Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Claude Laferrière
 

Who Really Won the Battle of 1812?

Posted: 06/18/2012 11:29 am

The Caroline Affair

The battle of 1812 was supposedly lost by the U.S. and therefore won by Great Britain. Apparently, it is true. But rebels in Upper and Lower Canada would continue to challenge the Anglo-Anglican Monarchists by waging a secret uprising in both parts of Canada that would end in 1838. In Lower Canada, the hanging of a few French-Canadian rebels at "au Pied-du-Courant" would stop the rebellion while in Upper Canada the revolt would rise to a higher degree of intensity and lead ultimately to a major diplomatic incident between the British, North America and the U.S. It is remembered as the Caroline Affair.

It's impossible not to draw some lines between the Battle of 1812 and the Caroline Affair in 1837-38 despite the lapse of time. The victory roll of 1812 was much used by the Brits to hide the revolt of the Catholics forming the majority of Lower Canada, namely the French, and a strong minority of Upper Canada, mostly from Irish descent. Therefore, the treaty against the Anglican Monarchists was much more from the inside than from the U.S. After 1812 and until the Caroline Affair, forging unity among colonials of different languages and religions was paramount and overwhelming to the political establishment in order to supersede the call for a Republic similar to the U.S., where state and church are separated.

As a matter of fact, the Battle of 1812 settled nothing from the inside. The revolt was still brewing among Catholics whether from French or Irish descent.

In 1837-38, after the many battles waged by the S.S. Caroline, a steamship led by Irish colonial rebels but armed by Americans, in the surroundings of Niagara Falls, the meaning and the strange negotiations preceding the treaty that ensued to end this strange war show a different perspective on the true nature of the U.S.-Canada diplomatic relationship at a sensitive time. The Brits invaded the U.S. soil in order to neutralize the so-called Irish rebels, in other words Catholics were plotting the annexation of British North America to the U.S. The stakes were high, namely living free in a Republic that should be extended to the North, and ending religious segregation and the aristocratic privileges of an English monarchist minority group. But the coup led by amateurs simply failed.

These incidents, quite far and separated from the Battle of 1812, led to the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. During the course of negotiations, U.S. Secretary Webster admitted that the use of force by the Brits was justified considering the necessity of self-defense, which forms the very legal basis of preemptive strike or anticipatory self-defense, but also denied that force was necessary in this particular case. Therefore, the invasion of U.S. territory was not! Lord Ashburton apologized for the invasion.

What conclusion should we draw from this agitated period of Canadian-U.S. relations? British North America was wrong! The Irish Catholic rebels were justified to leave for brighter skies and the Brits should have let them go. Period!

Moreover one Alexander Mcleod, a Canadian sheriff involved in the killing of rebels on U.S. soil, was captured and charged for murder before an American court but finally found innocent on technicalities and repatriated to Canada. McLeod was subject to intense diplomatic correspondance between the two countries.

From this retrospective view, who won the Battle of 1812? The fabric of British North America elite was made of inherited fortune of Anglo-Anglican aristocracy who fixed other people's life by segregation while the American founding fathers were the strongest proponents of the separation of state and church leading the way to equality for all before the law, slavery being a sad exception. Therefore instead of chasing them on foreign soil, the 1837-38 Irish rebels should have been offered a free pass to the U.S. without reprisal like did so many French-Canadians in the aftermath of "au Pied-du-Courant."

As the final result for this whole period, the British won the 1812 Battle but lost the war in the end: the U.S. became the most powerful nation on earth, pressing for the separation of state and faith, while the British North America known has Canada, is still struggling even as of today to avoid breaking up with its French population and threatened by never ending strong regional discrepancies.

