A new PBS documentary, airing Monday night on all of the U.S. network’s affiliates serving the Canadian market, is a useful primer for citizens of both countries on the eve of the bicentennial.
The War of 1812 tells the story of the conflict from four perspectives. The Canadians were triumphant, the Americans in denial, the natives in mourning for their lost chance at statehood and the British more preoccupied with fighting Napoleon than protecting their far-off colony. ...
Historians consider the war a “draw” because the Treaty of Ghent that ended it entrenched the status quo ante bellum. But the truth is, the Americans sought to engulf us; instead they bankrupted their own country (the United States defaulted on its debt) without gaining an inch of territory. That doesn’t sound like a draw.
America in denial? Basically, since we failed to add Canadian territory to America we lost the war, and calling it a draw is "denial."
I beg to differ. Admittedly, after the debacle at Detroit (do headlines ever change?) we did invade Ontario and win a battle at the Thames River. I suppose if we were really determined to take Canadian land as the Canada-centric view holds, we could have taken a chunk of land along the River Thames. Since they were invaded, I guess it is natural to see their fate as the central question of the war.
But it wasn't about Canada. We invaded Canada as much because it was a vulnerable portion of the British Empire that we could strike than because we wanted the territory. Bargaining chips against a superior British navy and army that could seize our territory or blockade us into submission would be useful at the peace table. Recall that we sometimes call the war the Second War for Independence. Britain never really accepted our independence. Impressment of our sailors was but one symptom of that refusal to accept our win in the first war for independence. The article focuses on impressment and trade as reasons for war, but ignores that Americans in the northwest were angry over British support of Indians who threatened them out on the frontier. You wonder why Kentucky volunteers advanced into Canada? You'd be hard pressed to figure out why they got worked up over impressment and the interruption of Atlantic trade. But going after the source of the unrest in British Canada makes it more understandable. Tecumseh led the last real Indian army to take the field at that battle on the side of the Canadians.
So it was a draw on the battlefield. We burned York (Toronto) had defeated the British in the western part of Ontario (but never followed up on the victory, with more pressing missions at hand), had Washington burned, and had our ports blockaded. When Britain had no need to interrupt our trade, the British were willing to end the war. We saw no need to hang on to the parts of Canada our army held. It apparently wasn't enough of a gain to persist in the war.
It is often said that the Battle of New Orleans, a decisive American victory too late to affect the peace terms, simply gave the illusion of victory to what was a draw. But it is an accurate impression. Yes, the fighting was a draw. But we defended the status quo of our independence and our territorial integrity--and Britain finally admitted it. The war was a strategic victory for America. And after the Rush-Bagot Treaty that led to our border being the longest undefended international border in the world, the fact that we never tried to conquer Canada as Britain's North American power waned and ours waxed should indicate that the war just wasn't about Canada.
