This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Working as a Lawyer in Canada with a UK Law degree?
- Written work for Oxford uni
- WJEC GCSE History 2018-19
- I really hate the war sections of every History topic! It loses me every time, HELP?
- How to revise for history?
- I need ideas to reword my EPQ title.
- Are grade 9s achievable for someone like me?
- history epq
- I hate a-level history
- History NEA coursework
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- AQA GCSE History Paper 1 (8145/1) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Higher history, rmps and modern studies (help please)
- The famine at Mount Lebanon during the first world war
- KCL International Relations & War Studies Offer Holders 2020
- A-Level History NEA Coursework Topic
- History or Ancient History Alevel
- CIE A Level History resources + help
- help with villain motivation
- GCSE History Study Group 2022-2023
Canadians are Trying to Rewrite the History of the 1812 War
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Some random guy
The US did not fight the full might of the British Empire, Britain was busy fighting Nappy. What the US fought was the militarily weaker Canadian colonies. So the weaker side was infact the Canadians.
That's an excuse after the fact. An American excuse would be: Britain did not fight the full might of the US because America was a young country.
They were British colonies in the region known as Canada. Canada as a government entity did not exist until 1867.
Original post by pol pot noodles
And in the eyes of the United Kingdom, the United States wasn't respecting British sovereignty by harbouring and offering citizenship to British fugitives and deserters.
That doesn't make any sense, British sovereignty has nothing to do with it. If someone leaves one country for another seeking refuge, they become an immigrant or refugee. Unless there's a pior agreement between the two countries, then the person is not returned.
Original post by pol pot noodles
The United States didn't achieve it's aim of ending impressment; The Admiralty ended the policy a few days before the war begun. Of course, due to slow communication, America couldn't have known this. Due to the war, Britain restarted the policy, however once more ended it in 1814, after the first defeat of Napoleon. American wishes never once entered into the factor. This is shown by the fact that Britain reserved the right to re-introduce impressment at it's own prerogative. The United States attempted to demand that the issues of impressment and blockades be written into the Treaty of Ghent, but they ultimately dropped those issues. How on Earth is that acheiving your goal?
The hardline facts are these: No territory changed hands. America failed to deal with the issues of impressment and the blockade, the primary reasons for entering the war. Britain might not have won the war, but America certainly lost.
The United States didn't achieve it's aim of ending impressment; The Admiralty ended the policy a few days before the war begun. Of course, due to slow communication, America couldn't have known this. Due to the war, Britain restarted the policy, however once more ended it in 1814, after the first defeat of Napoleon. American wishes never once entered into the factor. This is shown by the fact that Britain reserved the right to re-introduce impressment at it's own prerogative. The United States attempted to demand that the issues of impressment and blockades be written into the Treaty of Ghent, but they ultimately dropped those issues. How on Earth is that acheiving your goal?
The hardline facts are these: No territory changed hands. America failed to deal with the issues of impressment and the blockade, the primary reasons for entering the war. Britain might not have won the war, but America certainly lost.
Like a said before, many wars start and end for different reasons. Fact of the matter is the US was provoked because its sovereignty was threatened and had no choice but to take action or risk becoming a pushover. When the war finally ended, everything the US aimed for was achieved. Impressment stopped. It doesn't matter why it stopped, but it stopped. Those issues were dropped because they weren't of concern any longer.
Original post by drknoble
That doesn't make any sense, British sovereignty has nothing to do with it. If someone leaves one country for another seeking refuge, they become an immigrant or refugee. Unless there's a pior agreement between the two countries, then the person is not returned.
The weren't immigrants or refugees, they were criminals and deserters to which the US government was giving assylum. At the time, British law did not allow it's citizens to give up citizenship. In the eyes of the UK, if you were born British, you die British. For the American government to harbour these people was a direct attack on the sovereignty of the British crown over its subjects.
Original post by drknoble
Like a said before, many wars start and end for different reasons. Fact of the matter is the US was provoked because its sovereignty was threatened and had no choice but to take action or risk becoming a pushover. When the war finally ended, everything the US aimed for was achieved. Impressment stopped. It doesn't matter why it stopped, but it stopped. Those issues were dropped because they weren't of concern any longer.
Like a said before, many wars start and end for different reasons. Fact of the matter is the US was provoked because its sovereignty was threatened and had no choice but to take action or risk becoming a pushover. When the war finally ended, everything the US aimed for was achieved. Impressment stopped. It doesn't matter why it stopped, but it stopped. Those issues were dropped because they weren't of concern any longer.
Of course it matters why it was stopped. For America's military campaign to have been a success, American military or political action must have been why Britain gave up impressment. It wasn't. At the end of the war, the British Admiralty reserved the right to re-introduce the policy at it's own prerogative. Britain reserved the right to blockade the high seas at it's own prerogative. These were the two key issues America went to war for, and at the end of the conflict it had resolved neither. The only person who achieved all their objectives was the United Kingdom; the defence of Canada and status quo in North America.
