I wasn't really speaking of the treaty or any concessions, but just the general outcome in the decades following the war, as the war didn't really impede America's development or further expansion. We became stronger after the War of 1812, not weaker, and this growth can be seen in every ensuing decade leading up to the Spanish-American War at the close of the century. No one, not even Britain, could have stopped that in the long run.
Unlikely under the actual circumstances which occurred, yes. But in your hypothetical scenario, we were talking about Britain's leadership going mad and launching an all-out war of mass destruction on the seas. You think other European powers would have stood by while Britain guts world trade?
A weakening of the federal government might have led to stronger state governments - which may have reduced their willingness to compromise in the coming years. It's all "what if," so it's hard to say what might have happened.
The point is, America didn't really need "trade" to survive, not in the same way that Britain did. It might have been an inconvenience, but the people and land were still there, expanding, building, and development. That process never really stopped.
The only thing that posed a problem were internal difficulties, such as the split between free states and slave states, as well as the barriers to expansion, such as the Native American tribes whom Britain was helping - but that stopped after the war. That was as much a reason as anything else to go to war, although by today's standards, it wasn't a very noble reason. That was more of an issue on Americans' minds than trade.
As long as we had something to sell, there would always be someone to buy it. Britain might have caused a temporary interruption, but it couldn't have lasted very long before the consequences would start to affect their economy. Britain had to play the short game, while America could afford to play the long game.
I think it should have been pretty clear at that point - at least among those with a knowledge of geography and America's long-term potential - that it wouldn't be long before America would be a formidable power. The flaw in your reasoning here is that you're taking a synchronic snapshot of history and assuming that it would have been like that in perpetuity, but that's not what happened.
Even after the defeat of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna, Europe only had a veneer of stability under the Metternich System. Nationalistic ideals started to gain greater traction, and the discontent of the lower classes would eventually come to a head in 1848, the same year Americans were rushing for gold in newly-acquired California.
The Spanish colonial empire in America was on the verge of revolution, as there was widespread rebellion, some of which was inspired by the American Revolution and the French Revolution. I wouldn't say that the Spanish didn't want to keep Florida, but if America decided to move in and take it, they were hardly in a position to stop them. As you said, they couldn't enforce their will, and in any case, Spain had bigger problems to worry about. A few years after the US acquired Florida (and were already moving into Texas as "illegal aliens"), Mexico plunged into revolution and gained independence, inheriting all of what Spain had previously claimed in what would later become part of the U.S. (although it was sparsely populated and they didn't have much control over it).
As far as what America "won," I would call it a psychological victory. It boosted America's confidence, even if it was somewhat incidental and contrived after the fact. I can't say what would have happened if the U.S. chose to not declare war in 1812, although I think a case can be made that we were better off in the long run having fought than if we hadn't.
Europe took another course, and it would only be a mere 3 decades after that they would plunge into chaos themselves - although Britain's detachment might have spared them much of the struggle that happened on the continent. The growth of Russia and Prussia was a far bigger concern for Britain, while we didn't really have to worry about things like that in America.
Most events seem to fade into obscurity and/or myth the further back they go. How many people know much about the Hundred Years War? Or the Thirty Years War? Even many of the various Indian Wars which have occurred tend to be forgotten.
They did teach it when I was in school, but it was with a pro-American point of view. Though even then, it wasn't really considered significant, at least in terms of the actual war itself, even if it might have carried some measure of drama to it.
It seems that the war was more of a marker, ending the era of the Founders and moving on to the next era.
Maybe it's not such a big deal in Britain, and that's understandable, considering the circumstances and their perceptions of the world - both back then and now.
Though it does surprise me to some degree, at least in the sense that I've encountered many people from elsewhere in the world who seem to make a point of knowing a lot about America, particularly American politics and our role as a world leader. I've seen many Brits who are extremely critical of America and seem to have a good deal of knowledge of what goes on here. They seem to be better informed than many Americans, I'm sorry to say. But maybe I'm just encountering a certain sub-set of those who have a special interest in America.
It's like most Brits can tell you William the Conquerer invaded in 1066, Henry VIII and his 6 wives and that we single handedly won WW2 by standing alone against Hitler, inventing radar and a bouncing bomb, winning the Battle of Britain then invading Europe on D-Daybut most people couldn't tell you much beyond that.
Popular understanding of significant events in a nation's history tends not to be overly concerned with the accurate rendition of facts after all.
So, it seems that Brits are just as clueless about history as many Americans are reputed to be.
Sheesh, doesn't she know that it was in fact the mother country that invented freedom as they were free born Englishmen protected by the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution and who loved their liberty and refused to live under tyranny like those feeble perfidious continental Europeans with their absolutist monarchies?
(Joking aside, 17th C English post-Glorious Revolution conceits about liberty are basically identical to the American tropes which is quite funny given American how America now views it)
I think the general purpose in that kind of early upbringing was to promote patriotism and love of country, just like kids are forced to go to church at an early age.
An interesting point raised by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address was this: "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here."
The irony is that "what we say" is all that anyone really remembers. "What they did" is sometimes distorted. I'm not just referring to Gettysburg, but any event in history.
I actually had to memorize the Gettysburg Address and played the part of Lincoln in a school history pageant we did in sixth grade. It probably would have made some university professors of history cringe today, but it was fun.
