NationStates Jolt Archive

From what I know of the war it seems to me that America tried to annex Canada from Britain. The Canadian militia fought off the invasion and a British army launched a counter-invasion to punish them. Getting as far as New Orleans and burning down the White House seemed to be the extent of this and then they retreated. How is this conflict portrayed in American schools and media? Have i got anything wrong?

From what I know of the war it seems to me that America tried to annex Canada from Britain. The Canadian militia fought off the invasion and a British army launched a counter-invasion to punish them. Getting as far as New Orleans and burning down the White House seemed to be the extent of this and then they retreated. How is this conflict portrayed in American schools and media? Have i got anything wrong?

1812 tends to be over-looked, and barely covered.
Most schools tend to portray it fairly accurately, but occasionally a particularly patriotic teacher may try to say "We kicked the Brits out..again"

Wich isnt completely true.

It was one of those wars without a clear victor, as it seems the British werent really after occupation, and America wasnt really up for a Revolution Part 2.

So..it gets far less attention in schools than say, the American Revolution, or the American Civil War, or WW2.

*Sigh*

I predict a nationalistic "we're best!" "No, we're best" thread coming.

Joy.

From what I know of the war it seems to me that America tried to annex Canada from Britain. The Canadian militia fought off the invasion and a British army launched a counter-invasion to punish them.

Mostly accurate. Their counter invasion was also eventually beaten back as well.

Getting as far as New Orleans

Actually they invaded New Orleans from the sea. Bad strategy cost the British there.

and burning down the White House seemed to be the extent of this and then they retreated.

Retreated because of their defeat at Fort McHenry where the Star Spangled Banner was written.

How is this conflict portrayed in American schools and media? Have i got anything wrong?

In the media? Depends on what you mean by media I suppose. The History Channel does an excellent job in portraying the War of 1812. They even got it right that it was, in fact, a draw.

It was a good war, proved we could stand on our own, more or less. Solidified the country.

Plus hey, Battle of New Orleans, good song!

And let's not forget that soldiers were still fighting in New Orleans after the conflict was over. Delays in communications caused all kinds of effects we never consider now with satellites and hard lines.

Napoleon learned a valuable lesson....

In the media? Depends on what you mean by media I suppose. The History Channel does an excellent job in portraying the War of 1812. They even got it right that it was, in fact, a draw.
Not to be pedant, but how can you call it a draw when you tried to invade Canada and were pushed back? I call us a win.

From what I know of the war it seems to me that America tried to annex Canada from Britain. The Canadian militia fought off the invasion and a British army launched a counter-invasion to punish them. Getting as far as New Orleans and burning down the White House seemed to be the extent of this and then they retreated. How is this conflict portrayed in American schools and media? Have i got anything wrong?

Well back when I was learning about it my teacher said something like this, "The British kicked the crap out of us."

Not to be pedant, but how can you call it a draw when you tried to invade Canada and were pushed back? I call us a win.

Mainly because the British were also pushed back after their counter-attack, and it was essentially a draw because peace negotiations did not really give a major advantage to either side.


Oh, and by the way, do British schools mention the forced pressing of many American naval sailors into the British navy as the impetus for the American declaration of war? I'm not saying thats a justifiable reason to invade Canada, but I'm curious...

Mainly because the British were also pushed back after their counter-attack, and it was essentially a draw because peace negotiations did not really give a major advantage to either side.


Oh, and by the way, do British schools mention the forced pressing of many American naval sailors into the British navy as the impetus for the American declaration of war? I'm not saying thats a justifiable reason to invade Canada, but I'm curious...

British schools don't mention it at all - what limited resources go in to teaching history of that period are taken up with the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars.

It was a good war, proved we could stand on our own, more or less. Solidified the country.

Solidified it? It nearly ripped it apart.

Plus hey, Battle of New Orleans, good song!

Not bad for a battle taking place after the war was offiicially over.

In my mind, the U.S. had some real grievances with the U.K...which might not have justified war, but certainly needed to be redressed. We got greedy, though, and decided to try and annex Canada.

The U.S. was lucky...the poorly trained militia consistently lost to smaller forces, and the New England states depended on British trade to remain economically viable, making the conquest of Canada nearly impossible.

That, and Britain was a little busy at the time...as I recall.

We managed to do quite well on the seas, consistently winning in one-on-one ship engagements. The British were eventually able to blockade the entire coast, though, so strategically we were still pwned.

In the end, it didn't even matter...the Treaty of Ghent put everything back basically the way it was.

The only immedeate thing it did was foster a sense of national identity in Canada...although an emphasis on officer training was soon enacted by the U.S.

Basically, a footnote, not a chapter, in the annals of history.

I learned in my high school, that the main reason for the invasion of Canada was a retribution for the kidnapping of US citizens to serve on British ships. Despite repeated calls by the US government to stop taking men of trade cargoes and subjugating them into forced service of the military of a foreign country. The British though had seriously undermanned ships and needed all men they could get so they continued, until after the war of 1812 they ceased, simply because a full scale war was not worth a few hundred to a few thousand extra men on their frigates. So after peace negotiations, both sides declared victory. This about right?

The famous saying; as Solomon Short said: "The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky."

Not to be pedant, but how can you call it a draw when you tried to invade Canada and were pushed back? I call us a win.

How can you say it was a win when the United States did not surrender?

I learned in my high school, that the main reason for the invasion of Canada was a retribution for the kidnapping of US citizens to serve on British ships. Despite repeated calls by the US government to stop taking men of trade cargoes and subjugating them into forced service of the military of a foreign country. The British though had seriously undermanned ships and needed all men they could get so they continued, until after the war of 1812 they ceased, simply because a full scale war was not worth a few hundred to a few thousand extra men on their frigates. So after peace negotiations, both sides declared victory. This about right?

Sounds about right.

The famous saying; as Solomon Short said: "The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky."

The 1812 Oveture is my favorite.

The 1812 Oveture is my favorite.

Any song that has the balls to put cannons in it deserves it.

Any song that has the balls to put cannons in it deserves it.

No argument out of me there.

How can you say it was a win when the United States did not surrender?

Let's be clear, I'm talking about Canada. The British part is not really important in our history classes. As far as Canada is concerned, the US invaded with their "manifest destiny", they got pushed back with the help of our British ally, and we even went far into ennmey territory and burned their white house in retaliation. Since we pushed back the invader, we won that war.

Nevermind that it was only one of the theatre of the US-British war, we won our part. In your face! Canada! We're number 1! (insert other nationalistic cheer)

Let's be clear, I'm talking about Canada. The British part is not really important in our history classes. As far as Canada is concerned, the US invaded with their "manifest destiny", they got pushed back with the help of our British ally, and we even went far into ennmey territory and burned their white house in retaliation. Since we pushed back the invader, we won that war.

Then we pushed you out of our country therefor nullifying your so called victory. Now we are back to it being a draw again since Canada did not win the war as they were not even a seperate nation at the time of the war.

Nevermind that it was only one of the theatre of the US-British war, we won our part. In your face! Canada! We're number 1! (insert other nationalistic cheer)

Canada. Not a nation in the eyes of the world in 1812. By logic, you did not win either. Go back and actually understand 1812. No one won the war.

Then we pushed you out of our country therefor nullifying your so called victory. Now we are back to it being a draw again since Canada did not win the war as they were not even a seperate nation at the time of the war.

You invaded, you were pushed back. You failed to meet your objectives. Our objectives were to push you back. We achieved our objectives.


Canada. Not a nation in the eyes of the world in 1812. By logic, you did not win either. Go back and actually understand 1812. No one won the war.
And when you can stop being condescending I'll answer your further queries. In the meantime, continue to think it was a draw, in the smug certainty that USians seem to be born with.

I learned in my high school, that the main reason for the invasion of Canada was a retribution for the kidnapping of US citizens to serve on British ships. Despite repeated calls by the US government to stop taking men of trade cargoes and subjugating them into forced service of the military of a foreign country. The British though had seriously undermanned ships and needed all men they could get so they continued, until after the war of 1812 they ceased, simply because a full scale war was not worth a few hundred to a few thousand extra men on their frigates. So after peace negotiations, both sides declared victory. This about right?

The famous saying; as Solomon Short said: "The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky."

That's about what I learned as well. The Americans were trading with Britain and France, who were at war with each other. If a supply ship was bound for Britain, the French captured it; if it was bound for France, the British captured it. I don't know what they did with the captured ships (whatever the French did was obviously not worth going to war over) but the British searched American ships for people they thought deserted the British armed forces, particularly the Navy. The vast majority of the time, when the British accused an American sailor of being a deserter, they were incorrect.

Also, the British still had forts or protectorates or something on American territory, and the Americans were starting to see this as a real pain in the ass. The British were told to vacate those forts "as soon as is comfortable" or whatever. That wasn't fast enough for the Americans, who already seemed to be losing their patience with the Brits.

As expected, since the British were a superpower, the war was fought on the Americans' home turf. A peace treaty was signed before the folks fighting the Battle of New Orleans were aware of it, so the battle went on. The White House was burned; that's OK because the Americans just built another one.

The famous saying; as Solomon Short said: "The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky."

whose overture wasn't even about the us/british conflict.

but it has cannons in it, so it sounds good on july 4.

Not to be pedant, but how can you call it a draw when you tried to invade Canada and were pushed back? I call us a win.
After the war things returned to the status quo ante bellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante_bellum) - pretty much the definition of a draw in a war.