Original post by drknoble
That's an excuse after the fact. An American excuse would be: Britain did not fight the full might of the US because America was a young country.
They were British colonies in the region known as Canada. Canada as a government entity did not exist until 1867.
They were British colonies in the region known as Canada. Canada as a government entity did not exist until 1867.
What are you on about? You tried to paint the US as the underdogs in the post I quoted. I am telling you that the Canadians the US fought were infact the underdogs.
Yes we know Canada didn't exist as a sovereign nation, but the people that would later make up the state of Canada did. These are the people that fought the US.
And yes you can feel proud about the 7 years war if it helps you sleep at night. Honestly, no one gives a crap about pointless technicalities like these.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by drknoble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXAvOcY9TlE
The 1812 war was between the US and the British. Canada as a government didn't exist until 1867. Yet Canadians continue to claim that they beat America, when in reality the US never fought "Canada" and has more of right to claim victory than the British (because the US won the last major battle and ended British impressment, which was what started the war in the first place). So how could Canada have participated in the 1812 war, when at that time "Canada" was only known as a region of North America? It seems to me Canadians are looking for something to get patriotic about, but facts are facts. Is there nothing else Canadians can use for patriotism besides this fiction that's based on nothing but historically false mythology?
Here's an article from the March 2012 issue of the Canadian magazine Walrus titled "That Time We Beat the Americans".
http://walrusmagazine.com/article.php?ref=2012.03-essay-that-time-we-beat-the-americans
The 1812 war was between the US and the British. Canada as a government didn't exist until 1867. Yet Canadians continue to claim that they beat America, when in reality the US never fought "Canada" and has more of right to claim victory than the British (because the US won the last major battle and ended British impressment, which was what started the war in the first place). So how could Canada have participated in the 1812 war, when at that time "Canada" was only known as a region of North America? It seems to me Canadians are looking for something to get patriotic about, but facts are facts. Is there nothing else Canadians can use for patriotism besides this fiction that's based on nothing but historically false mythology?
Here's an article from the March 2012 issue of the Canadian magazine Walrus titled "That Time We Beat the Americans".
http://walrusmagazine.com/article.php?ref=2012.03-essay-that-time-we-beat-the-americans
Just like the rebellious American colonies are claiming the history prior to secession from the British Crown?
I think you've misunderstood the term 'revisionist history' a bit.
Canadians have 'claim' to any history that occurs in their country, especially considering they are part of the Commonwealth (They still hold the Queen as head of state).
I think Canada can claim to have been involved in that war. The British North American colonies may not have been called Canada at the time, but modern Canada is clearly the continuation of those colonies.
Why do they celebrate Thanksgiving in the USA? The story of Thanksgiving predates the USA, yet I'm sure many Americans consider it to be a defining part of America's history.
Sometimes I like to think of the USA as "Canada's toilet"
Why do they celebrate Thanksgiving in the USA? The story of Thanksgiving predates the USA, yet I'm sure many Americans consider it to be a defining part of America's history.
Original post by svelte
Yes. How would you feel if you were Canada and everybody referred to you as "America Two" and "America's Hat" and "Diet America"?
Sometimes I like to think of the USA as "Canada's toilet"
Original post by drknoble
You said it your self the "British Empire fought the war". "Canada" was not a government entity when the 1812 war took place. Before the US revolution, the American colonist fought during the 7 years war, so should the United States media now claim ownership of that war with ridiculous headlines like "That Time We Beat the French"?
Your Scotland example isn't equivalent to this Canada and 1812 war matter because Canada was never a sovereign country that later joined the United Kingdom.
The aim of the the US during the 1812 war was never to capture any part of Canada region. It was to force the British to stop the impressment of US sailors and to gain respect from the British who were bullying the young and weak US. The US achieved all of it's objectives so it has the right to claim victory.
You've got it completely wrong, the British were the aggressors, name one country that would have sat by and allowed another country to regularly kidnapp their citizens? The british were bullying the US and forced the US to take action.
Your Scotland example isn't equivalent to this Canada and 1812 war matter because Canada was never a sovereign country that later joined the United Kingdom.
The aim of the the US during the 1812 war was never to capture any part of Canada region. It was to force the British to stop the impressment of US sailors and to gain respect from the British who were bullying the young and weak US. The US achieved all of it's objectives so it has the right to claim victory.
You've got it completely wrong, the British were the aggressors, name one country that would have sat by and allowed another country to regularly kidnapp their citizens? The british were bullying the US and forced the US to take action.
