Canadians are Trying to Rewrite the History of the 1812 War

OP

Original post by Some random guy

Are you really this foolish or are you putting on an act?

The US did not fight the British Empire in it's entirety.

Whose fault is that? Do you know how war works? Should America have waited for Britain to get ready first? :confused:

Original post by Some random guy

The US fought the Canadian holdings of the British Empire ONLY and these Canadian holdings were weaker militarily than the US. The people the US fought were the ancestors of the first Canadian citizens.

It's so mindnumbingly obvious, I fail to see why you cannot comprehend. Get a life dude.

THe US fought the British Empire not Canada because Canada did not exist.

Reply 81

OP

Original post by pol pot noodles

Exactly. Why whould another country follow the laws of another? Nuetralisation was a concept of America and not recognised under British law. In the eyes of the British, America was simply harbouring fugitives.

You're still not making sense. If there's no agreement between the two countries then why would the US comply with British laws?

Original post by pol pot noodles

Not really, because Britain reserved the right to reintroduce policy and blockades in the future at it's own prerogative.
American respect was gained? Don't think so.

Britain didn't continue with impressment because they had no need for it. Napoleon was defeated, Europe was in relative peace. You are severly flattering the United States. Without commitments elsewhere, Britain could flatten America. The threat of war means nothing.
America achieved only one goal out of three- breaking the Native American confederacy. Britain on the otherhand achieved it's sole objective: the defence of Canada and return to status quo. Therefore, Britain has a better claim to victory.

And America reserved the right to retaliate again on the bases of national security. Fact is Britain got the message, and after the war, impressment was no longer an issue and British bullying and disrespect had ended. The US achieved all it's objective and has more of a right to claim victory. The British never continued doing what it was doing before the war and did not defeat a younger and weaker country, so therefore the British lost.

Reply 82

username133326

Meanwhile, everywhere other than North America...

Reply 83

pol pot noodles

19

Original post by drknoble

Before the US, every country was a monarchy. The US then inspired the French to revolt and the rest is history.

Nonsense, there were loads of mercantile republics in Europe, right up until the 19th century. You Americans crack me up with your delusions of granduer. You didn't inspire anyone to revolt. People have been revolting since the dawn of time, and will be revolting till hell freezes over. The French revolution came about because of the mismanagement of the country by their King. America didn't factor into the equation.

Reply 84

pol pot noodles

19

Original post by drknoble

You're still not making sense. If there's no agreement between the two countries then why would the US comply with British laws?

I never said they were. But you seem to think that Britain should have complied with American nuetralisation laws.

Original post by drknoble

And America reserved the right to retaliate again on the bases of national security. Fact is Britain got the message, and after the war, impressment was no longer an issue and British bullying and disrespect had ended. The US achieved all it's objective and has more of a right to claim victory. The British never continued doing what it was doing before the war and did not defeat a younger and weaker country, so therefore the British lost.

My word, you Americans are delusional.
Napoleon was defeated. Napoleon. Have you heard of Napoleon? He tried to conquer Europe. Napoleon. Impressment was introduced to combat Napoleon. When Napoleon, that's right, Napoleon, I said Napoleon, was defeated, impressment ended. Napoleon. Not an irrelevant sideshow of a war in North America. Napoleon. Napoleon. America's military campaign during the war of 1812, which failed in it's invasion of Canada and was repulsed, did not factor into the equation. Napoleon did. Because Napoleon could actually threaten the UK. America couldn't. Napoleon. Britain never continued doing what it was doing before the war because after the war, Napoleon was defeated. Do you understand now? Napoleon. America failed to conquer Canada, it failed to gain concessions on impressment or blockades, it failed to even get compensation for impressment. Fail, fail, fail. But apparently you Americans have no ambition, because in your books, fail, fail, fail somehow constitutes a victory.