Let's be clear, I'm talking about Canada. The British part is not really important in our history classes. As far as Canada is concerned, the US invaded with their "manifest destiny", they got pushed back with the help of our British ally, and we even went far into ennmey territory and burned their white house in retaliation. Since we pushed back the invader, we won that war.

Nevermind that it was only one of the theatre of the US-British war, we won our part. In your face! Canada! We're number 1! (insert other nationalistic cheer)

This is probably the biggest difference in how the US and Canada view this war. In the US we don't consider Canada at the time to be seperate from Britain, and no troops are ever referred to as Canadians, always as British.

Anyway, it's understandable why both sides refer to it as they do. Americans would much rather say their capital was burned by the British than by Canadians, and Canadians need a bit of nationalistic dick waving from time to time, just like anybody else.

From what I know of the war it seems to me that America tried to annex Canada from Britain. The Canadian militia fought off the invasion and a British army launched a counter-invasion to punish them. Getting as far as New Orleans and burning down the White House seemed to be the extent of this and then they retreated. How is this conflict portrayed in American schools and media? Have i got anything wrong?

Actually it tends to be that the Canadian winter fought off an undersized and underequipped American militia force, cursed with poor leadership, repeatedly. And with one clever amphibious assault against an area with no regular troops at all (in the Chesapeake), one total failure (at New Orleans) and a fistful of naval engagements. It was a conflict of little consequence, other than further defining the US as an independent nation.

Neither side accomplished 100% of their goals, although the US accomplished it's overt goals (ending the practice of impressment, getting the British to cease arming the Indians) but not the hidden goal of annexing Canada. The Brits maintained the their control of Canada(their overt goal), but failed in their goal of reacquiring the US Northeast.

This is probably the biggest difference in how the US and Canada view this war. In the US we don't consider Canada at the time to be seperate from Britain, and no troops are ever referred to as Canadians, always as British.

Anyway, it's understandable why both sides refer to it as they do. Americans would much rather say their capital was burned by the British than by Canadians, and Canadians need a bit of nationalistic dick waving from time to time, just like anybody else.

And the fact that the commander of the force was a British officer, Robert Ross, who had substantial experience against the armies of Napoleon. Many of his officers in those engagements marched with him, and they were the backbone of his army. The composition of his regular troops was mixed.

We were upset about the impressment of our sailors but the main cause was simply greed. We wanted Canada and tried to take it by force. Beaten back, Washington burned and the Battle of New Orleans won but occured after the peace treaty signed, General Andrew Jackson hero. That basically covers my learning experience of the war.

I think the biggest reason the US went after Canada during the war was because during the Revolution, it was seen as the 14th Colony that didn't get Independence with the other 13. In fact, if not for the incompetent leadership of one General Benedict Arnold, it may well have.

Plus, as a local arm of Britain, it was a logical target in war.

Let's be clear, I'm talking about Canada. The British part is not really important in our history classes. As far as Canada is concerned, the US invaded with their "manifest destiny", they got pushed back with the help of our British ally, and we even went far into ennmey territory and burned their white house in retaliation. Since we pushed back the invader, we won that war.
1. The British weren't your "allies"--Canada was a colony. You were still British subjects.

2. The US didn't have that "manifest destiny" thing going yet.

3. It was British regiments which burned Washington.

This is probably the biggest difference in how the US and Canada view this war. In the US we don't consider Canada at the time to be seperate from Britain, and no troops are ever referred to as Canadians, always as British.

Anyway, it's understandable why both sides refer to it as they do. Americans would much rather say their capital was burned by the British than by Canadians, and Canadians need a bit of nationalistic dick waving from time to time, just like anybody else.
The order of battle says they were British troops--from the UK--not Canada.

Any song that has the balls to put cannons in it deserves it.


Agreed!

"We Salute You!"

You invaded, you were pushed back. You failed to meet your objectives. Our objectives were to push you back. We achieved our objectives.

And Britian did not achieve their objectives either. Therefor, no one won. Therefore, your view of history is skewed.

And when you can stop being condescending I'll answer your further queries. In the meantime, continue to think it was a draw, in the smug certainty that USians seem to be born with.

Excuse me but I am not the one answering in a condescending tone. I have studied 1812 and know that it ended in a draw.

After the war things returned to the status quo ante bellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_ante_bellum) - pretty much the definition of a draw in a war.

Thank You!

I read somewhere that we thought Canada would welcome us as a liberator rather than see us as a conqueror.

And Britian did not achieve their objectives either. Therefor, no one won. Therefore, your view of history is skewed.

It sounds like Canada did. But then again I had never even heard of this War before today.

1. The British weren't your "allies"--Canada was a colony. You were still British subjects.

2. The US didn't have that "manifest destiny" thing going yet.

3. It was British regiments which burned Washington.

This is 100% accurate. Yay for truth!

I read somewhere that we thought Canada would welcome us as a liberator rather than see us as a conqueror.

So America has a history of this thing.

And let's not forget that soldiers were still fighting in New Orleans after the conflict was over. Delays in communications caused all kinds of effects we never consider now with satellites and hard lines.

If that had happened today (fighting after the war is over), people on NS General would have cried "war crime!".

It sounds like Canada did. But then again I had never even heard of this War before today.

Did you forget the part about Canada not having independence and was still under the British Flag with British field officers? If they were a seperate nation, they would have had their own army under the command of their own people. That was not the case in 1812.

As BAAWAKnights said: The order of battle says they were British troops--from the UK--not Canada. On top of British weren't your "allies"--Canada was a colony. You were still British subjects.

So as the historical record indicates, Canada was not independent and therefore did not win in 1812.

So America has a history of this thing.

I'm too lazy to look up who said it, but someone said "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

Did you forget the part about Canada not having independence and was still under the British Flag with British field officers? If they were a seperate nation, they would have had their own army under the command of their own people. That was not the case in 1812.

As BAAWAKnights said: The order of battle says they were British troops--from the UK--not Canada. On top of British weren't your "allies"--Canada was a colony. You were still British subjects.

So as the historical record indicates, Canada was not independent and therefore did not win in 1812.

Not forget, I never knew it.

Not forget, I never knew it.

See? Learn something new everyday :D

Did you forget the part about Canada not having independence and was still under the British Flag with British field officers? If they were a seperate nation, they would have had their own army under the command of their own people. That was not the case in 1812.

As BAAWAKnights said: The order of battle says they were British troops--from the UK--not Canada. On top of British weren't your "allies"--Canada was a colony. You were still British subjects.

So as the historical record indicates, Canada was not independent and therefore did not win in 1812.

So, by that logic, the Americans didn't fight the British in your Revolutionary War?
Couldn't have been Americans, you weren't independent yet.

The colony of Canada fought America in the War of 1812 with assistance from the British.
The colony of Canada had no offensive goals, unlike the Americans and the British.
The colony of Canada had as their goal to repel the Americans as they did not want to join their union. Canada accomplished it's goals.
Canada 'won'.

Agreed!

"We Salute You!"

I was wondering how long it would be until someone posted that.

"for those about to rock!!!"

It sounds like Canada did. But then again I had never even heard of this War before today.

Canada didn't reach their objectives because there was no seperate entity known as Canada. Canada was merely an extension of the British Empire.

The fact that Canadians claim it as a victory is proof that they really need to start relearning some basic historical facts.

Thank God England decided it wasn't worth continuing the fight. ;)

If Britain hadn't been otherwise occupied by the Napoleanic Wars, the War of 1812 might have gone very differently.

I'll be going with Snow Eaters on this one. You claim that the American Revolution was won by british troops, because:
USA didn't reach their objectives because there was no seperate entity known as USA. USA was merely an extension of the British Empire.

The fact that Americans claim it as a victory is proof that they really need to start relearning some basic historical facts.

So, by that logic, the Americans didn't fight the British in your Revolutionary War?
No, Canadians did fight in the war of 1812. They just were not part of the order of battle of the troops that burned DC. It's an historical fact--all the troops there at the battle of DC on the side of the British were from THE UK. Not Canada.

So, by that logic, the Americans didn't fight the British in your Revolutionary War?
Couldn't have been Americans, you weren't independent yet.

The colony of Canada fought America in the War of 1812 with assistance from the British.
The colony of Canada had no offensive goals, unlike the Americans and the British.
The colony of Canada had as their goal to repel the Americans as they did not want to join their union. Canada accomplished it's goals.
Canada 'won'.

Eh?

I guess you were sleeping when they got to the Battle of Plattsburgh, also known as the Battle of Lake Champlain

Rather large forces were defeated by smaller forces.

Ok you won in Canada and were repelled when you crossed .

Losing there and at Baltimore is what allowed the Treaty of Ghent to go forward.

England got a promise to no longer try and take Canada and England promised to stop forcing Americans to serve on their ships. By that time it was well over 10000.

The war was a draw.

If Britain hadn't been otherwise occupied by the Napoleanic Wars, the War of 1812 might have gone very differently.

Wasn't Wellington offered the job at one point and he declined it?

We won the war of 1812 along with

The American Revolution,
The Mexican-American War,
Spanish American War,
WW1,
WW2,
Korea,
What? There was no war between the Korean War and Desert Storm!!!
Desert Storm
Yeah...

USA! USA!

If Britain hadn't been otherwise occupied by the Napoleanic Wars, the War of 1812 might have gone very differently.

I think it most certainly would have. If the British had been able to put more than just a bit of their weight on us we would have probably been rather soundly beaten.

On a somewhat related topic, I went to Mackinac Island in Lake Huron a couple of weeks ago, and saw where the British dragged their cannons up to the top of the island to threaten the fort.

