American Military Strategy in the War of 1812

Introduction and Overview

In the War of 1812, the American military undertook a land offensive against Britain. England possessed the most powerful navy in the world. However, when the American Navy did act, it operated in an indirect manner—by attempting to disrupt the English merchant marine traders (Wright, 2007). While Americans on land held superior numbers compared to British forces, the English Navy maintained superior strength at sea, which Britain used to blockade American ports. The American military strategy, therefore, focused on offensive operations in the Great Lakes region. Yet the American militia was undertrained and too undisciplined to effectively oppose the outnumbered British. If not for Andrew Jackson and favorable conditions at the Battle of New Orleans, American military strategy in the War of 1812 might have achieved no significant victories. As events unfolded, the effectiveness of the military's strategy could be measured by Britain's ability to march on Washington and burn the capital building—an invasion only halted at Baltimore by what appeared to be a solid American defense. This paper will analyze the effectiveness of these and other points in the war and explain why American military strategy was not very effective—and why it did not need to be.

Britain's Divided Attention

Britain was not fully engaged in fighting America in the first place. The Napoleonic Wars across the Atlantic were absorbing most of Britain's attention and resources. Therefore, all the Americans had to do was pose a slight threat and put up a modicum of resistance. At times they succeeded in doing so—notably in disrupting British trade routes between Nova Scotia and the West Indies. A few victories against British frigates, like the HMS Macedonian, led the English to build bigger, better-armed warships (Gardner, 1996). Nonetheless, the Americans countered by unleashing privateers on British merchant traders. As privateers were by and large more successful than the American Navy, the British eventually turned their attention to Baltimore, where many privateers were based. First, however, they would target Washington (Benn, 2002).

The Defense of Washington

Washington's defense was rather inadequate. Secretary of War Armstrong asserted that the British would attack Baltimore, not Washington—he was wrong. The poorly trained militia did little to protect the capital. This represented a glaring weakness in American military strategy and preparation.

The Battle of Baltimore and Fort McHenry

The American defense of Fort McHenry proved somewhat more effective. The Battle of Baltimore was won through a sturdy defense by the militiamen stationed there and a particularly well-placed shot by an American sniper who killed British General Ross. Unable to advance on land, the British attempted to take the port city by sea. Although their long-range guns bombarded the fort for more than a day—inspiring Francis Scott Key to write the words that would become "The Star-Spangled Banner"—the fort held firm and demonstrated to the British that Baltimore would not yield easily. This display of resistance prevented British passage into the port city.

Great Lakes Campaigns and Strategic Limitations

American military strategy in Detroit and at Niagara proved less successful. The Americans attempted to out-build the English, but neither side gained advantage in Lake Ontario. The British continued its blockades, and apart from the decisive victory at New Orleans, never allowed the American military to carry out any substantial strategic endeavors (Turner, 2000). The pattern across these theaters was one of stalemate or British advantage.

Conclusion: Strategy by Circumstance

In conclusion, the War of 1812 was not a moment of great American military strategy but rather of a tactic of stringing the enemy along, putting up a resistance here and there, a feint, a quick jab to the ribs, while knowing all along that the enemy was really preoccupied across the sea with bigger, more important affairs. American military strategy succeeded not through superior planning or execution, but because Britain could not fully commit to the conflict. This war demonstrates how circumstance and an opponent's divided attention can obscure fundamental strategic weaknesses.