Reply 85

OP

Original post by pol pot noodles

Nonsense, there were loads of mercantile republics in Europe, right up until the 19th century. You Americans crack me up with your delusions of granduer. You didn't inspire anyone to revolt. People have been revolting since the dawn of time, and will be revolting till hell freezes over. The French revolution came about because of the mismanagement of the country by their King. America didn't factor into the equation.

Please name these mercantile republics. Fact is the US created the world's first modern democracy with the world's first written constitution and bill of rights. I don't know why this bothers you, I thought you Brits would've accepted your situation by now. Britain is not even a republic and still has monarchy.

The US kicked off the enlightenment revolution era and inspired the French Revolution.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 86

Original post by drknoble

No. Don't let him confuse you. The US created the world's first modern democracy with the world's first written constitution and bill of rights.

The magna carta propped up a monarchy, which is the exact opposite of a democracy. Before the US, every country was a monarchy. The US then inspired the French to revolt and the rest is history.

Don't be silly, I'm out to establish fact, not to brainwash anyone.

The original constitution and bill of rights didn't allow for women to vote, or black people to vote, and they allowed slavery to continue. The constitution had to be amended over a century later to allow the first two, and decades later to prevent the third. Therefore, the constitution and bill of rights in their original form did not establish a modern democracy. Modern democracies give suffrage to all.

You do not see the implications of the Magna Carta; it was a slight at royal control by the nobility, who forced King John's hand. Up to that point, the Monarchy had proposed the idea that it was untouchable, bound by no law except God's law, presenting the idea that monarchs were appointed by God himself. For the first time, the King's powers were limited; citizens had to be punished through the legal system only, the Church was free from royal control, the King couldn't abuse his wards, and so on. It was a limitation. It didn't particularly do much good for the peasants, but it set a precedent that royal control could be questioned, an idea which would come back to haunt the Monarchy in 1642.

Before the US, every country was a monarchy? What about the results of the English Civil War? The Protectorate? The actions of John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode, Edward Montagu and Arthur Haselrig had a profound effect on those who signed the Declaration of Independence. America's independence and the execution of Charles I were equally inspirational for the French republicans.

If you're interested, other republics that pre-date the United States include the Dutch Republic, the Corsican Republic, the Icelandic Commonwealth, the Swiss Confederation, the Novgorod Republic, the Pskov Republic and famously the Roman Republic. The US was not the first country to be a republic. The US doesn't even take the award for the longest still existing republic, the Republic of San Marino has been a republic since it left the Roman empire in 301 AD, and it still exists today, 1,700 years later.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 87

OP

Original post by pol pot noodles

I never said they were. But you seem to think that Britain should have complied with American nuetralisation laws.

I don't think you understand how this works. When something from one something enters another country (whether it be a person or thing), and there's no previous agreement, then the other country has no obligation to return it. The same way if US technology get's into the hands of the Chinese, the Chinese don't have to return it. Or if the Chinese detain a US citizen, the Chinese don't have to release them. This is why what you're saying makes no sense.

Original post by pol pot noodles

My word, you Americans are delusional.
Napoleon was defeated. Napoleon. Have you heard of Napoleon? He tried to conquer Europe. Napoleon. Impressment was introduced to combat Napoleon. When Napoleon, that's right, Napoleon, I said Napoleon, was defeated, impressment ended. Napoleon. Not an irrelevant sideshow of a war in North America. Napoleon. Napoleon. America's military campaign during the war of 1812, which failed in it's invasion of Canada and was repulsed, did not factor into the equation. Napoleon did. Because Napoleon could actually threaten the UK. America couldn't. Napoleon. Britain never continued doing what it was doing before the war because after the war, Napoleon was defeated. Do you understand now? Napoleon. America failed to conquer Canada, it failed to gain concessions on impressment or blockades, it failed to even get compensation for impressment. Fail, fail, fail. But apparently you Americans have no ambition, because in your books, fail, fail, fail somehow constitutes a victory.