The front of the fort (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/fortmackinac.jpg)

Where they dragged their cannons (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/mackinackcannon.jpg)

The stairs leading up to said cannon firing position. It's about 40 or 50 feet up that hill, 500 or so feet above the lake level. (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/stairs.jpg)

So, by that logic, the Americans didn't fight the British in your Revolutionary War?
Couldn't have been Americans, you weren't independent yet.
Er... no. See, the difference is that the American Revolution was about us SAYING we're Americans and creating a new country.

Canada hadn't gotten around to that yet. IIRC, you guys were still a crown colony and fell under the direct athority of the king, who was British (Well, German, but he was king of the Brits) which means, Canada wasn't fighting, the UK was.

It would be like stating that the French and Indian War was between Americans, Canadians, and Brits vs. the French and Indians because it was the colonial militas who fought that war for the most part, but I've never heard that either.

From what I know of the war it seems to me that America tried to annex Canada from Britain. The Canadian militia fought off the invasion and a British army launched a counter-invasion to punish them. Getting as far as New Orleans and burning down the White House seemed to be the extent of this and then they retreated. How is this conflict portrayed in American schools and media? Have i got anything wrong?

Like some guy once said, the only winner of the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky.

Like some guy once said, the only winner of the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky.
But that war was the real War of 1812, not the warlet between some (then) insignificant developing country, and a far away colony...
In the real War of 1812, there were mor people lost at one day as in the whole warlet of 1812...

Napoleon learned a valuable lesson....

Actually, by the time the war ended, Napoleon had gone into exile in Elba.

Reading the rest of this thread, I have to point out, it was a draw. The border did not change, the British maintained their right to impress American sailors (though, with the Napoleonic Wars ending, the need for such a large navy diminished) and the U.S. maintained its independence.

That's a draw in my book.

We won the war of 1812 along with

The American Revolution,
The Mexican-American War,
Spanish American War,
WW1,
WW2,
Korea,
What? There was no war between the Korean War and Desert Storm!!!
Desert Storm
Yeah...

USA! USA!

You skipped the war that made Reagan the greatest war president of the 20th century. Grenada. And the second greatest Nicaragua (sp?).


Actually as I remember my history, both sides stood on a battleship with a banner that said "Mission Accomplished".

The only real victory was New Orleans which as others have said happened after the war. This gave the US control of the Mississippi. Without that, this would be a much different country.

The War of 1812 is largely forgotten in American history, but in a lot of cases, it's described as the Second War for Independence.

The British forced American sailors to serve in the Royal Navy, claiming that they were British subjects. That was one of the other causes of the war... that and the British disregarded American neutral rights.

Frankly, the American navy embarrassed the Royal Navy in single ship engagements and won two decisive squadron actions on Lake Erie and Lake Champlaign respectively. The second battle prevented the first of the three prongs of the British strategy from taking hold. The defence of Fort McHenry prevented the British from holding on after the burning of Washington. New Orleans was a complete rout of the British Army.

The war ended up with a status quo antebellum treaty, but the result gave the fledgling American nation respect among European countries for standing up in the face of arguably the world's hyperpower.

But that war was the real War of 1812, not the warlet between some (then) insignificant developing country, and a far away colony...
In the real War of 1812, there were mor people lost at one day as in the whole warlet of 1812...

Uhh... You know that Tchaikovsky was a Russian composer who was born after the war, right?

Eh?

I guess you were sleeping when they got to the Battle of Plattsburgh, also known as the Battle of Lake Champlain

Rather large forces were defeated by smaller forces.

Ok you won in Canada and were repelled when you crossed .

Losing there and at Baltimore is what allowed the Treaty of Ghent to go forward.

England got a promise to no longer try and take Canada and England promised to stop forcing Americans to serve on their ships. By that time it was well over 10000.

The war was a draw.

From the perspectives of England and America and their respective objectives, it was a draw.
For Canadians, it was a win.

Er... no. See, the difference is that the American Revolution was about us SAYING we're Americans and creating a new country.

Canada hadn't gotten around to that yet. IIRC, you guys were still a crown colony and fell under the direct athority of the king, who was British (Well, German, but he was king of the Brits) which means, Canada wasn't fighting, the UK was.


For Canada (the then colony and future country) 1812 was about saying to Americans, "Look, we politely said thanks but no thanks to joining the 13 of you OTHER COLONIES in your Union because we have a different history and we're taking a different path, but now you're not taking no for an answer so if you are itching for a fight, we'll fight"

The American Revolution was about Americans saying, we don't want to stay British.
The War of 1812 was about Canadians saying we don't want to become American.

Largely silly and pointless, we wern't a strong nation and we had an inferior military compaired to the British at the time, although as far as guns went we had an advantage. If the British were really up to defeating us they could have, but the colonies were not worth much to the British as a majority of their revenue from the Empire came from India and the Carribean. The british army was largely occupied at the time consolidating holdings in India, including the recently annexed region of Mysore and fighting with Indian kingdoms further to the north.

The war of 1812 was their vietnam, though they could have defeated us, they did not do everything in their power to win and for that walked away looking like fools and we looked much stronger than what we were in reality.

So, by that logic, the Americans didn't fight the British in your Revolutionary War?
Couldn't have been Americans, you weren't independent yet.

You see...there is a big difference. We were British citizens who were fighting for freedom from the British empire. What we were was an insurrectionist force fighting the government we wanted to expel. Canada was not an independent nation at the time of the War of 1812 when we invaded it. We technically invaded British soil in the hopes of liberating it from the British Empire. That is the difference between the two wars.

The colony of Canada fought America in the War of 1812 with assistance from the British.

Hard to have assistance when it was British property runned by British people.

The colony of Canada had no offensive goals, unlike the Americans and the British.

First truthful thing you had since their goals was the same as the British as they were british subjects during that time period.

The colony of Canada had as their goal to repel the Americans as they did not want to join their union. Canada accomplished it's goals.
Canada 'won'.

Also the same goal as the British and that did work. I am not denying that it did not work. However, neither side in the conflict, British and American, won 1812.

If Britain hadn't been otherwise occupied by the Napoleanic Wars, the War of 1812 might have gone very differently.

Now this is true.

The War of 1812 was about Canadians saying we don't want to become American.

And we still don't. In fact, we don't want to become American more than ever...

Americans were still British subjects and yet they manged to also be insurrectionists and have their own thoughts, views and goals.

The fact that the colony of Canada was still subject to the British Empire doesn't mean it was mindless drooling zombies without independent thought or goals.

We won the war of 1812 along with

The American Revolution,
The Mexican-American War,
Spanish American War,
WW1,
WW2,
Korea,
What? There was no war between the Korean War and Desert Storm!!!
Desert Storm
Yeah...

USA! USA!

You know? I am a patriot as well but please tell me this is sarcastic and that you actually have a grasp of History and know that we did not win it?

Also, we did not win WWI or WWII or Koreaor Desert Storm as we got in at the last year in WWI, Got attacked in WWII but was part of an ALLIANCE of nations. Same with Korea and Desert Storm.

Americans were still British subjects and yet they manged to also be insurrectionists and have their own thoughts, views and goals.

The fact that the colony of Canada was still subject to the British Empire doesn't mean it was mindless drooling zombies without independent thought or goals.

Well, yeah - I think we understood fairly well that our status as a colony could only last so long before it made better sense to turn over possession to us. Y'know, chances are much the same would have happened for the United States, had they not decided to stage a big freak-out and get guns involved.

Reading the rest of this thread, I have to point out, it was a draw. The border did not change, the British maintained their right to impress American sailors (though, with the Napoleonic Wars ending, the need for such a large navy diminished) and the U.S. maintained its independence.

1. You are right about the border
2. No, the british said they would not and we agreed not to attack Canada.
3. Correct.

That's a draw in my book.

It was indeed a draw.

Well, yeah - I think we understood fairly well that our status as a colony could only last so long before it made better sense to turn over possession to us. Y'know, chances are much the same would have happened for the United States, had they not decided to stage a big freak-out and get guns involved.

Possibly, but it's also quite likely that when we sat down in 1867, the lessons learned in 1776 made it easier for us to negotiate.

The American Revolution was about Americans saying, we don't want to stay British.
The War of 1812 was about Canadians saying we don't want to become American.
Not really. Canadian militia was only involved in some border skirmishes and a few defenses of forts. The war was about the US flexing a bit of muscle against the UK due to impressment and what most felt were unlawful seizures of ships.

Americans were still British subjects and yet they manged to also be insurrectionists and have their own thoughts, views and goals.

And the insurrection against the British Crown succeeded because the rest of Europe isolated Britian diplomaticly and the Frence, Spanish, and the Netherlands declared war on Great Britain. How do you think Florida went back to Spain?

The fact that the colony of Canada was still subject to the British Empire doesn't mean it was mindless drooling zombies without independent thought or goals.

No one said they were zombies. They were British subjects who had no independent governing authority and all their decisions were made by Britain.

Not really. Canadian militia was only involved in some border skirmishes and a few defenses of forts. The war was about the US flexing a bit of muscle against the UK due to impressment and what most felt were unlawful seizures of ships.

Which it was.

All I know is that the only reason it was a 'draw' (if you consider a war that ended in status quo ante bellum, thus meaning that the US concerns weren't sorted, a draw) was because the British were too busy fighting the French.

You know? I am a patriot as well but please tell me this is sarcastic and that you actually have a grasp of History and know that we did not win it?

