Why is the war of 1812 sometimes called Second War of Independence?

Answer 1

Leading up to the War of 1812 Great Britain had been contributing to the harassment of American trade. British naval ships were stopping American ships, mostly merchant and not naval, and pressing -- or rather, forcing -- some of the American crew members to join the British Navy on the grounds that American crew members were supposedly "British citizens" who had deserted and become American. America, having declared independence from Great Britain in 1776, had citizens that were English in descent, but who now considered themselves American citizens. You could call the War of 1812 a "Second War for Independence" if you consider the idea that America had to stand up and reinforce that they were their own country with their own citizens and trade.

However, the facts suggest it can't be seen that way. Had Britain started the war, invaded the US, and kept captured American territory, it could be seen as a Second War for Independence...but none of those things is true.

The United States started the war and attacked a neighbour, but was decisively defeated and pushed out of Canada in a series of battles, retreating so quickly that it surrendered Detroit, Buffalo and Fort Dearborn (Chicago).

The British also landed an force that captured Washington. Had they intended to reverse the American Revolution, they would have held on to Washington and NOT burned the White House, but they had no intention of doing so.

In fact, the British had just ended a much, much bigger war against Napoleon, and so hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened British troops were suddenly available to cross the Atlantic. Consider the effect that many troops would have had, given that just 5200 British troops had repelled the American invasion of Canada.

Even with a much, much smaller force, the British now occupied large portions of the US...but Britain was weary of war after the long struggle with Napoleon, and when the Americans asked for peace talks, Britain agreed, AND turned captured American territory back to the US: obviously not something it would do if it had any thoughts of of ending the US rebellion of 37 years before.

Answer 2

The facts show it could not be regarded as a "Second War for American Independence".

The term implies that Britain had shown any desire to undo the revolution of 30 years earlier, and the facts show that, in fact, the opposite is true.

Had the United States been seriously concerned that the British, the superpower of the time, might seize on any excuse to retake the US, it probably would not have declared war, or invaded it's neighbour, Canada.

The invasion was decisively defeated by a force of aboriginals, Canadian militia, and British regulars, in a series of battles. It retreated back over the border and beyond, surrendering Detroit, Buffalo, and Fort Dearborn (Chicago).

The British counterattacked, and by the end of 1814, controlled large amounts of American territory, having already taken Washington and burned the White House. The Royal Navy's blockade of American ports, meanwhile, had devastated the US economy.

But the Brits were tired and war-weary after a much, much larger war against Napoleon. They won that war, freeing up as many as 100,000 battle-hardened soldiers to cross the Atlantic and finish things off. (Compare that to the 5200 who successfully defended Canada.)

Instead, they agreed to talks, and signed a treaty that restored the old borders. Britain's actions make it perfectly clear that it had no desire to undo the revolution when it could have easily used those troops to do so.

In fact, attacking a neighbour turned out to be the opposite of strengthening US independence. Things went so badly for the US that the seven New England states publicly discussed seceding from the Union. That discussion continued right up until the end of the war. Vermont spent the war selling vital war materials to the Royal Navy.

Answer 3

The War of 1812's occasional designation as a "Second War of Independence" for the United States is not without controversy.

Those that support the nickname claim the conflict more or less confirmed the United States as a nation capable of holding its own against the United Kingdom, a European great power at the time. This alleviated fears that the UK would want to reclaim its lost colonies by force (even though the British had no desire to).

Those that believe the nickname is inappropriate point to how the War of 1812 ended in a stalemate between the two belligerents, with neither the US nor the UK gaining any meaningful advantages. Additionally, there is the caveat that the United States was the official aggressor in the conflict, having been the one to declare war on the British. This alone, it is claimed, invalidates a conflict being labeled as a "war of independence" since the United Kingdom was simply defending itself.

On a side note, the War of 1812 is also sometimes known as a "second war of independence" for Canada, still a British colony at the time. The war is well-remembered by Canadians for the failed American invasions of Upper and Lower Canada, which were decisively repulsed by colonial Canadian militia. The "first war of independence" for Canada generally refers to the Battle of Quebec back in the American Revolutionary War.