I'm aware that Napoleon was defeated during the 1812 war. But you still don't understand -- What does it matter how a objective was achieved? As long is the problem is no longer a problem, then the objective was achieved. Impressment of US sailors was no longer occurring after the war, therefore the US chalks it up as objective achieved. Britain on the other hand was the instigator before the war, and stopped instigating after the war, which is why the British lost. If Britain hadn't lost, they would have kept doing exactly what they were doing before the war - instigating, bullying, and impressment.

Reply 88

OP

Original post by Craig_D

Don't be silly, I'm out to establish fact, not to brainwash anyone.

The original constitution and bill of rights didn't allow for women to vote, or black people to vote, and they allowed slavery to continue. The constitution had to be amended over a century later to allow the first two, and decades later to prevent the third. Therefore, the constitution and bill of rights in their original form did not establish a modern democracy. Modern democracies give suffrage to all.

No one said it was the first perfect modern democracy, but it was the world's first modern democracy, while the ancient greeks had the first ancient democracy.

I don't know what definition of "modern democracy" you're using, but it appears to be one based on fiction. Do babies and dogs get to vote as well?

Our constitution is always improving, just as our framers intended it be. We corrected foolish mistakes and gave everyone the right to vote.

Original post by Craig_D

You do not see the implications of the Magna Carta; it was a slight at royal control by the nobility, who forced King John's hand. Up to that point, the Monarchy had proposed the idea that it was untouchable, bound by no law except God's law, presenting the idea that monarchs were appointed by God himself. For the first time, the King's powers were limited; citizens had to be punished through the legal system only, the Church was free from royal control, the King couldn't abuse his wards, and so on. It was a limitation. It didn't particularly do much good for the peasants, but it set a precedent that royal control could be questioned, an idea which would come back to haunt the Monarchy in 1642.

A "slight" doesn't equal you're now a republic and democracy. Britain needed a real revolution not a half-assed attempt. To this day the monarchy is propped up and it will probably remain that way.

Original post by Craig_D

Before the US, every country was a monarchy? What about the results of the English Civil War? The Protectorate? The actions of John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode, Edward Montagu and Arthur Haselrig had a profound effect on those who signed the Declaration of Independence. America's independence and the execution of Charles I were equally inspirational for the French republicans.

England still had a monarchy afterwards, and still has one to this day.

Original post by Craig_D

If you're interested, other republics that pre-date the United States include the Dutch Republic, the Corsican Republic, the Icelandic Commonwealth, the Swiss Confederation, the Novgorod Republic, the Pskov Republic and famously the Roman Republic. The US was not the first country to be a republic. The US doesn't even take the award for the longest still existing republic, the Republic of San Marino has been a republic since it left the Roman empire in 301 AD, and it still exists today, 1,700 years later.

It's possible some of those could be considered republics, but they're not democracies. China claims to be a republic, but it's not a democracy. The US is a republic and democracy, the world's first modern democracy with the world's first written constitution and bill of rights to be exact.

Reply 89

Original post by drknoble

I'm aware that Napoleon was defeated during the 1812 war. But you still don't understand -- What does it matter how a objective was achieved? As long is the problem is no longer a problem, then the objective was achieved. Impressment of US sailors was no longer occurring after the war, therefore the US chalks it up as objective achieved. Britain on the other hand was the instigator before the war, and stopped instigating after the war, which is why the British lost. If Britain hadn't lost, they would have kept doing exactly what they were doing before the war - instigating, bullying, and impressment.

It actually matters greatly how an objective is achieved when you're analysing who won a war. The British didn't stop impressment because the Americans made them, they did it because they wanted to. The reason why they stopped impressing after 1814 was because Napoleon was defeated and the British Isles were no longer under threat of invasion thus necessitating absolutely every naval resource the UK had.

The simple fact is that the USA came into the war with a couple objectives: 1. to gain respect of neutral shipping rights and stop impressment and 2. to conquer Canada.