Also, we did not win WWI or WWII or Koreaor Desert Storm as we got in at the last year in WWI, Got attacked in WWII but was part of an ALLIANCE of nations. Same with Korea and Desert Storm.

As they say in the super bowl-----If you're in the photo you get the ring.

As they say in the super bowl-----If you're in the photo you get the ring.

That is true.

Not really. Canadian militia was only involved in some border skirmishes and a few defenses of forts. The war was about the US flexing a bit of muscle against the UK due to impressment and what most felt were unlawful seizures of ships.

Prior to England wrapping up it's issues in Europe, there wer eonly 5,000-7,000 British regulars. The rest of the forces were Upper and Lower Canada militia and Native forces.

The impressment was only one of several reasons America had for declaring war, it was far from a clear cut conflict from the American perspective.

You can downplay Canadian participation all you want to keep your view of American dominance alive, but the War of 1812 was quite likely the most seminal event in forging a Canadian identity and without that war, we would likely be Americans right now (or if we had lost that war).

And the insurrection against the British Crown succeeded because the rest of Europe isolated Britian diplomaticly and the Frence, Spanish, and the Netherlands declared war on Great Britain. How do you think Florida went back to Spain?


I have no idea how you think this responds to my statement.

*Sigh*

I predict a nationalistic "we're best!" "No, we're best" thread coming.

Joy.
I wouldn't put it past NS at all.

Anyway, in 8th grade (so like 3 years ago for me) we were taught that the British weren't respecting American ships and were recruiting our sailors by force to fight their wars in Europe. And well, we were sick of putting up with the British treating us like a joke of a nation and acting like we were still British subjects.

Actually, when you piece everything together, it makes sense that we invaded Canada to strike back.

US rebels from Britain,
Britain loses Revolutionary War,
Britain "accepts,"
Britain later on acts like it doesn't even recognize the US,
Britain violates US soveirgnity (sp?)
US strikes back at Britain's Canada
War of 1812
No winners.

You know? I am a patriot as well but please tell me this is sarcastic and that you actually have a grasp of History and know that we did not win it?

Also, we did not win WWI or WWII or Koreaor Desert Storm as we got in at the last year in WWI, Got attacked in WWII but was part of an ALLIANCE of nations. Same with Korea and Desert Storm.

We didn't win in WW2? When did this happen?

We did all we could do in Desert Storm, and we could of taken the extra step and overthrown Saddam but the UN fucked things up like they always do.

From the perspectives of England and America and their respective objectives, it was a draw.
For Canadians, it was a win.

Well you can't change opinion if you cherry pick events.

I would agree with you if the Americans have left the region and nobody tried to cross into the the US territory.

Fact is a large force did come across and lost.

The War of 1812 was about Canadians saying we don't want to become American.

Actually it was the Brits saying keep your hands off our territory in what was to become Canada.

We didn't win in WW2? When did this happen?

We did all we could do in Desert Storm, and we could of taken the extra step and overthrown Saddam but the UN fucked things up like they always do.

It proves again that a group decision is usually better than an individual decision. And boy do I have proof of that in this case.

Americans were still British subjects and yet they manged to also be insurrectionists and have their own thoughts, views and goals.

The fact that the colony of Canada was still subject to the British Empire doesn't mean it was mindless drooling zombies without independent thought or goals.

Take away the British regiments(A couple Highlander regiments) and the Royal Navy and you probably wouldn't have made it.

Unless of course you can show it was Canadian forces that chased them out.

England fought well in Canada.

Prior to England wrapping up it's issues in Europe, there wer eonly 5,000-7,000 British regulars. The rest of the forces were Upper and Lower Canada militia and Native forces.
And most of those were solely involved in border skirmishes.


The impressment was only one of several reasons America had for declaring war, it was far from a clear cut conflict from the American perspective.
It wasn't because we wanted Canada.


You can downplay Canadian participation all you want to keep your view of American dominance alive,
Oh do fuck off with that shit. I've had it with your attitude that all Americans want to annex Canada and want to feel the US always correct. We don't on both counts. We don't care about Canada. If we wanted to we could invade with 2 drunken farmers armed only with pitchforks and a 3-legged goat and kick all of your asses, ok? But we don't. Know why? We don't care. We don't want Canada. Keep it.

Well, yeah - I think we understood fairly well that our status as a colony could only last so long before it made better sense to turn over possession to us. Y'know, chances are much the same would have happened for the United States, had they not decided to stage a big freak-out and get guns involved.

Actually no. England would not have wanted to turn the Colonies over. Too much money and possibilties there.

We didn't win in WW2? When did this happen?

I am sure you know this but we were in an alliace with France, England, and the USSR. In all, we assisted in the liberation of Europe. British, French, Polish, Czech, etc forces invaded France and drove into Germany just like the USSR drove into Germany from the East. In the Pacific, if it were not for the forces in Oceania, our forces would not have been able to drive the Japanese from the South Pacific.

We did all we could do in Desert Storm, and we could of taken the extra step and overthrown Saddam but the UN fucked things up like they always do.

Here I am not going to argue with. Besides! To say we won Korea or Desert Storm is stupid because both wars ended with a Cease-Fire.

Well you can't change opinion if you cherry pick events.

I would agree with you if the Americans have left the region and nobody tried to cross into the the US territory.

Fact is a large force did come across and lost.

Nobody had as their goal in this war to invade America.
Of course some forces pressed their advantage into enemy territory, I don't know why you think that changes what I'm saying regarding Canada (the colony) NOT falling to American aggression as a win for Canada.

All I know is that the only reason it was a 'draw' (if you consider a war that ended in status quo ante bellum, thus meaning that the US concerns weren't sorted, a draw) was because the British were too busy fighting the French.

Could it also be that the fact we knew the Brits busy with the French was a good time to pick a fight?

If the French Revolution had failed, there would not have been a war of 1812.

Nobody had as their goal in this war to invade America.
Of course some forces pressed their advantage into enemy territory, I don't know why you think that changes what I'm saying regarding Canada (the colony) NOT falling to American aggression as a win for Canada.

Think about it. If the goal was to drive the US out of Canada only, then why did they pursue us across the border, taken out DC (in response to York AKA Toronto but no one seems to remember that), got kicked at plattsburg and were driven out of the United States?

Actually it was the Brits saying keep your hands off our territory in what was to become Canada.

The Brits were otherwise occupied.
America wrongly assumed that they could march into Canada with minimal resistance and possible support from the people and found themselves in a war they weren't entirely prepared for.

The Brits were otherwise occupied.
America wrongly assumed that they could march into Canada with minimal resistance and possible support from the people and found themselves in a war they weren't entirely prepared for.

On the flip side. Britain was unprepared as well.

We didn't win in WW2? When did this happen?

We did all we could do in Desert Storm, and we could of taken the extra step and overthrown Saddam but the UN fucked things up like they always do.

No we didn't.

Consider this. If the Soviets had not started Operation Bagration, the D-Day landings would have failed. The Germans easily had another 20 divisions they could have shifted to France.

D-Day helped Bagration because it tied up a few divisions and it moved German fighter forces as it was viewed the greator threat. Russian air power had no opposition in the skys and were free to straf and bomb retreating forces.

We needed each other.

The allies won WWII.

In the case of Desert Storm 1, sure we could have marched over Iraq.

However, poppy Bush was smart enough to see there was no plan for the peace.

Could it also be that the fact we knew the Brits busy with the French was a good time to pick a fight?

If the French Revolution had failed, there would not have been a war of 1812.

I suppose you could also claim that if the French had not got involved in the American War of Independence, one of the factors in revolution would have been removed, and there would not have been a war of 812.

Possibly.

But what you seem to be driving at isn't really the point of my post...although, yes, the Americans picked a good time for the war.

Tell me, what was the main American objective in the war?

And the main British objective?

Take away the British regiments(A couple Highlander regiments) and the Royal Navy and you probably wouldn't have made it.

Unless of course you can show it was Canadian forces that chased them out.

England fought well in Canada.

England only had about 5000 to 7000 regulars in Canada at the time.

America had at least a couple hundred thousand.

England wasn't able to pay attention to this war until 1814 when it's forces weren't so tied up in Europe and that's about when peace haapened.

England forces that were here fought well, of course, but they didn't have the numbers to deal with the Americans themselves.

And most of those were solely involved in border skirmishes.


Defending their borders against an invading force, where else would they be?


It wasn't because we wanted Canada.


Learn your own history if you're going to discuss it.
America had several reasons to declare war in 1812 and yes, wanting Canada was one of them. It's quite likely the birth of the Manifest Destiny movement that became popular in the US later that century.


Oh do fuck off with that shit. I've had it with your attitude that all Americans want to annex Canada

Where did that come from?
Americans don't want to annex Canada. Did you forget we are talking about 1812? Hell, even then there would have been considerable disaggreement amongst Americans on whether annexing Canada was good or not.

Think about it. If the goal was to drive the US out of Canada only, then why did they pursue us across the border, taken out DC (in response to York AKA Toronto but no one seems to remember that), got kicked at plattsburg and were driven out of the United States?

I remember York just fine.

It wasn't to drive Americans OUT. It was to repel Americans attacking.

Why did Israel pursue into Lebanon?
Same reason the White House was burned down.

Uhh... You know that Tchaikovsky was a Russian composer who was born after the war, right?
Uhh ... you know that the 1812 Overture was created to commemorate the victory of the russian winter over Napoleon, right?

On the flip side. Britain was unprepared as well.

Sure, they definitely were not ready for or interested in a war this side of the Atlantic then. It played havoc with their abilty to wage and supply their war on their side of the Atlantic.