Canada fought in the war. It does not matter whether it was called canada or had its own government, it fought in the war. Canadian militia defeated US armies. I don't know why you can't understand this. My scotland example is exactly the same as this one, canada was in the British empire and scotland is in the UK. Thats the same thing. All parts of a nation or empire can claim that they were part of the victory of that nation or empire even if they later secede from it. You cannot just rewrite history and say "yeah canada had nothing to do with the war, nothing happened in north america other than us fighting some British people who have since dropped off the face of the earth and been replaced by these people called canadians".
Well the USA failed to achieve its objectives. Impressment was stopped because napoleon was defeated, you do understand that right? America declaring war had no effect at all. Everyone accepts this. It is also obvious because the peace treaty that ended the war did not mention impressment, the UK would have continued with this had the war with france continued. Every american attack was defeated and your capital city pillaged and burnt. Anyone with any intelligence would see that as a defeat. Essentially you faced a very weak British force as most of the British army was busy in europe, had the USA continued the war after napoleon had been defeated then it would have been crushed, completely and utterly crushed. It sued for peace because it could see what was coming.
Stop saying your country was young and weak, I don't know what point you are trying to make but it just sounds stupid. Germany was a young country of 43 years when it took on most of the world in ww1, your country was 31 years old when it took on a single over stretched power that was fighting the biggest war it had ever engaged in.
Original post by drknoble
If the war started because of British bullying and impressment of US sailors, and after the war British bullying and impressment ended, wouldn't you say the US achieved their objective, and therefore has more of a right to claim victory?
that is but one of the claimed origins of the war others have said the embargo on american good to france was a cause, support of the indians and incidents such as the Chesapeake affair and the subsequent embargo, some have also argued that american expansionism was a cause as well ... so depending what you believe to be the cause besides didnt press ganging continue until the defeat of Napoleon in 1814 at which point it was considered superfluous anyway?
Probably not the first country that has tried to rewrite history, or deny a part of their past.
Original post by JPDub
Haha yes, because whenever Canadians say anything negative about the States, that's what it boils down to. 
Actually, us Canadians are taught in school that neither the USA or Canada won the War of 1812; it says so right in our textbooks. You Americans are taught that you won it, so I think that says it all.
And your "Canada couldn't have won the War of 1812 because it didn't even exist" argument is completely ridiculous and invalid. While we were still under British rule, there were the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, which would later become Ontario and Quebec.
Actually, us Canadians are taught in school that neither the USA or Canada won the War of 1812; it says so right in our textbooks. You Americans are taught that you won it, so I think that says it all.
And your "Canada couldn't have won the War of 1812 because it didn't even exist" argument is completely ridiculous and invalid. While we were still under British rule, there were the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, which would later become Ontario and Quebec.
I think overall the US did win in its aims actually. The war of 1812, for better or for worse prevented the native Americans from establishing their own empire; the US successfully defended her territory from british invasion in New York, New Orleans and Baltimore. The US also managed to seize places like Ontario. I think the US did win, we managed to defend our sovereign territory.
Original post by pol pot noodles
...
No, britain failed in its invasion of the USA and its attempts to establish an indian empire to strangle the USA.
Original post by DYKWIA
I think overall the US did win in its aims actually. The war of 1812, for better or for worse prevented the native Americans from establishing their own empire;
And failed to gain any kind of concession regarding impressment or the blockade. I thought Americans were ambitious, yet here you are claiming that one out of three constitutes a victory?
Original post by DYKWIA
the US successfully defended her territory from british invasion in New York, New Orleans and Baltimore.
the US successfully defended her territory from british invasion in New York, New Orleans and Baltimore.
Only after numerous failed invasions of Canada.
Original post by DYKWIA
The US also managed to seize places like Ontario.
The US also managed to seize places like Ontario.
So? The British burned down the White House. Neither actions had any effect on the Treaty of Ghent.
Original post by DYKWIA
I think the US did win, we managed to defend our sovereign territory.
I think the US did win, we managed to defend our sovereign territory.
Considering the fact that the United States was the aggressor nation, what you say is irrelevant. The UK had no intention of impeding your 'sovereign territory'. The British invasion of the US was a tactical move as a means of waging war, not a strategic attempt at annexation. By your very own logic you admit that the UK won, since it successfully defended British North America.
Original post by DYKWIA
No, britain failed in its invasion of the USA and its attempts to establish an indian empire to strangle the USA.
No, britain failed in its invasion of the USA and its attempts to establish an indian empire to strangle the USA.
And the United States failed in it's invasion of Canada, it failed to gain concessions regarding impressment or the blockade and it suffered more casualties despite facing pretty much Britain's reserve team.
Original post by pol pot noodles
And failed to gain any kind of concession regarding impressment or the blockade. I thought Americans were ambitious, yet here you are claiming that one out of three constitutes a victory?