In regards to the first issue the UK never respected neutral shipping rights throughout the war and the Americans never made them do so. It was a somewhat ridiculous idea to put forth in the first place, the Americans hilariously enough wanted to continue trading with France and giving the French the goods to continue fighting a war and for the British not to care based upon some ridiculous abstract concept of neutral rights, surprisingly the British ignored the Americans. Then again this was in the era when Jefferson wishy washy totally impractical abstract theories were actively put into practice, lets not forget the insane and devastating Embargo Acts leading up to the war.

In regards to the second point. Despite what you've said earlier in the thread, annexation of Canada was very important and if you read primary sources from nearly all the main actors on the American side they very much wanted to annex Canada. Jefferson claimed it was just a matter of marching into Canada with a few thousand men and taking it, not surprisingly he was proven wrong.

Thus America achieved none of her initial aims by military force. Likewise the British didn't really achieve any of their goals (as limited as they were - the British couldn't give a toss for the war and didn't want it, they were much more focused on Europe and just wanted the American thing over), the plan for an independent Indian nation blocking American expansion failed, they failed to gain exclusive use of the Great Lakes, they also failed to gain parts of Maine they wanted to annex.

Ipso facto neither side won the war. However the Treaty of Ghent cleaned up some past disagreements, the end of the Napoleonic Wars ended impressment and the two nations would grow closer and closer over the century. Thus both benefitted from the draw although the Native Americans got totally boned.

In regards to your initial point.The Canadian militia fighting alongside the British regulars are the forebearers of the Canadian nation, they came from the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada and played a huge role in defending the Canadas from the initial American invasions. While the oft mentioned idea that the Canadians burned Washington down is total rubbish (it was entirely British regulars) they still performed a very useful role in defending Canada. While they can't claim to have solely defeated the Americans in 1812-15 (it should be regarded as a draw) they can certainly share in the spoils of the war. It was incredibly important for developing the Canadian national identity, especially when the Canadian population at the time was a total mish mash of United Empire Loyalists who'd fled the States after the Revolution, new immigrants from the UK, old French Canadiens and a large population of recent American immigrants. It began the process of fusing them all into one culture and community and that's why it's so important for Canadians. It's exactly the same as the importance of the Revolution to the Americans.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 90

Original post by pol pot noodles

Even coming from you, this is a new level of ignorance. There was no threat of a slave uprising in the colonies or even a fear of one. The abolitionist movement in the UK was lead by Evangelicals and Quakers who believed that slavery was un-Christian. Like always, you've based your statement on absolutely no fact. You seem to have a habit of just making stuff up to suit your viewpoint.

Ever heard of the 'many headed hydra' description of the workforce, in reference to the fact that quelling rebellion is hard? They most certainly were worried about laborers teaming up (slaves and indentured servants).

I'm not making facts up.

Reply 91

Original post by drknoble

No one said it was the first perfect modern democracy, but it was the world's first modern democracy, while the ancient greeks had the first ancient democracy.

I don't know what definition of "modern democracy" you're using, but it appears to be one based on fiction. Do babies and dogs get to vote as well?

Our constitution is always improving, just as our framers intended it be. We corrected foolish mistakes and gave everyone the right to vote.

Ah, but my friend, you're the one claiming that the US was the "first modern democracy". How are you defining a modern democracy when you say that? By whatever measure you use, we'll see if I'm able to find a country that beat the US to it.

In my opinion the best definition of 'modern democracy' is the right of anyone over 21 to vote (though preferably 18), and not discriminating based on gender or race. If we use that measure, New Zealand was first.

Are you suggesting that the US qualify for this title simply by having a Bill of Rights? England had one in 1689 and it's still in force to this day. San Marino, which as we have established has been a republic for 1,700 years, has had a constitution since 1600. Why are neither of these qualifications for being a modern democracy, but the US's constitution was? What exact rights did the US constitution give that makes you believe it was the first modern democracy?

A "slight" doesn't equal you're now a republic and democracy. Britain needed a real revolution not a half-assed attempt. To this day the monarchy is propped up and it will probably remain that way.

England still had a monarchy afterwards, and still has one to this day.

'You're'? I'm neither English nor British.