References : Avalon Project, Yale University

 
FOLLOW CANADA
 
 
  • Comments
  • 18
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:34 AM on 06/19/2012
Nonsense. The US invaded Canada, as it has numerous times before and since, and was beaten back by Upper and Lower Canadians (Ontario and Québec), as well as native Canadians and what British troops were not needed to fight proto-fascism under Bonaparte in Europe.
10:29 AM on 06/19/2012
Nonsense. The US invaded Canada (as it has many times before and since) and was beaten back by Upper and Lower Canadians (Ontario and Québec), plus natives and British troops, those that weren't still fighting the protofascist Buonaparte in Europe.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
08:17 AM on 06/19/2012
If the purpose of the War of 1812 was for the US to cause Canada to rebel, and eventually join the USA, clearly that purpose failed. The US lost more troops, and had their White House burnt to the ground. What did they accomplish in Canada? Nothing. We won, deal with it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
iLdoRight
Encouraging The Rightest Rightness
05:48 AM on 06/19/2012
I don't know who won, but everyone who was injured or played a part in getting anyone injured lost.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cndnpatriot
08:17 PM on 06/18/2012
It is difficult to take anyone seriously about this historical event who refers to the War as a battle. It was a war that involved many battles.
06:16 PM on 06/19/2012
Including one in which Canadians, Natives and Brits looked on as two Yank platoons mistakenly fought one another!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cndnpatriot
10:16 AM on 06/20/2012
Details details, alright I dont know all but Im trying.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cndnpatriot
12:06 PM on 06/22/2012
When I said Details I was humbly ( a word not in my usual lexicon) requesting more info when you have a moment.
04:03 PM on 06/18/2012
I'm really not understanding what the author is trying to say here. Was it that he thinks Catholics in North America would have better off if the US had won the War of 1812 (note: the author should learn the difference between battles and wars).

If that is the premise than I really doubt that would have been the case. Nobody will claim it was fun to live as a Catholic (English or French) in Canada under British rule but it was a much more preferable situation than US rule was and would have been. Francophones in Lower Canada had the benefit of protections under the Quebec Act by which the right to Catholic worship and certain New France institutions were maintained. The US would not have respected that agreement as it was named as one of the "intolerable acts" which sparked the American Revolution nor was the US bound by the treaty obligations to France that Britain was regarding the rights of former French citizens in captured colonies.

The US tried to reach out to French Canadians to persuade them to join the US cause against British oppression but found few volunteers. Most French Canadians knew they were getting a better deal under the British than the US would ever give them and joined militia and fencible units in strong numbers to repel US incursions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles the Great
Canadian/Israeli Goy in Alert,Nunavut
03:59 PM on 06/18/2012
It was a draw
05:19 PM on 06/18/2012
Tactically a draw, strategically a win for Britain, because it allowed them to retain British North America (a strategic win for the eventual Canada, as well)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
08:19 AM on 06/19/2012
A tactical win does not win you the conflict. A strategic win can. The Americans failed to achieve any of their objectives, and we were able to drive them off, and into their own territory (where the fighting continued). By any definition that is a win for us. Of course the Americans refuse to admit that they lost Vietnam either.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Skookum1
truth can't be bought, but lies sure can be sold..
03:33 PM on 06/18/2012
I don't suppose the Tories would throw $25 million at celebrating the 1838 Rebellion next year, huh?

Maybe we'll just have to have a brand-new one..... Hah, as if people would dare (or care)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
08:19 AM on 06/19/2012
Imagine how many government employees were let go to pay for this boondoggle.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Skookum1
truth can't be bought, but lies sure can be sold..
05:37 PM on 06/19/2012
maybe we should consider them new casualties of the War of 1812. Collateral damage perhaps?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:53 PM on 06/18/2012
You really think that a French state in the US wouldn't have as much problems as a French province in Canada?
I mean, just look at what happened to Louisiana and tell me that the French would have been able to keep as much of their culture without the protection afforded to them by the British?
Of course, this does not include the Acadians and the horrors they suffered.
12:01 PM on 06/19/2012
Why should we join US while we can join ONU? Should someone with reason join to mess? Oh and what would you call the new laws taken or voted by so hurried conservatives in Ottawa? That's something that image, think of that:"Hurried conservative"! Hurried to keep things backward? Well ask me to choose between a mess or another, i wouldn't choose any of those, i'd choose in fact to keep my eyes the nearest to the so called "men in charge" if you see what i mean.
12:05 PM on 06/19/2012
Ask me to join in a mess against another mess, i'd answer i'd choose none of them, instead i'd choose to keep my eyes right over the shoulder of the so-called man in charge, with my tools in hand, should he need some purposefull motivation.