The US managed to defend its territory, force the british back with their tails between their legs and managed to prevent the rise of the native americans. Yes, i'd say the US succeeded in its aims.
Only after numerous failed invasions of Canada.
lol, the US didn't want to take canada, it wanted to be left to its own devices, which the british didn't seem to want, as they kept getting involved in the internal affairs of the US.
So? The British burned down the White House. Neither actions had any effect on the Treaty of Ghent.
Britain's attempt to break democracy and freedom, which threatened your empire.
Considering the fact that the United States was the aggressor nation, what you say is irrelevant. The UK had no intention of impeding your 'sovereign territory'. The British invasion of the US was a tactical move as a means of waging war, not a strategic attempt at annexation. By your very own logic you admit that the UK won, since it successfully defended British North America.
The US wasn't the aggressor nation, it was britain who tried to capture Americans (both born and naturalized) and force them into war with france.
And the United States failed in it's invasion of Canada, it failed to gain concessions regarding impressment or the blockade and it suffered more casualties despite facing pretty much Britain's reserve team.
The USA was a small country, bounded by a native American empire to the east, the british to the north and the spanish to the south - all of whom wanted American territory.
Anyway, as usual it was a nice attempt by you to misinterpret historical events.
Original post by DYKWIA
The US managed to defend its territory, force the british back with their tails between their legs and managed to prevent the rise of the native americans. Yes, i'd say the US succeeded in its aims.
I notice you conveniently ignored the issues of impressment and the blockade, which were more important US war goals then the Native Americans.
Original post by DYKWIA
lol, the US didn't want to take canada, it wanted to be left to its own devices, which the british didn't seem to want, as they kept getting involved in the internal affairs of the US.
lol, the US didn't want to take canada, it wanted to be left to its own devices, which the british didn't seem to want, as they kept getting involved in the internal affairs of the US.
The numerous failed American invasions of Canada paints a some what different picture.
Original post by DYKWIA
Britain's attempt to break democracy and freedom, which threatened your empire.
Britain's attempt to break democracy and freedom, which threatened your empire.
Oh here we go again
The United States did not invent democracy. Democracy was around long before the US came to fruition. Britain has had an elected parliament since before the Americas were even discovered. The US was not even democratic. It was a slave-owning nation, for crying out loud!
Original post by DYKWIA
The US wasn't the aggressor nation, it was britain who tried to capture Americans (both born and naturalized) and force them into war with france.
The US wasn't the aggressor nation, it was britain who tried to capture Americans (both born and naturalized) and force them into war with france.
The British didn't try to capture Americans, they tried to capture Britons. Naturalisation wasn't a concept accepted under British law of the time. These convicts and deserters were British, privy to be called upon to do their duty for King and country. The fact that America was attempting to grant them assylum is irrelevant.
Original post by DYKWIA
The USA was a small country, bounded by a native American empire to the east, the british to the north and the spanish to the south - all of whom wanted American territory.
The USA was a small country, bounded by a native American empire to the east, the british to the north and the spanish to the south - all of whom wanted American territory.
Point being?
Original post by DYKWIA
Anyway, as usual it was a nice attempt by you to misinterpret historical events.
Anyway, as usual it was a nice attempt by you to misinterpret historical events.
Are you actually saying that I usually misinterpret historical events? Are you taking the piss? Did you just say that? The man who didn't know that Puerto Rico was a US territory? Or thought that the United States suffered the most casualties during WW1? On your bike son.
Original post by pol pot noodles
I notice you conveniently ignored the issues of impressment and the blockade, which were more important US war goals then the Native Americans.
It didn't achieve every goal, no, but no war ever results in every aim being achieved.
The numerous failed American invasions of Canada paints a some what different picture.
That was to recover those people who wanted to be a part of the US and it was partially a preemptive measure to defend US sovereignty.
Oh here we go again
The United States did not invent democracy. Democracy was around long before the US came to fruition. Britain has had an elected parliament since before the Americas were even discovered. The US was not even democratic. It was a slave-owning nation, for crying out loud!
The United States did not invent democracy. Democracy was around long before the US came to fruition. Britain has had an elected parliament since before the Americas were even discovered. The US was not even democratic. It was a slave-owning nation, for crying out loud!
You could only vote in britain if you had land, that's not democracy. The US may not have invented democracy, but it did invent modern democracy and it was the first nation that actively tried to spread democracy and combat imperialism.
The British didn't try to capture Americans, they tried to capture Britons. Naturalisation wasn't a concept accepted under British law of the time. These convicts and deserters were British, privy to be called upon to do their duty for King and country. The fact that America was attempting to grant them assylum is irrelevant.
Why? Why did they have to do their duty for someone born into that position. Many of these people agreed with freedom and agreed with the ideals of the US over britain. They were Americans in the US' eyes, they wanted to be American and britain wouldn't have it. Isn't that exactly the argument that britain uses now for the falkland islands? lol.