I never said that the Magna Carta made England a democracy, it was just an example of a document which inspired the Founding Fathers (see here for an example of how it inspired them). In my opinion, Britain only became a true modern democracy in 1928.

It's possible some of those could be considered republics, but they're not democracies. China claims to be a republic, but it's not a democracy. The US is a republic and democracy, the world's first modern democracy with the world's first written constitution and bill of rights to be exact.

Again, that really depends on how you're defining "first modern democracy", as I've already demonstrated, the US was not the first to have a bill of rights.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 92

Original post by pol pot noodles

I never said they were. But you seem to think that Britain should have complied with American nuetralisation laws.

My word, you Americans are delusional.
Napoleon was defeated. Napoleon. Have you heard of Napoleon? He tried to conquer Europe. Napoleon. Impressment was introduced to combat Napoleon. When Napoleon, that's right, Napoleon, I said Napoleon, was defeated, impressment ended. Napoleon. Not an irrelevant sideshow of a war in North America. Napoleon. Napoleon. America's military campaign during the war of 1812, which failed in it's invasion of Canada and was repulsed, did not factor into the equation. Napoleon did. Because Napoleon could actually threaten the UK. America couldn't. Napoleon. Britain never continued doing what it was doing before the war because after the war, Napoleon was defeated. Do you understand now? Napoleon. America failed to conquer Canada, it failed to gain concessions on impressment or blockades, it failed to even get compensation for impressment. Fail, fail, fail. But apparently you Americans have no ambition, because in your books, fail, fail, fail somehow constitutes a victory.

I don't think you can suggest that the US fighting back was a small issue for the british. The US was almost as strong a force as napolean in europe, it's just that the USA was further away from britain and didn't want to conquer britain.

America didn't want to annex canada - it was some rhetoric used by Jefferson to rally up the new country. The real aims the US had were to limit british involvement in US affairs, which britain continually did - such as kidnapping American citizens. The US managed to stop impressment, despite britain using napolean as an excuse. The US managed to invade canada, and show britain it couldn't push the US around and also managed to defeat the rise of the Indian empire, which britain tried to support in order to hurt the US. It wasn't 'fail' at all, the US won the war. There's no point denying it. I know it hurts to think that a small colony could have kicked britain's butt at the height of its empire, but lol.

Reply 93

Original post by Craig_D

Are you suggesting that the US qualify for this title simply by having a Bill of Rights? England had one in 1689 and it's still in force to this day.

The American Bill of Rights actually lifts whole passages from the English version and copies them as they are, which I find hilarious given how much certain right wing Americans think they invented everything democratic and liberal.

Reply 94

Original post by DYKWIA

I don't think you can suggest that the US fighting back was a small issue for the british. The US was almost as strong a force as napolean in europe, it's just that the USA was further away from britain and didn't want to conquer britain.

America didn't want to annex canada - it was some rhetoric used by Jefferson to rally up the new country. The real aims the US had were to limit british involvement in US affairs, which britain continually did - such as kidnapping American citizens. The US managed to stop impressment, despite britain using napolean as an excuse. The US managed to invade canada, and show britain it couldn't push the US around and also managed to defeat the rise of the Indian empire, which britain tried to support in order to hurt the US. It wasn't 'fail' at all, the US won the war. There's no point denying it. I know it hurts to think that a small colony could have kicked britain's butt at the height of its empire, but lol.

Wait what? I love America, I'm not attacking it just because I'm British but that's totally wrong. Firstly the USA wasn't almost as strong as Napoleon in Europe...nowhere near it. It nearly went bankrupt trying to fight the war in 1814, had a ton of hideous generals (Jackson aside), relied far too strongly on ill disciplined militias and generally got it's ass handed to it everywhere aside from New Orleans and in naval battles. The only reason Baltimore didn't fall was literally sheer luck. Admittedly in the naval battles the Americans gave a very good account of themselves.

