Changes

Macdonough’s victory ended the gravest threat that had arisen so far. More important, it gave impetus to peace negotiations then under way. News of the two setbacks, Baltimore and Plattsburg, reached England simultaneously, aggravating the war weariness of the British and bolstering the efforts of the American peace commissioners to obtain satisfactory terms.

Macdonough’s victory ended the gravest threat that had arisen so far. More important, it gave impetus to peace negotiations then under way. News of the two setbacks, Baltimore and Plattsburg, reached England simultaneously, aggravating the war weariness of the British and bolstering the efforts of the American peace commissioners to obtain satisfactory terms.

==New Orleans: The final battle==

==New Orleans==

[[Image:Andrew Jackson.jpg|right|thumb|[[Andrew Jackson]]]]

[[Image:Andrew Jackson.jpg|right|thumb|[[Andrew Jackson]]]]

The progress of the peace negotiations influenced the British to continue an operation that General Ross, before his repulse and death at Baltimore, had been instructed to carry out: a descent upon the gulf coast to capture New Orleans and possibly sever Louisiana from the United States. Maj. Gen. Sir Edward Pakenham, one of the Duke of Wellington’s distinguished subordinates, was sent to America to take command of the expedition. On Christmas Day, 1814, Pakenham arrived at the mouth of the Mississippi to find his troops disposed on a narrow isthmus below New Orleans between the Mississippi River and a cypress swamp. They had landed two weeks earlier at a shallow lagoon some ten miles east of New Orleans and had already fought one engagement. In this encounter, on December 23, General Jackson, who had taken command of the defenses on December 1, almost succeeded in cutting off a British advance detachment of 2,000, but after a three-hour fight in which casualties on both sides were heavy, he was compelled to retire behind fortifications covering New Orleans.  

The progress of the peace negotiations influenced the British to continue an operation that General Ross, before his repulse and death at Baltimore, had been instructed to carry out: a descent upon the gulf coast to capture New Orleans and possibly sever Louisiana from the United States. Maj. Gen. Sir Edward Pakenham, one of the Duke of Wellington’s distinguished subordinates, was sent to America to take command of the expedition. On Christmas Day, 1814, Pakenham arrived at the mouth of the Mississippi to find his troops disposed on a narrow isthmus below New Orleans between the Mississippi River and a cypress swamp. They had landed two weeks earlier at a shallow lagoon some ten miles east of New Orleans and had already fought one engagement. In this encounter, on December 23, General Jackson, who had taken command of the defenses on December 1, almost succeeded in cutting off a British advance detachment of 2,000, but after a three-hour fight in which casualties on both sides were heavy, he was compelled to retire behind fortifications covering New Orleans.  

However, some noted historians have called the war a British victory and an American defeat, arguing that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (resisting American incursions) while the Americans failed to conquer Canada. Many non-academic Canadians share this view.<ref>Carl Benn, “The War of 1812” ( ), by a Canadian; Latimer, ''1812 War with America'' (2007), by a Brit.</ref>

However, some noted historians have called the war a British victory and an American defeat, arguing that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (resisting American incursions) while the Americans failed to conquer Canada. Many non-academic Canadians share this view.<ref>Carl Benn, “The War of 1812” ( ), by a Canadian; Latimer, ''1812 War with America'' (2007), by a Brit.</ref>

A third view,<ref>Wesley B. Turner, "The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won"  (2000), a Canadian; Mark Zuehlke, ''For Honour's Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace'' (2007), a Canadian; Walter L. Hixson, "War of 1812," in Paul Finkelman ed, '' Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century'' (2001) 3:360.</ref> argues that both the U.S. and Britain were successful. Britain was successful because it had repelled the invasion of Canada and lost no territories while achieving their huge war goal, the complete defeat of Napoleon. The U.S. was successful because (1) the U.S. had restored its honor and successfully resisted a powerful Empire for a second time, thus winning a "second war of independence"; (2) the threat of Indian raids ended as did the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary, and (3) the Royal Navy had stopped restricting American trade and impressing American sailors. Rjensen (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A third view,<ref>Wesley B. Turner, "The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won"  (2000), a Canadian; Mark Zuehlke, ''For Honour's Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace'' (2007), a Canadian; Walter L. Hixson, "War of 1812," in Paul Finkelman ed, '' Encyclopedia of the United States in the Nineteenth Century'' (2001) 3:360.</ref> argues that both the U.S. and Britain were successful. Britain was successful because it had repelled the invasion of Canada and lost no territories while achieving their huge war goal, the complete defeat of Napoleon. The U.S. was successful because (1) the U.S. had restored its honor and successfully resisted a powerful Empire for a second time, thus winning a "second war of independence"; (2) the threat of Indian raids ended as did the British plan for a semi-independent Indian sanctuary.

===Lessons===       

===Lessons===