Point being?
The US wasn't the aggressor, it was simply a fledgling nation trying to resist intervention by larger countries.
Are you actually saying that I usually misinterpret historical events? Are you taking the piss? Did you just say that? The man who didn't know that Puerto Rico was a US territory? Or thought that the United States suffered the most casualties during WW1? On your bike son.
Yes, you portray the british empire in a blatantly false light. I realize that I've made ignorant comments before, but I'm not trying to change history here.
Original post by DYKWIA
It didn't achieve every goal, no, but no war ever results in every aim being achieved.
So once more, just to clarify, one out of three constitutes a victory in your eyes?
Original post by DYKWIA
That was to recover those people who wanted to be a part of the US and it was partially a preemptive measure to defend US sovereignty.
That was to recover those people who wanted to be a part of the US and it was partially a preemptive measure to defend US sovereignty.
Who exactly were 'those people who wanted to be a part of the US'? The Canadians? Good lord, are you on drugs? Canada at the time was populated by loyalists who took up arms, formed militia groups and fought off the US invasions. They don't sound very much like the actions of people who wanted to join the US.
Original post by DYKWIA
You could only vote in britain if you had land, that's not democracy. The US may not have invented democracy, but it did invent modern democracy
You could only vote in britain if you had land, that's not democracy. The US may not have invented democracy, but it did invent modern democracy
In America, black people couldn't vote. Oh yeah, they were also kept as slaves. Doesn't sound too democratic or modern to me.
Original post by DYKWIA
and it was the first nation that actively tried to spread democracy and combat imperialism.
and it was the first nation that actively tried to spread democracy and combat imperialism.
The United States conquered land off of Spain, Mexico and the Native American tribes. Are you telling me that the best way to combat imperialism is to infact practice it yourself? Well if that's the case, then no country did more to combat imperialism than Britian.
Original post by DYKWIA
Why? Why did they have to do their duty for someone born into that position.
Why? Why did they have to do their duty for someone born into that position.
Oh sorry, I guess doing your duty for a flag is so much less archaic.
Original post by DYKWIA
Many of these people agreed with freedom and agreed with the ideals of the US over britain.
Many of these people agreed with freedom and agreed with the ideals of the US over britain.
No, the majority were convicts and military deserters who fled to America to escape punishment.
Original post by DYKWIA
They were Americans in the US' eyes, they wanted to be American and britain wouldn't have it.
They were Americans in the US' eyes, they wanted to be American and britain wouldn't have it.
They weren't American in Britain's eyes though, that's the whole point.
Original post by DYKWIA
Isn't that exactly the argument that britain uses now for the falkland islands? lol.
Isn't that exactly the argument that britain uses now for the falkland islands? lol.
No, not really, not even in the slightest. The war of 1812 happened in the early 19th century. The UN charter didn't even exist back then. Take off your rose tinted retrospective glasses why don't you?
Original post by DYKWIA
The US wasn't the aggressor, it was simply a fledgling nation trying to resist intervention by larger countries.
The US wasn't the aggressor, it was simply a fledgling nation trying to resist intervention by larger countries.
So a nation that invades another one, isn't the aggressor? You've been paying too much attention to George W. Bush.
Original post by DYKWIA
Yes, you portray the british empire in a blatantly false light.
Yes, you portray the british empire in a blatantly false light.
And exactly what blatantly false light is this?
Original post by DYKWIA
I realize that I've made ignorant comments before, but I'm not trying to change history here.
I realize that I've made ignorant comments before, but I'm not trying to change history here.
Apparently, despite the USA invading Canada, they aren't the aggressor. Apparently, the Canadians wanted to be liberated. Apparently, Britain wanted to annex the US. What you are doing is the definition of changing history.
Original post by pol pot noodles
So once more, just to clarify, one out of three constitutes a victory in your eyes?
The US achieved its primary aims to gain more sovereignty and control of surrounding regions.
Who exactly were 'those people who wanted to be a part of the US'? The Canadians? Good lord, are you on drugs? Canada at the time was populated by loyalists who took up arms, formed militia groups and fought off the US invasions. They don't sound very much like the actions of people who wanted to join the US.
The US didn't want to take over Canada, it wanted to fight off the british who kept getting involved in US affairs. What right did britain have to try and stop US expansion? It had nothing to do with britain.
In America, black people couldn't vote. Oh yeah, they were also kept as slaves. Doesn't sound too democratic or modern to me.
No, I admit, but none of the world was any better.
The United States conquered land off of Spain, Mexico and the Native American tribes. Are you telling me that the best way to combat imperialism is to infact practice it yourself? Well if that's the case, then no country did more to combat imperialism than Britian.
It wasn't imperialism. The US didn't try and colonize far off places.