The USA did want Canada, most of the primary actors on the American side mention it in the run up to the war and the American negotiators in Ghent were demanding it for most of the negotiations for peace. The USA did manage to invade Canada indeed but was sent scuttling out of Canada every single time, Benedict Arnold achieved more nearly thirty years earlier. Anyone can invade anywhere it proves nothing, it's actually successfully winning battles and occupying somewhere which proves something.

About the only thing you do have right is about the Indian lands but that was hardly important. The British just sold the Natives down the river as the British and Americans did throughout the 17th to 20th centuries.

Reply 95

Original post by drknoble

No. Don't let him confuse you. The US created the world's first modern democracy with the world's first written constitution and bill of rights.

The magna carta propped up a monarchy, which is the exact opposite of a democracy. Before the US, every country was a monarchy. The US then inspired the French to revolt and the rest is history.

That's what I thought. Yes, it wasn't exactly equal rights, but then people had different morals back then.

Original post by Craig_D

I never said there weren't other motives in the final decision. William Wilberforce though campaigned for entirely moral reasons. The Royal Navy only captured slave ships for moral reasons, they otherwise gained little benefit from sailing around the Atlantic seeking conflict; there was no uprising to be feared from allowing other countries to trade.

It's a bit simplistic to say 'not long after', and you know that. It taken 50 more years, a civil war, and the might of the great Abraham Lincoln (a true American hero) to finally stamp slavery out.

Actually, Abraham Lincoln didn't abolish slavery on moral grounds. I find it hard to believe the other guy you mentioned did either.

Was it really the United States's path, though? If we look at some examples:

Women could vote in all US states in 1920. In Denmark it was 1915, in Finland it was 1906, in Australia it was 1908, in Norway it was 1913. The US was before many countries in this respect, but was it really leading the way?

The United States reached universal suffrage in 1964/1965 after the civil rights movement, as previously taxes and tests were used in southern states which were designed to specifically prevent black people from voting. In Norway, the right to prevent men from voting based on skin colour was completely removed in 1898, in New Zealand it was 1893, in Finland it was 1906, in Iceland it was 1882; before the Nazis, Germany had rather liberal voting laws and had full male suffrage in 1867. The US may have had Martin Luther King, but what needs to be realised is that the Scandinavian countries in particular didn't need a Martin Luther King figure in the first place.

Am I saying that the US was lagging behind? No, it was certainly no worse than France or the UK, but I'm simply rejecting the idea that the US was an uber-liberal country which was passing progressive laws giving the kind of liberty which left the rest of the world in its wake. That was not the case; the US neither led the way nor lagged behind. What actually happened was a slow move towards liberty and democracy throughout the western world.

All these countries were much smaller than the US, so of course it was easier and faster to change laws there. Maybe the US was slow to actually enact policies, but it always had these ideals in mind from its foundation. Just read the constitution.

It's just my opinion, but I see the effect of Manifest Destiny upon the native Americans being just as detrimental as the effects of the British in India or Ireland, or worse. I don't know how the kind of policy which led to Wounded Knee, for example, could be described as especially favourable next to British imperialism, or the type that the home of democracy would promote. It wasn't the worst atrocity in history, no, but have Sweden ever done such a thing? The Danish? The Finnish? The Irish? The Belgians? The Polish? Maybe Britain was worse, but there are plenty of nations which have done even less than America. If you're trying to claim that America started modern democracy then it would help if it had a clean record with regards to actions towards people living within its borders (and not done things like Wounded Knee), like Sweden, Norway, etc; the US doesn't have that clean record.

I can see you are Italian, well the Romans weren't particularly good for the world, the catholic church? Mussolini? in fact, I'd say Italy is worse than britain in many ways. And yes, sweden, the netherlands, they all tried to establish empires and the things they did in Africa were atrocious tbh.

Up to now, your only defence of this suggestion has been to fling dirt at the policies of the British Empire, a rather easy task, but I never suggested that the Empire was the spreader of modern democracy either. My home country knows that better than anyone. Your opponent here isn't just Britain, you need to demonstrate how the US led the way for France, Sweden, New Zealand, Belgium, Denmark, Canada and all the rest too. It didn't.

