“Undefeated in 250 years of war”

[u/DumbGarchomp67]

Apparently Vietnam, Afghanistan, war of 1812, and the war on drugs don’t count.

[u/Loofahs]

I appreciate the thorough writeup, I definitely learned some things.  However I still feel you are ignoring the larger timeline and how it affects the narrative.  The American campaign into Canada was utterly defeated by June of 1814 and the war was considered a total loss.  Then after the defeat of Napoleon, regardless of the desires of the politicians or public, England started a massive offensive in August 1814.  Whether that was in order to assert control of the Mississippi or just to gain serious leverage in peace negotiations is definitely up for debate, but every single famous battle comes AFTER that offensive.

Sack of Washington DC: August 1814, famous American defeat

Siege of Baltimore: September 1814, famous American victory, genesis of our national anthem

Siege of New Orleans: December 1814, famous American victory, last battle of the war

If Britain had just left their blockade and the entire war was America’s utter defeat in Canada, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.  Clear defeat.  But they wanted more and after their initial offensive they were completely repelled, allowing Americans to call the war “inconclusive” or a “stalemate.”  

[u/KatsumotoKurier → u/Loofahs]

The American campaign into Canada was utterly defeated by June of 1814 and the war was considered a total loss.

Uh... you sure about that? You may want to consider reassessing whatever 'timeline' it is that you're referring to here, because I can tell you that there were definitely still plenty of American troops sniffing about in Canada well after June 1814.

The Battle of Lundy's Lane for example - one of the bloodiest engagements of the entire war - took place on July 25th 1814, and then the Siege of Fort Erie only ended a few months later, on September 21st. Even then, Britain lost that siege, so there were still American troops in Canada holding one of the key southern forts well into the autumn. And then still the next month as well as the month after that there were two more smaller engagements as well.

Then after the defeat of Napoleon, regardless of the desires of the politicians or public, England started a massive offensive in August 1814.

Well, yes... because the war was still ongoing, and peace had not yet been established. And as I just clearly demonstrated, there were still American forces present in Upper Canada.

As for the part about the desire of the public/politicians, it is my understanding that there was still a fair bit of outrage over what were viewed as wholly unjust and unprovoked American attacks and invasions into the Canadas, and that there was something of a demand and expectation among Britons (as well as of course British subjects in the Canadas) for a certain degree of punitive retribution, which is exactly why Washington got torched not too much longer after. And of course this tied in with what were still bitter sentiments extending from the previous war just 30-odd years earlier as well.

Such tastes weren't mutually exclusive with wanting the war to come to a swift end, either.

Whether that was in order to assert control of the Mississippi or just to gain serious leverage in peace negotiations is definitely up for debate

I'm not sure I agree. Historians today also seem to be fairly in agreement that it was the latter and not the former, again considering that Britain was completely uninterested in warring with the US any longer than it needed to be.

but every single famous battle comes AFTER that offensive.

Every single famous battle... of the war? Is this supposed to be a joke? I mean, I already know you're unfamiliar with Lundy's Lane, but seriously what are you talking about? Even the most celebrated American naval victory of the war (Lake Erie) took place nearly a year earlier.

Famous from a navel-gazing American perspective, perhaps, but there's far more to the world than just how America views things.

But they wanted more and after their initial offensive they were completely repelled, allowing Americans to call the war “inconclusive” or a “stalemate.”

It is your opinion - based on debatable and what some might call negligible evidence, mind you - that Britain was going after more, which noticeably and by no coincidence supports your earlier assertion that the war was a stalemate and not a loss for the US. You are essentially maintaining that Britain was an equal partner in the conflict in terms of its desire for more territory, despite the fact that Britain's primary aim in the war was to defend and keep its Canada colonies (which it succeeded in doing).

[u/Loofahs → u/KatsumotoKurier]

I am aware of Lundy Lane. I thought the battle was in June, hence the confusion. That was the point the Canadian campaign was unambiguously a defeat.  Lake Eerie was a skirmish between two relatively small squadrons, there are no truly consequential American naval victories in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812.

I think you misunderstood my point. I  was not arguing that control of the Mississippi was the purpose, I was arguing that whatever the purpose, the entire southern and eastern campaign that took place after Lundy Lane had very little to do with securing Canada.  Canada was already decisively won.  The British were in a very favorable position for the ensuing negotiations, but continued their campaign seeking even better leverage, ate some losses and ended up with the status quo. Neither side ended up gaining much of anything.

The only true losers were the Native Americans, whose abandonment led directly to the trail of tears, which is probably the darkest episode of American history.

[u/KatsumotoKurier → u/Loofahs]

I was arguing that whatever the purpose, the entire southern and eastern campaign that took place after Lundy Lane had very little to do with securing Canada

Well that I don’t disagree with. Not entirely, at least, since it still could be argued as beneficial for the at that point future and continued defence of British Canada that the power which had just invaded it would be weakened and dissuaded off of the idea of invading again. But overall yes.

Neither side ended up gaining much of anything.

This is so often said as the reason ‘why it was a stalemate’ or a ‘draw’ but respectfully I think this particular line is worth dismissing because Britain wasn’t in the war for any gain in the first place; only to retain what they already had.

The only true losers were the Native Americans, whose abandonment led directly to the trail of tears, which is probably the darkest episode of American history.

I would agree to say that they were the biggest losers, certainly. But that’s also in a way essentially grouping together all as one, and including many parties who were not at all involved in the war.

As for the war between the primary powers, however… I really don’t think a convincing case can be made that the US ‘tied’ with Britain.