The Brits were otherwise occupied.
America wrongly assumed that they could march into Canada with minimal resistance and possible support from the people and found themselves in a war they weren't entirely prepared for.

Nobody said it wasn't a mistake.

The fact that England was tied up with ol Nappy, they figured "Hey maybe we can take the Northern territories."

However, as mentioned it was not simply Canadian milita that sent the Americans packing.

The Regular army was invovled with that.

You almost make it sound like the Americans simply got their asses handed to them. Canada wasn't unscathed. York(now Toronto) was taken and burned. Of course that motivated the Burning of Washington.

I remember York just fine.

It wasn't to drive Americans OUT. It was to repel Americans attacking.

Why did Israel pursue into Lebanon?
Same reason the White House was burned down.

There was no need to burn down the white house Snow Eaters. The President was not there and neither was anyone else for that matter. There was absolutely no reason for it to be burned down.

As to repelling Americans attacking, driving us out of Canada was all they had to do instead of pursuing us and getting themselves driven right back out of the United States. Face it! Both sides drove eachother out of their respective lands. Thus, the war was a draw.

Due try to learn history before debating the topic.

There was no need to burn down the white house Snow Eaters. The President was not there and neither was anyone else for that matter.

There was the best reason; symbolism.

There was the best reason; symbolism.

Now that is true.

The war seemed to be started by British occupation of forts running north-south to the west of the recently independant colonies. This prevented expansion of the new nation to the west and therein was the crux of the matter.

Any pretext of impressment of sailors is relatively untrue because those who would be hurt the most by war were the New England merchants who depended on trade with Britain.

The war seemed to be started by British occupation of forts running north-south to the west of the recently independant colonies. This prevented expansion of the new nation to the west and therein was the crux of the matter.

Any pretext of impressment of sailors is relatively untrue because those who would be hurt the most by war were the New England merchants who depended on trade with Britain.

But it was a pretext none-the-less. As to the New England merchants, they were actually contemplating secession.

Defending their borders against an invading force, where else would they be?
Minor skirmishes.


Learn your own history if you're going to discuss it.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Manifest destiny hadn't been cooked up then, kiddo.

Learn. Your. History.



Where did that come from?
From your attitude.


Americans don't want to annex Canada. Did you forget we are talking about 1812?
No, but apparently you did, since you seem to have this huge problem with the US.

England only had about 5000 to 7000 regulars in Canada at the time.

America had at least a couple hundred thousand.

England wasn't able to pay attention to this war until 1814 when it's forces weren't so tied up in Europe and that's about when peace haapened.

England forces that were here fought well, of course, but they didn't have the numbers to deal with the Americans themselves.

Umm the entire United States regular Army consisted of about 36,000 men at the start of initial invasion and the British had almost 50,000 regular troops in Canada at the time.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/AMH-06.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812


I suggest you do some research before you start spewing out numbers

Umm the entire United States regular Army consisted of about 36,000 men at the start of initial invasion and the British had almost 50,000 regular troops in Canada at the time.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/AMH-06.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812


I suggest you do some research before you start spewing out numbers

Let us not forget their naval ships on the High Seas as well. The US Nav was nothing compared to the British and we won several naval engagements against their navy as well.

Britain had us outgunned and out manned and yet still could not defeat a poorly trained, ill-supplied army.

There was the best reason; symbolism.

Just out of curiosity. I heard somewhere that the British when they captured DC held a mock Senate hearing where they unanimously voted to burn the city to the ground. Don't know if it is true or not...

Just out of curiosity. I heard somewhere that the British when they captured DC held a mock Senate hearing where they unanmously voted to burn the city to the ground.

That is actually news to me. I would not be surprised though but it is something to look into perhaps.

Just out of curiosity. I heard somewhere that the British when they captured DC held a mock Senate hearing where they unanimously voted to burn the city to the ground. Don't know if it is true or not...

Never heard that, but it would be another nice bit of symbolism....after all, the sacking of DC was purely that....

Let us not forget their naval ships on the High Seas as well. The US Nav was nothing compared to the British and we won several naval engagements against their navy as well.

Britain had us outgunned and out manned and yet still could not defeat a poorly trained, ill-supplied army.

And the Battle of New Orleans at the time was the worst defeat Britain had ever suffered.

And the Battle of New Orleans at the time was the worst defeat Britain had ever suffered.

I'd put Hastings above it (well, for England, anyway).

Sounds pretty British.

I wouldn't use Wikapedia as source material.

Many parts of the US were thinking of seccession at various times.

Annexing Canada wasn't a primary issue during the War of 1812, though British gaining Canada was a big reason for the original revolution.

I'd put Hastings above it (well, for England, anyway).

British don't have too many of those. Using other people's armies most of the times keeps the sting out of losses.

British don't have too many of those. Using other people's armies most of the times keeps the sting out of losses.

The got pretty beaten a couple of times during the Hundred Years War...

Umm the entire United States regular Army consisted of about 36,000 men at the start of initial invasion and the British had almost 50,000 regular troops in Canada at the time.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/AMH-06.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812


I suggest you do some research before you start spewing out numbers

one of your own sources says that canada had about 5004 british troops with some canadian militia ppl and the US had around 12000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

The total number of British regular troops present in Canada in July 1812 was officially stated to be 5,004, supported by Canadian militia

In 1812, the regular army consisted of fewer than 12,000 men. Congress authorized the expansion of the army to 35,000 men, but the service was voluntary and unpopular, and there were initially very few trained and experienced officers

I'd put Hastings above it (well, for England, anyway).

I basing it on the proportion of casualties on each side not the historical significance of the battle. The British also significantly outnumbered Jackson's forces as well.

Wouldn't that battle against the Jacobites in 1745 qualify then? I think they were outnumbered and seriously drubbed the Brits.

I basing it on the proportion of casualties on each side not the historical significance of the battle. The British also significantly outnumbered Jackson's forces as well.

I don't know....I'd say having your King and 90% of your nobles and aristocracy killed, allowing the enemy to be crowned as the new King is worse than what was, frankly, a battle that was an irrelevency to most people....just my opinion....

England only had about 5000 to 7000 regulars in Canada at the time.

America had at least a couple hundred thousand.

England wasn't able to pay attention to this war until 1814 when it's forces weren't so tied up in Europe and that's about when peace haapened.

England forces that were here fought well, of course, but they didn't have the numbers to deal with the Americans themselves.

The numbers do sound impressive.

Did you ever look into the make up these forces?

At the start of 1812 we had less then 10000 men in the regular forces. Nearly 1/2 were raw recruits. Existing forces were scattered in Garisons.

The Goverment planned to supplement with 50,000 volunteers and 100,000 milita. There was opposition to the war as shown by the fact that New England, Massachusetts and Connecticut refused to call up the the milita when requested by Madison.

Of the officers that served which included 70 from West point; the majority were newly commissioned and lacked experience.

Madison appointed 2 major generals and 3 brigadiers who were veterens of the Revolution but they had mediocre combat records and left the service for long time.

The Senior Brigadier James Wilkinson had faced accusation of treason in 1807. Though he was acquitted he was held with great contempt by Wade Hampton of South Carolina(a promising new general) which it was said overshadowed his own military abilities.

The only generals that really distinguished themselves were Jackson, Brown, and Harrison who had state milita commsions in the beginning.

The navy situation is easy to understand. We did ok since we didn't have to tangle with ships of the line.

The first phase of the fighting began with the declaration of war on June 18, 1812, and continued through the winter of 1812 and 1813. During this time, Britain was preoccupied with its engagements in Europe and tried to end the American war by diplomacy, sending few reinforcements to North America. As a result, the United States decided to invade Canada, and U.S. naval vessels operated effectively to stop British commerce to North America.

Now the invasions.

There was concern abou the western for of Detroit. General William Hull was dispatched. He decided to cross into Canada. His forces were primarily Ohio militia poorly equpied an for the most part insubordinate and unreliable.

Hull's men, many of whom came from the Ohio militia, were poorly equipped, and, except for one small regiment, proved insubordinate and unreliable.

A force of British troops, Canadian milita and Native Americans challenged him.

He ran and eventually surrendered to a larger force of 1300 men more then 1/2 were native americans. I think Brock was the commander.

No shot was fired in the affair. The Brits then invaded Ohio.

The second attempt was the Naigara area. A small force crossed and took the heighs above Queenston. The Brits sent in more troops to counterattack but there were no reinforcements for the Americans.

A milita officer decided to not cross the border and watched the engagement.

The third time the same situation. Small advance force and a militia refused to cross.

This was hardly the large armies as you imply.

I would take 5000 trained British Regulars over them anytime.

The attempts at Canada were delusional at best. I don't see what the pride is about.

Defeating an equiped regular army. Most definatly. But these three joke forces?

At least in the revolution, the milita had a goal and the resolve for it. These guys......

Nobody said it wasn't a mistake.

The fact that England was tied up with ol Nappy, they figured "Hey maybe we can take the Northern territories."

However, as mentioned it was not simply Canadian milita that sent the Americans packing.

The Regular army was invovled with that.

You almost make it sound like the Americans simply got their asses handed to them. Canada wasn't unscathed. York(now Toronto) was taken and burned. Of course that motivated the Burning of Washington.


I haven't been saying that British Regulars WEREN'T involved, I've simply been saying that Canadian Miltia WERE.
Americans DID get their asses handed to them.
Then they regrouped, trained properly and came back doing their own ass kicking.
Things went back and forth, you burn here, we burn there until everyone decided it was best to call the whole thing off before things got really serious.

