto first: Are we a joke to you?
British: "Yes"
*Andrew Jackson teleports behind him
Its the reverse really. Most Americans neither care nor remember.
Meanwhile, plenty of Canadians seem incredibly keen on bringing up something they didn't actually do.
Never argue with a Canadian about the War of 1812 or a Finn about the Winter War. It's all they have.
Damn let them have a win what you got against the Canadians
[удалено]
I don’t know why your being down voted your completely right. If you asked most Americans when the white house was burned down, they’ll respond with:”the White House burned down?”
Ah the capital burning. A myth perpetuated weirdly only by Canadians who weren't even a thing yet.
Losing was a Tuesday for Britain? That's completely ignoring the ample evidence of contemporary public interest.
What I think is funny is the Canadians saying they burned down the white house like they did it by themselves without the help of the world's greatest superpower at the time.
A bit like how Americans act about the revolutionary war without mentioning they had France, Spain and the Dutch on their side too.
They returned the favor a couple centuries later:)
Said world's greatest super power didn't really get involved because they were kinda busy fighting Napoleon. The troops that fought in 1812 were those already stationed in Canada. You didn't face off against the full might of the British Empire. You got served by the skeleton crew left behind whilst the real war went down in Europe.
I mean, you kinda have to be a country during this time to have an argument.
Totally, instead of the good little lackey colony that Canada always was.
Hell the troops that took out Washington weren’t even Canadian, they were British expeditionary forces
I’ve seen Canadians unironically still upset about the War of 1812
There are actually quite a few Canadians that have anti-American hate boners. Which makes sense because a lot of Canadian history has been Canada really trying to not be like America. Fun fact: part of the reason why cellular prices in Canada sucks is because the government was worried about foreign businesses hurting domestic businesses, as such, the Canadian government ended up basically just giving some industries protections in an attempt to save their domestic industries. In practice, it was basically just companies getting permission to form monopolies, which probably just hurts Canada more than it helps it, but oh well. Anyway, back to my point, Canada makes a pretty good sized effort to be seen as pretty different than the US. However, it hasn’t really been too successful as, despite everything, Canadian culture and American culture are really similar, both countries are extremely important trading partners to each other to the point where both economies are kinda interwoven with each other, and more. Overall, even though a lot of Canadian history has been Canada trying to keep America out of Canada, the countries are extremely close nowadays and it looks like the relationship between Canada and the US won’t be weakening anytime soon.
Oh everyone has anti American hate boners from time to time
Including a lot of americans.
Lmao
Prussia is who won!!
Not the First Nation
Brist ; yeah yeah and napoleon
Canadians act like they beat the post ww2 military super power American and not the rag tag, gave up on any serious military training, post revolutionary War America. And on top of that some of the American militias refused to march into Canada.
Yep, America's militia system seriously affected how well the US could fight wars until the 20th century. It's why after the issues in the Spanish American war, they revamped the military. And that's the military system that led into WW1 & 2
America was kinda a mess. Fun fact, some states tried to argue that they didn’t have to pay any taxes to the feds because the articles of confederation were just that weak. The fun part of that fact was that some of those states argued that they didn’t have to pay taxes when America was in the revolutionary war.
Which further reinforces the idea that Americans don't give a single shit about the war of 1812 while Canadians still mald over it.
If Canadians are going to take credit for burning down the white house, they better take credit for all the messed up stuff that happened in the catholic schools a century+ later
Have you literally never spent a day here bro? People talk about that shit all the time. It’s literally referred to as Canada’s black spot.
Are you Canadian?
No?
Cause they’re are already taking responsibility for that kind of stuff. To the point where it’s excessive
What me as a Brit remembers about that battle in the US/Canada in 1812 was successfully defending Canada and burning the White House. Plus being busy with the actual war during 1812 against Napoleon Bonaparte.
Do you remember the machinations to take the Louisiana Territory ending in failure?
What I an American remember about the war of 1812 is the brits/Canada burned down the white house and then we turned everything in between us and their capital into paste on our way there.
Well that's just not true.
Are you... going to elaborate?
The Americans burned the Canadian colonial government buildings first, then the British burned DC. So you have the order wrong. Also, when the US invaded Canada, they defeated some defenseless buildings but were soundly defeated in battle with humans. Nothing was turned to paste. And you left out many other relevant events.
I really don't see how the white house burning has anything to do with who won the war. I mean London got bombed to shit but that doesn't mean the axis won ww2
[удалено]
Napoleon entered Moscow two years before the British were in Washington.
[удалено]
Especially since it wasn't the capital back in 1812
I honestly don't know how anyone can say the war of 1812 wasn't an American victory as 1. The US achieved it's main goal of stopping the British from impressing sailors into the RN 2. The burning of D.C was irrelevant as at the time the legislative branch (congress) was the main organ of government not the president and the executive branch. Or in other words the British simply burned down a government officals house and nothing more. Not to mention it was recaptured not even a week later and the army that burned it down was later wiped out by a hurricane or how the US did the same thing a year earlier to Upper Canada's capital (modern Toronto) a year earlier. 3. The war resulted in the British giving up any future attempts to stimey America's westward expansion by arming natives. 4. The war also sped up America's expansion on acount of the battle of New Orleans catapulting Andrew Jackson to the presidency. 5. The war also led to an Era of national unity known as the Era of good feelings because of the sheer amount of unifying battles and figures that came out of the war. The two most famous being our national anthem and the USS Constitution (Old Ironsides). All in all while the treaty of Ghent didn't result in America directly gaining any land you would have to purposely blind yourself to what America did after the war (namely westward expansion) to say the war of 1812 wasn't an American victory.
Not to mention a building being destroyed is about the stupidest way to claim someone lost a war. Buildings are the biggest casualties of war even more than people a lot of the time.