Oh sorry, I guess doing your duty for a flag is so much less archaic.
It's a duty to an ideal, not a person.
They weren't American in Britain's eyes though, that's the whole point.
Who cares what britain thought? I care about what those Americans thought. They wanted freedom of oppression.
No, not really, not even in the slightest. The war of 1812 happened in the early 19th century. The UN charter didn't even exist back then. Take off your rose tinted retrospective glasses why don't you?
But there are similarities, do you not think? A group of people wanting to be protected by one country, while another tries to take them over?
So a nation that invades another one, isn't the aggressor? You've been paying too much attention to George W. Bush.
It's not black and white like that. It depends on the circumstances.
And exactly what blatantly false light is this?
That the US was the aggressor, that the US didn't win, that britain is so perfect.
Apparently, despite the USA invading Canada, they aren't the aggressor. Apparently, the Canadians wanted to be liberated. Apparently, Britain wanted to annex the US. What you are doing is the definition of changing history.
I think britain did want to break the US' back - punish it for fighting for freedom.
Original post by DYKWIA
The US achieved its primary aims to gain more sovereignty and control of surrounding regions.
It's primary aims were to end impressment and the blockade, of which it failed to do. How exactly did it gain more sovereignty, and exactly which British regions did it gain control of?
Original post by DYKWIA
The US didn't want to take over Canada, it wanted to fight off the british who kept getting involved in US affairs.
The US didn't want to take over Canada, it wanted to fight off the british who kept getting involved in US affairs.
I never said that annexing Canada was an original war game. I want you to explain the notion that Canadians infact wanted to join the US.
Original post by DYKWIA
What right did britain have to try and stop US expansion? It had nothing to do with britain.
What right did britain have to try and stop US expansion? It had nothing to do with britain.
When that expansion involves attacking a British ally, it has everything to do with Britain.
Original post by DYKWIA
It wasn't imperialism. The US didn't try and colonize far off places.
It wasn't imperialism. The US didn't try and colonize far off places.
Oh well, when you put it like that...it's still imperialism. Conquering, subjugating and annexing foreign land is imperialism, regardless of whether it's in a far off place or on your door step. And as Hawaii and the Philippines shows, the US also partook in the far off kind.
Original post by DYKWIA
It's a duty to an ideal, not a person.
It's a duty to an ideal, not a person.
So is the phrase 'King and Country'. A Monarch is a personification and symbol of the country. Anyhows, rather fight for an actual person than an inanimate object.
Original post by DYKWIA
Who cares what britain thought? I care about what those Americans thought. They wanted freedom of oppression.
Who cares what britain thought? I care about what those Americans thought. They wanted freedom of oppression.
Who cares what America thought? I care about what Britain thinks. See how that works?
Original post by DYKWIA
But there are similarities, do you not think? A group of people wanting to be protected by one country, while another tries to take them over?
But there are similarities, do you not think? A group of people wanting to be protected by one country, while another tries to take them over?
No, because the Falkland Islanders aren't Argentine born criminals who have fled to British jurisdiction to escape punishment or their duty.
Original post by DYKWIA
That the US was the aggressor, that the US didn't win, that britain is so perfect.
That the US was the aggressor, that the US didn't win, that britain is so perfect.
First off, I have never said that Britain is so perfect.
Secondly, the US didn't win. That's the truth. Read the bloomin' Treaty of Ghent if you don't believe me.
Original post by DYKWIA
I think britain did want to break the US' back - punish it for fighting for freedom.
I think britain did want to break the US' back - punish it for fighting for freedom.
Well, if you think it, it must be true
If you can show me one single offical contempary British government document, or quote one single British government official of the time, that states that British actions during the war of 1812 were revenge for the revolution, then fair plays. Otherwise, on your bike son.
(edited 12 years ago)
Have you read the article? Or just read the title and taken offence?
The article is a balanced, reasoned, description of how the Canadian nation and national identity were forged.
Your reply is facile, biased and relies heavily upon semantics.
You argue that the country of Canada did not officially exist at that time, which is true, yet people refered to that region as Canada and its inhabitants as Canadians even during that time. There are numerous examples of senior U.S. Politicians using the word Canada.
Would the title of the article have satisfied you if it had been the rather unwieldy “That Time the inhabitants of the region that would later become part of the sovereign nation of Canada,but at that time were refered to as the colonies of upper Canada and lower Canada, Beat the Americans”?
The article states :-
you state :-
Impressment whilst brutal to modern observers was little more than the draft for the Navy, British citizens who were sailors were pressed into naval service, during the Napoleonic war huge numbers were pressed and one method of avoiding being pressed was to claim citizenship of another country eg the USA. Many british press gangs stretched the burden of proof of citizenship beyond what was legal, resulting in some US citizens wrongly identified as British and impressed. Legal appeals saw many freed but clearly many were not.