There was the best reason; symbolism.

Sure and retaliation for burning York(Toronto).

So why has the US forgotten that guerilla war will defeat the greatest army in the world? Those who don't remember history are bound to lose to it.

There was no need to burn down the white house Snow Eaters. The President was not there and neither was anyone else for that matter. There was absolutely no reason for it to be burned down.

As to repelling Americans attacking, driving us out of Canada was all they had to do instead of pursuing us and getting themselves driven right back out of the United States. Face it! Both sides drove eachother out of their respective lands. Thus, the war was a draw.

Due try to learn history before debating the topic.


I highly doubt anyone was hoping to catch the President there and burn the place with him in it.
I'm pretty sure the motivation would have been retaliation for York being burned.

If you invade a country and you are unsuccessful, there's a good chance that people are going to come back across your borders. They may not intend to stay.

Manifest destiny hadn't been cooked up then, kiddo.

Learn. Your. History.


Listen son, do you even read before you launch into this constant flippant attitude?
Did I say it had been cooked up?
Nope.
I mentioned it as a BIRTH of Manifest Destiny that came LATER that century.

Learn. To. Read.

So why has the US forgotten that guerilla war will defeat the greatest army in the world? Those who don't remember history are bound to lose to it.

Most of those guys had retired. Those that remained were 27 years older.

The Revolution had militias with resolve and purpose. The colonies were aligned.

If the situation of 1812 was the revolution, I would say we probably would have lost

If not for Napoleon, we probably would have been returned to British control.

Hell Wellington and the peninsula army would have walked all over this country. ;)

Umm the entire United States regular Army consisted of about 36,000 men at the start of initial invasion and the British had almost 50,000 regular troops in Canada at the time.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/AMH-06.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812


I suggest you do some research before you start spewing out numbers

Do you even read your own sources?

From your links:
The total number of British regular troops present in Canada in July 1812 was officially stated to be 5,004, supported by Canadian militia. Throughout the war, the British Secretary of State for War and the Colonies was the Earl of Bathurst. He could spare few troops to reinforce North America, and urged the Commander-in-Chief in North America, Lieutenant General Sir George Prevost to maintain a defensive strategy, which accorded with Prevost's own inclinations. But when reinforcements became available late in 1814, Prevost's own cautious offensive was repulsed.


At the outbreak of the war, there were approximately 7,000 British and Canadian Regulars in Upper and Lower Canada (now the provinces of Ontario and Quebec). With a total white population of only about half a million, Canada itself had only a small reservoir of militia to draw upon. When the war began, Maj. Gen. Isaac Brock, the military commander and civil governor of Upper Canada, had 800 militiamen available in addition to his approximately 1,600 Regulars. In the course of the war, the two provinces put a total of about 10,000 militia in the field, whereas in the United States probably 4so,ooo of the militia saw active service, although not more than half of them ever got near the front.


The bulk of the British Navy was also fighting in the war against Napoleon. In September I8I2, three months after the outbreak of war with the United States, Britain had no more than eleven ships of the line, thirty-four frigates, and about an equal number of smaller naval vessels in the western Atlantic. These were all that could be spared for operations in American waters, which involved the tremendous task of escorting British merchant shipping, protecting the St. Lawrence River, blockading American ports, and at the same time hunting down American frigates.




I particularly find this quote from your source listed as from "AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY, ARMY HISTORICAL SERIES, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY, UNITED STATES ARMY" to be rather pertinent to our discussion here:

The fundamental strategy was simple enough. The primary undertaking would be the conquest of Canada.

The attempts at Canada were delusional at best. I don't see what the pride is about.

Defeating an equiped regular army. Most definatly. But these three joke forces?

At least in the revolution, the milita had a goal and the resolve for it. These guys......


Americans were proud that as a young nation they fought the British to a 'draw'.
We can easily explain why when you realise how little attention the British paid to the war.
Not as much to be proud about, but it still served to bolster the pride of a young nation that they dared to take on the best.


Same thing for Canada. We weren't even sure we WANTED to be a country. Having to defend ourselves from the Americans, as disorganised a joke as they were began to forge our identity.

Well, I personally think the Russians did quite well. Most people will say it was the winter that beat Napoleon, but I for one think that Europe owes Russia for saving its ass from not one, but THREE (the Mongols (sort of :P), the French and the Germans) wanna-be world empires.
The fact that Russia tried to set up its own world empire shall be overlooked.

Sorry, that was needlessly nitpicky of me ;)

Anyway, most people I know of DONT think of the American War of 1812, or any event before WWI it seems. If I say 'Crimean War' they say, 'Whats a Crimean?', the War of 1812 was just a vauge event a while back where some British people made some Americans fight in their navy and people got hissy over it.

My personal thoughts are that it was a silly and pointless war (Unlike, say, the Bucket War in Italy ;)) where neither side made any sort of progress. Overall, it seems like the Indians got the worst bit when the Americans decided to have a few revenenge massacres on those tribes who sided with the British.
Of course, it did give Americans something to be patriotic about, they could say they drove off the evil British tyrants again, and it resulted in a rather nice song which pwns many other countries various patriotic songs.

Basically, the war was both sides faults, and nobody won.

Harmonia Mortus Redux;11615738']Well, I personally think the Russians did quite well. Most people will say it was the winter that beat Napoleon, but I for one think that Europe owes Russia for saving its ass from not one, but THREE (the Mongols (sort of :P), the French and the Germans) wanna-be world empires.
The fact that Russia tried to set up its own world empire shall be overlooked.

Sorry, that was needlessly nitpicky of me ;)
Nah, the Mongols ran right over Russia and started into Poland. The only thing that stopped them was Chinggis dying. And then Ogedai dying.

So... two, with two honorable mentions for the Mongols not conquering anything west of Russia on either major advance.
Anyway, most people I know of DONT think of the American War of 1812, or any event before WWI it seems. If I say 'Crimean War' they say, 'Whats a Crimean?', the War of 1812 was just a vauge event a while back where some British people made some Americans fight in their navy and people got hissy over it.

My personal thoughts are that it was a silly and pointless war (Unlike, say, the Bucket War in Italy ;)) where neither side made any sort of progress. Overall, it seems like the Indians got the worst bit when the Americans decided to have a few revenenge massacres on those tribes who sided with the British.
Of course, it did give Americans something to be patriotic about, they could say they drove off the evil British tyrants again, and it resulted in a rather nice song which pwns many other countries various patriotic songs.

Basically, the war was both sides faults, and nobody won.
Personally, I recall being taught in my history class that the British didn't really take the sovereignity of the US seriously until after the war of 1812.

I also recall that the most spectacularly bloody battles occurred noticably after the treaty to end the war was signed, and that this was one of the last wars this would happen in. Brought home the importance of swift communication.

Nah, the Mongols ran right over Russia and started into Poland. The only thing that stopped them was Chinggis dying. And then Ogedai dying.

So... two, with two honorable mentions for the Mongols not conquering anything west of Russia on either major advance.

Personally, I recall being taught in my history class that the British didn't really take the sovereignity of the US seriously until after the war of 1812.

I also recall that the most spectacularly bloody battles occurred noticably after the treaty to end the war was signed, and that this was one of the last wars this would happen in. Brought home the importance of swift communication.

Ah, but without the initial Russian resistance, the outcome of the Mongol invasion of Europe may have been different, thats what the '(sort of)' was for :P

Well, our history book was quite old, from the 70's in fact. It implied that the war was instigated by British impressment and that the US invasion of Canada was 'self defence', although it never SAID either.

Our teacher was more interested in the Civil War though, and gave as the far-left interpretation of it. Happy days, those were. As I recall the man had a distinct dislike of Lincoln. Fourtunatly he had a good sense of humour and, quite honestly, I think he was the only person in the school who cared about history at all, of the two other history teachers, one was trying desperatly to get out of town and the other was a gym teacher as well, and we know how great gym teachers are at whatever other job they get.

Damn the nationalistic ego's here are astonding, does this give me license to say that the Eureka stockade was actually a success?

Damn the nationalistic ego's here are astonding, does this give me license to say that the Eureka stockade was actually a success?

Generic Non-Denominational Diety save the Present Elected Leader of Our Nation But Not In Such A Way As To Exclude Other Nations!

Just doesnt have the same ring to it ;)

There was no real victor in the war of 1812.

If Britain hadn't had to deal with Napolean... Well, then it would be a different war altogether.

As it was, the US got a serious beating, but was saved from the killing blow.

Sounds like the Brits during the Napoleonic wars prior to the invasion of Russia.

How many times has Russia saved the Brits?

Listen son,
Listen son, do you remember your previous posts?

You had said in previous posts that it was because of "manifest destiny".

Learn. To. Remember. Your. Words.

I highly doubt anyone was hoping to catch the President there and burn the place with him in it.
I'm pretty sure the motivation would have been retaliation for York being burned.

If you invade a country and you are unsuccessful, there's a good chance that people are going to come back across your borders. They may not intend to stay.

Hey. Britain failed in their invasion of the United States. Did we pursue? Yes but did we enter Canada when the brits were in retreat? No. If your only goal is to drive them out of your country then why invade the country where those troops come from? It has already been said what the goals of the British were as well as the goals of the United States. Neither side got exactly what they wanted.

Therefore, by process of logic, the war was a draw. Neither side won and neither side lost.

I'll be going with Snow Eaters on this one. You claim that the American Revolution was won by british troops, because:

Way to make a moronic post there.