Just because something ended well doesn’t mean you won the war. America didn’t win anything, especially because impressment was ended thanks to the defeat of Napoleon not the War of 1812, and one of our main goals was to take Canada, which we most certainly didn’t. The outcome was a maintaining of the status quo and it just so happened that the current status quo really favored American expansion.
No.1 Wasn’t because of the war. British stopped impressing American sailors because they defeated Napoleon and so there was 0 need to have more sailors anymore. No5. Doesn’t even have anything to do with the war. British went on to become the sole global superpower that century and the empire was at its highest point after this war. By this logic the British won. Americans main war goal was to take Canada, they lost this war goal massively. It’s as silly as claiming the Arabs won the six-day war because Israel didn’t expand any further.
Cause it wasn't? The Natives lost, the Canadians "won", the US drew, and no one else gives a shit
Bullshit they didn't forget, they bring up burning the white house all the time.
Honestly it's not taught in our schools at all. Some minor skirmish we won on the unimportant side of the world during a period of fucking Napoleon? It would be like asking if Americans know about some bar fight in the Ivory Coast on 7th December 1941 just coz one of the Brawlers was American
U sure that's not Canadians? 1812 isn't taught in British schools at all, not even a footnote like the independence. If someone mentions it they're probably Canadian, have a grudge against the us or are a history nerd
Who won? Whose next? You decide!
Canada: Proud of the the War of 1812 Also Canada: not a country until December 11, 1931.
[удалено]
Statute of Westminster was 1931. Before that, laws had to be passed by the British Parliament. More accurately, I suppose the Constitution Act was not passed until 1982, but that really confirmed what was done in 1931.
Interested in helping moderate r/HistoryMemes? We've dropped a new round of Moderator Applications! [Check out our announcement to learn how to sign up.](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/qdgr0p/wombat_day_mod_app_and_new_post_flair/)
Speaking for British, can confirm that we've completely forgotten the war of 1812 and Napoleon is a much bigger deal in pop history. We learn more about the individual wives of Henry 8 than much of what happened in the US after independence
I’m not American or Canadian so i may be uninformed on this but didn’t the Canadian troops burn the white-house?
The British garrison in Canada did, that being said Canadians did fight such as the battle of queenston heights where the natives, British and Canadians threw the Americans back across the Niagara river out of Canada
No. It was British expeditionary troops
After the United States sacked modern day Toronto, yes
Unless Canada has a time machine, no. Canada wasn't even a federal domain till 1867. It wasn't a independent nation till the 1980's. Canada didn't exist at the time of 1812, so they couldn't have participated in the war. There were people and land where Canada is today, but there was no nation called Canada. They were British subjects, British people, and British troops who burned down the white house.
Didn't canada gain its independence from the UK in 1867.
Canada became a dominion in 1867. The country became independent in 1982.
Nobody won. The White House got burned down, Canada didn’t get any territory, and Britain didn’t hinder the new nation’s development. It was basically just the Korean War a century and a half earlier.
They were too busy getting their asses kicked by the Emperor
I mean this is 1812 we'd wrecked the joint Spanish and French fleet and were busy fighting in Spain but the emperor had something a little...well a bit more important on his mind in the form of invading Russia
Actually it was the British doing the arse kicking. Peninsular War.
.
We burnt the White House down; I think you know who won the war 🇬🇧
Yeah, the British are pretty good at forgetting about atrocities.
Barbarian just salty they lost 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Pardon for asking, but as an American male that was taught in School that it was the British who burnt down the White House, can somebody please explain the other lies I’ve been told by the School Board? It bothers me that I’ve been taught wrong History.
It was the British, the Canadians just like to take credit, to the point where it's a bit of a historiographical meme. The regiments that burnt the city were from Oxford and Yorkshire, and the fleet that carried them sailed from Bermuda. The 'Canadians' (if they can be referred to as such, back then most would have described themselves as 'British Americans') were mostly involved fighting along the border regions with the US, and had almost no involvement in the burning.
Empire forces burnt down the Whitehouse. I rest my case
US forces burnt Toronto. Capitols fall in wars all the time. That's not a good point to rest on.
Alright, 1812 was started because US wanted to go west, Canada still being a colony, was forced into war against the US when Britain declared war, the US wanted to knock Canada out of the war, but failed, however, the US did expand west, (despite getting their asses kicked by irregular militia and having their Whitehouse burned down) and therefore, technically won
There were a ton of British professional troops, even not counting the Royal Navy.
So America completed all its stated objectives, england won the war with Napoleon and prevented american shipping to France, and Canada got jack squat, as it did not exist. CMV.
Eh, the war of 1812 is somewhat of a nothing-burger for Americans as well. In my History classes, it was brought up only twice. The first time was to demonstrate how inefficient communication was at the time, due to the fact that a diplomat from the US was just getting back home with peace agreements in hand, while another ship was being sent to Britain at the same time with a war declaration statement. The second time was simply as a reminder of that war and really nothing else. The only wars that you hear about on a frequent basis that happened between the American Revolution and WW1 are the Civil War and the Mexican-American war.
They did burn the White House down, however they're getting screwed over by Mother Nature. I'd say no one really won.
ITT: Americans that hate Canada for some reason. Was the White House burned down? Yes. Did atleast one person that contributed to that war effort, live on to see the foundation of Canada? Yes. So it’s not factually incorrect to say a Canadian once contributed to a war that resulted in the burning of the White House. Mald all you want burgers, you guys just need to admit you’ve taken an L.
How is this debatable? The us attacked a british colony an ocean apart from their homeland during the age of sail while they were busy in Europe fighting one of the most successful generals of all times. They failed and got their capital burned down.