Then why do so many countries have federal systems? That is based on the US political system.

Reply 96

Original post by ajp100688

The American Bill of Rights actually lifts whole passages from the English version and copies them as they are, which I find hilarious given how much certain right wing Americans think they invented everything democratic and liberal.

Indeed! (Maybe they should be done for plagarism!) I don't really see how the US Bill of Rights can count as democratic but not its British parent. There is no possible measure by which the US qualifies as the first democracy. It really staggers me, the confidence of the aforementioned group, that even when examples of pre-existing democracies are put forward, they are completely ignored. I'm certain that the goalposts will continue to be moved and the definition of 'democracy' rewritten until only the US fits the definition.

Very interesting post by you above also, I can't disagree with a word of it. I've just been reading a few quotes from Jefferson about annexing Canada; whatever their motivation, it's obvious that it was one of their aims. I think them marching into Canada is sufficient evidence of that!

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 97

Original post by ajp100688

Wait what? I love America, I'm not attacking it just because I'm British but that's totally wrong. Firstly the USA wasn't almost as strong as Napoleon in Europe...nowhere near it. It nearly went bankrupt trying to fight the war in 1814, had a ton of hideous generals (Jackson aside), relied far too strongly on ill disciplined militias and generally got it's ass handed to it everywhere aside from New Orleans and in naval battles. The only reason Baltimore didn't fall was literally sheer luck. Admittedly in the naval battles the Americans gave a very good account of themselves.

The US was a strong nation, and I think it could have beaten britain entirely if it had wanted to, but it realized that it would be better to be allies instead of enemies.

Lol, the US didn't lose much. Sure, it lost a few battles, but britain lost in new york, baltimore, new orleans, plenty of places in canada.

The USA did want Canada, most of the primary actors on the American side mention it in the run up to the war and the American negotiators in Ghent were demanding it for most of the negotiations for peace. The USA did manage to invade Canada indeed but was sent scuttling out of Canada every single time, Benedict Arnold achieved more nearly thirty years earlier. Anyone can invade anywhere it proves nothing, it's actually successfully winning battles and occupying somewhere which proves something.

Maybe that is because holding on to canada was more trouble than it was worth.

Reply 98

Original post by DYKWIA

The US was a strong nation, and I think it could have beaten britain entirely if it had wanted to, but it realized that it would be better to be allies instead of enemies.

Lol, the US didn't lose much. Sure, it lost a few battles, but britain lost in new york, baltimore, new orleans, plenty of places in canada.

We lost at Plattsburgh (New York) because of a naval victory which threatened to cut off our supplies as we marched to Albany. I already explained that the American navy was pretty handy in the war.

We lost at New Orleans because of incredibly ridiculous planning, a lot of the regiments set off to assault a barricade and forget their siege ladders, there was a massive swamp on one side of the battlefield and the Generals involved didn't co-ordinate their assaults properly and had a propensity to get shot. It was the perfect way not to fight a battle by bad generals and had no impact on the war considering it was fought after the peace treaty so shouldn't be brought up in who 'won' the war. That being said we did lose the battle.

At Baltimore we were a lucky shot away from blowing up Fort McHenry and having Baltimore at our mercy. Indeed a few shells landed right by the main ammunition dump in McHenry and amazingly failed to explode. That's how ridiculously lucky Baltimore was. Tactically it was an American victory because we couldn't be bothered to keep wasting our time but it strategically it made no difference whatsoever.

So New Orleans is irrelevant, Baltimore wasn't strategically relevant and is entirely overshadowed by the burning of Washington D.C and only really Plattsburgh can be considered an important victory in the war. That being said Plattsburgh was very important. If that hadn't been won, New York City may (probably) have been occupied; with a British Army sat in New York City and Washington a smouldering ruin the British could have demanded anything they wanted. You can thank Plattsburgh for America coming out of the war with a draw rather than a defeat.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 99