That would be accurate if I claimed that the US won the 7 Years War (or French-Indian War as it wwas known in NA).

As for the War of Independence or War of 1812, the US was an independent entity because they declared independence.

Please go learn history or shut up if you plan on posting misinformation.

From what I know of the war it seems to me that America tried to annex Canada from Britain. The Canadian militia fought off the invasion and a British army launched a counter-invasion to punish them. Getting as far as New Orleans and burning down the White House seemed to be the extent of this and then they retreated. How is this conflict portrayed in American schools and media? Have i got anything wrong?

Yeah that's essentially what is taught in the schools and media. America went into Canada while Britain and France were fighting. The Canadians kicked our asses and we retreated. Farnce and Britain stopped fighting and then the English invaded. We managed to get them out eventually (after they burned our capital and generally made us look like idiots) That's what I've been taught about the war of 1812

Yeah that's essentially what is taught in the schools and media. America went into Canada while Britain and France were fighting. The Canadians kicked our asses and we retreated. Farnce and Britain stopped fighting and then the English invaded. We managed to get them out eventually (after they burned our capital and generally made us look like idiots) That's what I've been taught about the war of 1812

What sources have you been watching?

Sure they trumped us at places.

Didn't your teacher talk about the burning of Toronto(then called York)?, the Battle of Plattsburgh, the Battle of Baltimore, The battle of New Orleans?

The treaty of Ghent only went down after the Brits lost at Plattsburgh and Baltimore......

What sources have you been watching?

Sure they trumped us at places.

Didn't your teacher talk about the burning of Toronto(then called York)?, the Battle of Plattsburgh, the Battle of Baltimore, The battle of New Orleans?

The treaty of Ghent only went down after the Brits lost at Plattsburgh and Baltimore......


Yes but that was a comparatively minor battle we failed at Montreal which is what we were actually going after. York was just in the way. It was not the stronghold of Canada. Yes she did. As I mentioned we then drove them out. That basically implies that we kicked their asses in some places.

I wonder this - would there have been a war of 1812 had Britain NOT been dealing with Napoleon? OK, so the Brits could have focused entirely on America and probably won if there was no Napoleon to distract them, but would it have been a big deal? Sure, the U.S. wanted a piece of Canada, and Britain thought a bunch of its guys were defecting to America, but would those issues have come to a hilt if not for the war with the French?

As I said in an earlier post, Britain and France were at war, and each side captured American supply ships bound for the enemy's homeland. If there's no war and therefore no need for such manpower, the British decide it's not that big a deal to try to rustle up Americans to go back to the Royal Navy...well, in theory they do. At the same time, while the Americans want Canada, they decide it's not worth making a fuss over when the British haven't already done something to tick them off. Therefore, I would argue that, if the British and French are at peace, and the British don't get into another war, the War of 1812 never happens. The Americans and British may be annoyed at each other for some time, but that would subside, the British would gradually remove their forts from American lands (probably by the Civil War, at which point they become cannon fodder and the British decide it's time to get the hell out of there,) and Canada becomes an independent state on schedule.

Therefore, I've just decided that Napoleon started the War of 1812. As for the result, I'd still call it a draw. The Americans got the British out of their hair, and the British got the Americans out of Canada. It all worked out.

I wonder this - would there have been a war of 1812 had Britain NOT been dealing with Napoleon?

I doubt there would have been a war. If Nappy wasn't doing his thing, then the Brits wouldn't have been taking Americans to serve on their ships.....

I doubt there would have been a war. If Nappy wasn't doing his thing, then the Brits wouldn't have been taking Americans to serve on their ships.....

And the Americans wouldn't have had their excuse to toss out British forts and invade Canada. Of course, how does one prevent the uprising of Napoleon?

From what I know of the war it seems to me that America tried to annex Canada from Britain. The Canadian militia fought off the invasion and a British army launched a counter-invasion to punish them. Getting as far as New Orleans and burning down the White House seemed to be the extent of this and then they retreated. How is this conflict portrayed in American schools and media? Have i got anything wrong?

Almost everything.

The causes of US action were:
The British refusal to comply with the 1783 Treaty of Paris
The illegal seizure of US merchant shipping by the British
The illegal impressing of US sailors into the British navy

The fighting was quite mixed in results.

The burning of the White House is the one thing you got correct.

The British were repulsed at Baltimore.

New Orleans was an attempted invasion that was also repulsed. The British did not reach NOLA from Canada, as is implied in your post.

I find the Canadian version to be oddly nationalistic. IMHO, it's part of the "little brother" pathology.

And the Americans wouldn't have had their excuse to toss out British forts and invade Canada. Of course, how does one prevent the uprising of Napoleon?

Simple!

*Grabs a gun and heads for the time machine*

I think that in reality, the American view is that it was a long, long time ago, and who gives a flying fuck.

Simple!

*Grabs a gun and heads for the time machine*

I would think about the consequences of not having a Napoleon first, y'know, little things like Germany and all that.

I think that in reality, the American view is that it was a long, long time ago, and who gives a flying fuck.

Oh you are giving too much credit to the average American.

Ask them about 1812 and they will talk about that music for fireworks!

Harmonia Mortus Redux;11617410']I would think about the consequences of not having a Napoleon first, y'know, little things like Germany and all that.
Maybe there wouldn't have been a Hitler?

Hey wait a minute?

:eek:

You're not with temporal enforcement are you?

*runs*

Oh you are giving too much credit to the average American.

Ask them about 1812 and they will talk about that music for fireworks!

With the exception of the people familiar with the Johnny Horton song, yes.

you guys were still a crown colony and fell under the direct athority of the king, who was British (Well, German, but he was king of the Brits)


Sigh.

George III was British. He was born here, he lived here, he died here. He was primarily concerned with British affairs. He was, in every way, a British king. This is true of every monarch that followed him. His grandfather and his great grandfather (George II and George I respectively) were German but George III was not.

With the exception of the people familiar with the Johnny Horton song, yes.


IN 1814 WE TOOK A LITTLE TRIP!!

Wait, what?

The Canadians won this one.

Well played.

The US didn't win anything, and they got their main government office burnt down, which is always a clear showing of "we are a bit rubbish".

Britain was a bit tied up at the time, and they didn't really "win" anything either to be honest.

There.

The Canadians won this one.

Well played.

The US didn't win anything, and they got their main government office burnt down, which is always a clear showing of "we are a bit rubbish".

Britain was a bit tied up at the time, and they didn't really "win" anything either to be honest.

There.
Bit of truth twisting.

The Canadians, who by any and all measures short of extreme nationalism, were British. They marched under a British flag, their officers were British and their regular forces were British. At this point, Canada is not a country, just your garden variety colony.

What sources have you been watching?

Sure they trumped us at places.

Didn't your teacher talk about the burning of Toronto(then called York)?, the Battle of Plattsburgh, the Battle of Baltimore, The battle of New Orleans?

The treaty of Ghent only went down after the Brits lost at Plattsburgh and Baltimore......

Let us not forget Ole Ironsides. That ship was murder on British ships. And the Battle of Lake Erie on top of that. This is why I hate our education system.

The Canadians won this one.

Well played.

The US didn't win anything, and they got their main government office burnt down, which is always a clear showing of "we are a bit rubbish".

Britain was a bit tied up at the time, and they didn't really "win" anything either to be honest.

There.

Your nationality is dripping from this post. The the United States did win something in 1812. It was enforcement of the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Not to mention it got your sailors to stop impressing our sailors into the RN. We may not have taken Canada but we did not surrender to the British. The war ended in a draw. Learn history before spouting your idiotic, nationalistic crap.

Maybe there wouldn't have been a Hitler?

Hey wait a minute?

:eek:

You're not with temporal enforcement are you?

*runs*

Fuck.
*slits Black Forrest's throat*
*hides body*
Nobody saw that.

Your nationality is dripping from this post. The the United States did win something in 1812. It was enforcement of the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Not to mention it got your sailors to stop impressing our sailors into the RN. We may not have taken Canada but we did not surrender to the British. The war ended in a draw. Learn history before spouting your idiotic, nationalistic crap.

Ignore Yootopia. He is one of those few people who actually buys the conspiracy theories that the US government carried out the 9-11 attacks.

Ignore Yootopia. He is one of those few people who actually buys the conspiracy theories that the US government carried out the 9-11 attacks.

Well of course they did, it IS the ONLY logical answer. :rolleyes:

The Canadians won this one.

Well played.

The US didn't win anything, and they got their main government office burnt down, which is always a clear showing of "we are a bit rubbish".

Britain was a bit tied up at the time, and they didn't really "win" anything either to be honest.

There.
You know my history teacher brought up a good point about this. One thing America did win from this war (it wasn't in the treaty) was respect from Britain. Why else did the Monroe doctorine somewhat work?

So, anybody have any plans for the 200th aniversary?

Canada might be ripe for the picking in 2012. Any Fenians on the forum? Any Canadians want another go at the White House?

Any crazy French Dictators feel like going on a rampage throughout Europe?


Ah, the good ol' days...

The US won because it fought the largest and strongest nation on the earth at the time and still existed afterwards , in fact was in better shape and it solidified the US as a nation and not a "temporary lost colony" of Britain .

The treaty of Ghent didn't hurt either side .

Any Canadians want another go at the White House?