One of the “official” reasons of the war was impressment, but no-one ether modern historians or contemporary commentators think that was the real reason. Impressment angered the americans but it was hardly a reason to invade Canada and no-one at the time seriously thought it was. It's like saying “your dog has pissed on my lawn so i'm gonna steal your car” then getting pissed off because the judge and all the jury think you stole the car because you just wanted the car.
You argue that the war was an american victory because impressment stopped, yet impressment was only used to increase the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic wars, once Napoleon was defeated, the size of the Navy was reduced and impressment was no longer necessary.
Wars are seldom fought for the “official” reasons, do you seriously think the second Iraq war had anything to do with “weapons of mass destruction”?
In terms of victory and defeat it is true that the war produced no outright victor or looser and ground down to a pointless stalemate, all sides were glad to sign the treaty ending the war, yet that treaty firmly established a border between the USA and Canada and put an end to US dreams of expansion northward and turned their attentions to expanding westward and the policy of “manifest destiny”.
Having your capitol city sacked and the whitehouse burnt hardly counts as a US win!
You state :-
apart from capturing the territories of upper and lower Canada (modern day Quebec and Ontario), which 99% of historians agree was the true reason for invading Canada.
You argue that Canada as a nation did not exist in 1812, which is true, the territories in question were called Upper Canada and Lower Canada at that time and now roughly correspond to Quebec and Ontario. The author of the article does not deny that, the whole point of the article is to show how this war united a wide range of white settlers and indigenous tribes into the nation we now know as Canada.
You state :-
and :-
So Americans can be Americans before the USA formally existed yet Canadians can’t ? is that your argument?
As for “lies and propaganda”, the article is certainly pro Canadian but where are the lies? Apart from a minor error about Sir Isaac Brocks knighthood the article is sound.
The article is a balanced, reasoned, description of how the Canadian nation and national identity were forged.
Your reply is facile, biased and relies heavily upon semantics.
You argue that the country of Canada did not officially exist at that time, which is true, yet people refered to that region as Canada and its inhabitants as Canadians even during that time. There are numerous examples of senior U.S. Politicians using the word Canada.
Would the title of the article have satisfied you if it had been the rather unwieldy “That Time the inhabitants of the region that would later become part of the sovereign nation of Canada,but at that time were refered to as the colonies of upper Canada and lower Canada, Beat the Americans”?
The article states :-
“The reasons the United States invaded Canada were, and remain, contentious and unclear. Officially, residues of the revolution — unresolved issues of maritime law, military conscription, and possession of the Ohio Country — led to the declaration of war on June 18, 1812. But the unofficial reasons — the prize and the odds of success — were grubby, petty.”
you state :-
drknoble
“You've got it completely wrong, the British were the aggressors, name one country that would have sat by and allowed another country to regularly kidnapp their citizens? The british were bullying the US and forced the US to take action”
Impressment whilst brutal to modern observers was little more than the draft for the Navy, British citizens who were sailors were pressed into naval service, during the Napoleonic war huge numbers were pressed and one method of avoiding being pressed was to claim citizenship of another country eg the USA. Many british press gangs stretched the burden of proof of citizenship beyond what was legal, resulting in some US citizens wrongly identified as British and impressed. Legal appeals saw many freed but clearly many were not.
One of the “official” reasons of the war was impressment, but no-one ether modern historians or contemporary commentators think that was the real reason. Impressment angered the americans but it was hardly a reason to invade Canada and no-one at the time seriously thought it was. It's like saying “your dog has pissed on my lawn so i'm gonna steal your car” then getting pissed off because the judge and all the jury think you stole the car because you just wanted the car.
You argue that the war was an american victory because impressment stopped, yet impressment was only used to increase the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic wars, once Napoleon was defeated, the size of the Navy was reduced and impressment was no longer necessary.
Wars are seldom fought for the “official” reasons, do you seriously think the second Iraq war had anything to do with “weapons of mass destruction”?
In terms of victory and defeat it is true that the war produced no outright victor or looser and ground down to a pointless stalemate, all sides were glad to sign the treaty ending the war, yet that treaty firmly established a border between the USA and Canada and put an end to US dreams of expansion northward and turned their attentions to expanding westward and the policy of “manifest destiny”.
Having your capitol city sacked and the whitehouse burnt hardly counts as a US win!
You state :-
drknoble
“everything the US aimed for was achieved”
apart from capturing the territories of upper and lower Canada (modern day Quebec and Ontario), which 99% of historians agree was the true reason for invading Canada.
You argue that Canada as a nation did not exist in 1812, which is true, the territories in question were called Upper Canada and Lower Canada at that time and now roughly correspond to Quebec and Ontario. The author of the article does not deny that, the whole point of the article is to show how this war united a wide range of white settlers and indigenous tribes into the nation we now know as Canada.
