Easy. I'm contesting the fact that the notion of non-fatal and permanently incapacitating injuries weren't as clearly defined at the time as they are now. That's why I stuck with fatalities.
America also restored free trade and ended the British Navy's economic stranglehold on the US which also count as mucn more relavent and far more significant victories against the British, but who cares about that.
I think I already mentioned the diplomatic reasoning behind that, Bubba. By contrast, you could also say that any incursions into Canada aren't an issue
at all because conquering Canada wasn't in the declaration of war against Britain proves it as well. But that's not the logic you're using. Instead, you're choosing to claim that the impressment issue which was unspoken
doesn't count where as the "Canadian" issue which was also unspoken
does. That's logically inconsistent and self-contradictory.
The War of 1812 was fought between
Britain and the US. It was fought on both US and what is today Canadian soil with expansions by the
British and the States being being mutually repulsed. Which is why level headed scholars see the war as a "draw". Considering Canada wasn't even "country" at the time and the defending forces were led by the
British (because it was a war between
Britain and the US) makes it impossible for Canada to be an invaded "country" at that time. Regrettably, many Canadians are still laboring under a tragic misconception and a somewhat overinflated perception of
their role in the war.
The idea that one cause of the war was American expansionism or desire for Canadian land was much discussed among historians before 1940, but is rarely cited by experts any more.[4] Some Canadian historians propounded the notion in the early 20th century, and it survives in Canadian mythology.[5]
...which is the only reason such notions are again being advanced here.