The cities I was referring to were the Northwestern US cities which a pair of bufoons in General's uniforms surrendered to tiny British Armies without a fight.
True, the creeks were weak and unmotivated, but I was using that as an example that the loss of the British at New Orleans was not due solely to British incompetence, as the surrender of detroit was, but also was because of superior American armaments and leadership. Jackson was one clever dude.
1:"Why not? Just because it's younger doesn't mean that it should get special treatment from a historical perspective."
True.
2: The trade coming in was constricted by British-French rivalries before the war as well. America knew it could not establish itself Navy-wise, so it had to challenge Canada in order to strike back at the British. Once again, the blockade was not a sign of victory, it was a fully realized consequence which the war hawks were willing to live with. We fought it quite efectively with our tiny frigate navy and many privateers, but we knew they would eventually wear us down.
"Sure the US kept the Brits from advancing any farther into New England, but the territory they had captured remained theirs until the peace treaty was signed."
Not quite. In almost every case, the British victories were fleeting.
Battle of Lake Erie: forces all navally supported British troops to withdraw from the area, Detroit is abandoned back to the Americans.
Battle of the Thames: The indian confederacy under tecumseh, an incredible achievement, falls apart.
Battle of Godly wood: The british regulars, fresh from their retaliatory burning of the Capitol, are defeated by american militia and the chesapeake campaign ends.
Battle of Lake Champlain: An inland Navy, freshly built, destroys a British inland fleet. The British retreat from Plattsburgh and fall back to Canada.
And of course: The battle of New Orleans: Andrew jackson soundly routs a superior army of British veterans. This, combined with his defeat of the Creek Alliance, turns Jackson into the singlehanded defeater of every threat to the american south.
In each case, a significant British victory, invasion, or achievement was turned sour by american counterattacks. Britains holdings in New England were miniscule by the end of th war, indeed, the only substantial gains by either side were the defeat of the Indian Nations, which was (hey, this is a coincidence!) in America's favor. I'll admit that on several occasions, the British wasted the Americans, usually due to British skill in the face of American inexperience. Perhaps this is why the Americans scored so many victories towards the end: They were learning.
Anyway, thats just a thought. Back on track here: Lets say you graphed the war out from the british perspective, it would look like a Mountain, starting low, rising with several later victories and three momentarily successful invasions, and then dropping off at the end as each invasion was in turn checked. From the american side, it would waver at first, with the mixed success in our canadian invasion, then gain a little strength with the victories on the great lakes, then plummet as the British defeated France and turned their whole attentions to us, then rise quickly again at the end as we defeated the invasions, Secured the Great Lakes and the Northwest, and destroyed the Indian alliances.
In short, america wore down the british over time. Even shorter: we won.
Oh, lastly, you claim that if Jackson had marched north (the only logical place to go since the British had fled everywhere else) he would have met competent British leadership. Maybe so, but it would not have been competent enough to withstand his addition. First of all, the New England invasion force was already reeling from losses spreading out from the great lakes and the south. You have to remember that as each other invasion was turned back, it freed up more troops to combat them. Jackson's 4500 Kentucky woodsmen and sharpshooters would have cut through the British like, well, like some sort of sharp implement through some sort of soft cooking spread.
(Battles from
http://www.usahistory.com/wars/1812.htm)other info from book, American History till Civil War. (not exact name)