You state :-
drknoble
“Canada never participated in the war because Canada never existed as a country until 1867.”
and :-
drknoble
“If the rebels succeed in their revolution, then they are no longer the nationality of the country they rebelled against and are historically considered a new nationality during and after the revolution.”
So Americans can be Americans before the USA formally existed yet Canadians can’t ? is that your argument?
As for “lies and propaganda”, the article is certainly pro Canadian but where are the lies? Apart from a minor error about Sir Isaac Brocks knighthood the article is sound.
Original post by pol pot noodles
It's primary aims were to end impressment and the blockade, of which it failed to do. How exactly did it gain more sovereignty, and exactly which British regions did it gain control of?
Actually, it did succeed in ending the disgusting act of impressment. I don't care what the british thought. They illegally boarded US ships and took people against their will, simply for being born in britain.
I never said that annexing Canada was an original war game. I want you to explain the notion that Canadians infact wanted to join the US.
The US was defending itself from subversive british imperialism.
Oh well, when you put it like that...it's still imperialism. Conquering, subjugating and annexing foreign land is imperialism, regardless of whether it's in a far off place or on your door step. And as Hawaii and the Philippines shows, the US also partook in the far off kind.
In a lot of cases the people wanted to be part of the USA, such as when the US obtained texas.
So is the phrase 'King and Country'. A Monarch is a personification and symbol of the country. Anyhows, rather fight for an actual person than an inanimate object.
I'd rather fight for an uncorrupted ideal than an unelected despot who represents nothing related to freedom.
No, because the Falkland Islanders aren't Argentine born criminals who have fled to British jurisdiction to escape punishment or their duty.
I didn't realize being born in britain qualified as criminality. That's all a lot of naturalized Americans were, and yet they were still seized.
First off, I have never said that Britain is so perfect.
Secondly, the US didn't win. That's the truth. Read the bloomin' Treaty of Ghent if you don't believe me.
Secondly, the US didn't win. That's the truth. Read the bloomin' Treaty of Ghent if you don't believe me.
It forced an end to impressment in 1814, it successfully defended its territory and fought off an imperialistic european power. I think it was a victory for the US. I don't know how you can think it wasn't.
Well, if you think it, it must be true
If you can show me one single offical contempary British government document, or quote one single British government official of the time, that states that British actions during the war of 1812 were revenge for the revolution, then fair plays. Otherwise, on your bike son.
If you can show me one single offical contempary British government document, or quote one single British government official of the time, that states that British actions during the war of 1812 were revenge for the revolution, then fair plays. Otherwise, on your bike son.
What about the burning of washington? That was a clear attempt to destroy freedom.
Original post by DYKWIA
It forced an end to impressment in 1814, it successfully defended its territory and fought off an imperialistic european power. I think it was a victory for the US. I don't know how you can think it wasn't.
It forced an end to impressment in 1814, it successfully defended its territory and fought off an imperialistic european power. I think it was a victory for the US. I don't know how you can think it wasn't.
I don't know how you think it was!
Impressment stopped when the Napoleonic war ended, long before the treaty of Ghent.
Britain, along with half of Europe was busy fighting Napoleon who had captured the other half of europe, hardly the time for Britain to start an imperialistic war elsewhere which would divert much needed troops and resources from the real front.
Original post by DYKWIA
What about the burning of washington? That was a clear attempt to destroy freedom.
What about the burning of washington? That was a clear attempt to destroy freedom.
A clear attempt to demoralise the politicians, little damage was done to civilian property, unlike the american pillaging of canadian towns in the early stages of the war which united canadian public opinion against the US and ended Jeffersons prediction that conquering Canada would be “a mere matter of marching,”
Related discussions
- Working as a Lawyer in Canada with a UK Law degree?
- Written work for Oxford uni
- WJEC GCSE History 2018-19
- I really hate the war sections of every History topic! It loses me every time, HELP?
- How to revise for history?
- I need ideas to reword my EPQ title.
- Are grade 9s achievable for someone like me?
- history epq
- I hate a-level history
- History NEA coursework
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- AQA GCSE History Paper 1 (8145/1) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Higher history, rmps and modern studies (help please)
- The famine at Mount Lebanon during the first world war
- KCL International Relations & War Studies Offer Holders 2020
- A-Level History NEA Coursework Topic
- History or Ancient History Alevel
- CIE A Level History resources + help
- help with villain motivation
- GCSE History Study Group 2022-2023
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official University of Bath Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 6 minutes ago
November 2023 Illegal Migration Intake Unit - Intake Response Team - Immigration OffiLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 10 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official University of Sheffield Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 11 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 13 minutes ago
Customer Services Group - Operational Delivery - Administrative OfficersLast reply 14 minutes ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Trending
Last reply 12 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 12 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