That reminded me of this bumper sticker I saw

http://www.pegasuspublishing.com/xcart/files/pics/ia/bs238.gif

That reminded me of this bumper sticker I saw

http://www.pegasuspublishing.com/xcart/files/pics/ia/bs238.gif


And loose the Smithsonian? :eek:

US declared war on England invaded Canada and was driven out-win Canada

US may try claim a victory over England but the reality is England after a long war with France was tired of war and was happy to call it a draw as long as the US left Canada alone. Had England persued the war with it's battle hardened troops it would not have gone well for the US.


interesting trivia-there were americans fighting for Canada against the USA in the War of 1812-there were english fighting for the USA against the English-In the US Civil War 50,000 Canadians fought for the Union and about 200 for Dixie.

And loose the Smithsonian? :eek:

I know, it's a steep price to pay.

Listen son, do you remember your previous posts?

You had said in previous posts that it was because of "manifest destiny".

Learn. To. Remember. Your. Words.

Well kid, I recall all of my previous posts and one of the cool things about talking on a message board is that everything said is right there for everyone to review.

I have no "previous posts" that mention Manifest Destiny, I have the one post I just referenced to you that we are discussing.

If you still believe I actually ever said any such thing in previous posts, I'll patiently wait here while you quote them for me.

Run along now.

Hey. Britain failed in their invasion of the United States. Did we pursue? Yes but did we enter Canada when the brits were in retreat? No. If your only goal is to drive them out of your country then why invade the country where those troops come from? It has already been said what the goals of the British were as well as the goals of the United States. Neither side got exactly what they wanted.

Therefore, by process of logic, the war was a draw. Neither side won and neither side lost.

That is true for the American and British perspectives, not for the Canadian perspective.

Let's be clear, I'm talking about Canada. The British part is not really important in our history classes. As far as Canada is concerned, the US invaded with their "manifest destiny",

The phrase manifest destiny was not even coined until the 1840s

The phrase manifest destiny was not even coined until the 1840s

Correct.

John L. O'Sullivan first used it in 1845.

Napoleon learned a valuable lesson....

Good one! was I the only one to get that one?

Basically the war was, England Shoved us, then we punched them, then it was done. And Americans and English never drew blood afterwards, so its a good thing.

So, anybody have any plans for the 200th aniversary?

Nope.

Any Canadians want another go at the White House?

Canadians were not there at the White House when it was burned :rolleyes:

US declared war on England invaded Canada and was driven out-win Canada

Dude. Canada did not win the war of 1812. Man oh man do I hate nationalists.

US may try claim a victory over England but the reality is England after a long war with France was tired of war and was happy to call it a draw as long as the US left Canada alone. Had England persued the war with it's battle hardened troops it would not have gone well for the US.

Britain may try to claim a victory over the US but in reality, they were driven right out of the country after their invasion. They were stopped at Baltimore. Fort McHenry still stood and did not surrender, they were defeated at Plattsburg and at Lake Champlain. Let us not forget Lake Erie while we are at it. At sea, the Brits also lost warships and naval battles to the USN.

You are right that it was a draw. Neither side won this war. Not even Canada as they were not a nation at the time.

interesting trivia-there were americans fighting for Canada against the USA in the War of 1812-there were english fighting for the USA against the English-In the US Civil War 50,000 Canadians fought for the Union and about 200 for Dixie.

Yep.

That is true for the American and British perspectives, not for the Canadian perspective.

Are you learning impaired or something? Canada DID NOT EXIST. It was a COLONY. They were NOT a seperate nation.

Basically the war was, England Shoved us, then we punched them, then it was done. And Americans and English never drew blood afterwards, so its a good thing.

That is not precisely 100% true.

After taking a closer look at the matter. People are skewing it out of perspective.

1) Britain started it by repeatedly breaking the treaty of Paris which was signed after the American Revolution, examples it didn't recognise US neutrality, and also IMPRESSED US citizens to forcefully serve in their navy. Also that all ships headed to France must first port in England (unacceptable).

2) the US repeatedly called on Britain to stop.

3) Britain did not take the US serious and continued enforcing its questionable policies.

4) the US decides to strike Britain where it can. Sends an army to attack the nearest British colony. Burns York (Toronto).

5) Britain, got itself down into the fight.

6) Britain realised the futility of it all, and after several defeats decided to call truce with the Americans, and peace talks came into play.

7) Peace is declared, Britain recognises all US rights as a sovereign nation, reaffirming the treaty of Paris. Also it recalls the right to impress US sailors, and ceases to do so. Also US merchant ships were no longer obliged to first port in England.

8) Battle of New Orleans, powerful US victory, driving British out of Mississippi.

Your nationality is dripping from this post. The the United States did win something in 1812. It was enforcement of the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Not to mention it got your sailors to stop impressing our sailors into the RN.
Whoopty-flipping-do. At the cost of your nation's head office.

And I didn't say that Britain won, I said that neither the USA or Britain won, because the US didn't take Canada, which was basically the point of the whole thing, although it did repel the British, but Britain didn't win anything either, losing a fair few soldiers and sailors to indulge in a bit of spiteful activity.

I'd say that as a trade-off, neither side really got what it wanted.
We may not have taken Canada but we did not surrender to the British.

The war ended in a draw.
The US failed in its objectives. This is clearly a loss.

On the other hand, it did fight off the British, so I guess it won on that front.

1-1 victories to losses, so yeah, I agree, although the Canadians did 'win' in terms of objectives fulfilled (I'm taking them as another side in this case, although I know that at the time they were a part of the British Emipire).
Learn history before spouting your idiotic, nationalistic crap.
I didn't really see what was so nationalistic about it...

After taking a closer look at the matter. People are skewing it out of perspective.

1) Britain started it by repeatedly breaking the treaty of Paris which was signed after the American Revolution, examples it didn't recognise US neutrality, and also IMPRESSED US citizens to forcefully serve in their navy. Also that all ships headed to France must first port in England (unacceptable).

2) the US repeatedly called on Britain to stop.

3) Britain did not take the US serious and continued enforcing its questionable policies.

4) the US decides to strike Britain where it can. Sends an army to attack the nearest British colony. Burns York (Toronto).

5) Britain, got itself down into the fight.

6) Britain realised the futility of it all, and after several defeats decided to call truce with the Americans, and peace talks came into play.

7) Peace is declared, Britain recognises all US rights as a sovereign nation, reaffirming the treaty of Paris. Also it recalls the right to impress US sailors, and ceases to do so. Also US merchant ships were no longer obliged to first port in England.

8) Battle of New Orleans, powerful US victory, driving British out of Mississippi.

That's a very US-victories-centric view of the matter.

That's like saying "oh yeah, we won the Second Indochina war, because we (sort of) fought off the Tet Offensive (to an extent)".

There were various UK victories as well, it's important to remember that.

That's a very US-victories-centric view of the matter.

That's like saying "oh yeah, we won the Second Indochina war, because we (sort of) fought off the Tet Offensive (to an extent)".

There were various UK victories as well, it's important to remember that.

Not to mention the fact that number 10 happened two weeks after the war ended. Kind of pointless.

Not to mention the fact that number 10 happened two weeks after the war ended. Kind of pointless.
Indeed.

That was 8. Just looking at the entire thing everyone is skewing it to its own advantage, the white house burning down, to me, who the hell cares. (I’m an American born in Chicago, so don’t try and say other wise) the president got out, and its not the main building of our government, that would be the CAPITAL BUILDING, but I can understand someone getting that confused, its like saying the prime ministers house is the head of British government, its not.

As for who one the war, everyone got what they wanted, so who won the war is who you supported. America's main goal going in was not really annex Canada, it was to force the British to honor the treaty of Paris (something America wasn’t doing as well since in the treaty they had to return all lands stolen to loyalists, something they never did) annexing Canada just would have been one hell of a nice kicker. Canada wasn’t a nation, so I don’t care what they did. (but from a patriotic stand point you can say Canada won cause they did save their country, but did have a city burnt, and that’s worse then a building). The British wanted to first defend their colonies, and second to fix the flaws they saw in the treaty of Paris, such as America existing. They didn’t do that as getting off the war with napoleon (that was the reason that America choose this time to attack and why you can stretch to say they may have been aiding napoleon in secret, but that’s all conspiracy) and weren’t really apply to flex full muscle in the war of 1812, (British attack was on 9/11, just for fun) and did not fulfill all their goals, but did succeed on their primary goal, just punish the Americans and push them from Canada. So every Nations succeeded at their main goal, and failed their secondary. So everyone wins everyone loss’s its nothing but an extension of the revolution for most part.

That was 8. Just looking at the entire thing everyone is skewing it to its own advantage, the white house burning down, to me, who the hell cares. (I’m an American born in Chicago, so don’t try and say other wise) the president got out, and its not the main building of our government, that would be the CAPITAL BUILDING, but I can understand someone getting that confused, its like saying the prime ministers house is the head of British government, its not.

As for who one the war, everyone got what they wanted, so who won the war is who you supported. America's main goal going in was not really annex Canada, it was to force the British to honor the treaty of Paris (something America wasn’t doing as well since in the treaty they had to return all lands stolen to loyalists, something they never did) annexing Canada just would have been one hell of a nice kicker. Canada wasn’t a nation, so I don’t care what they did. (but from a patriotic stand point you can say Canada won cause they did save their country, but did have a city burnt, and that’s worse then a building). The British wanted to first defend their colonies, and second to fix the flaws they saw in the treaty of Paris, such as America existing. They didn’t do that as getting off the war with napoleon (that was the reason that America choose this time to attack and why you can stretch to say they may have been aiding napoleon in secret, but that’s all conspiracy) and weren’t really apply to flex full muscle in the war of 1812, (British attack was on 9/11, just for fun) and did not fulfill all their goals, but did succeed on their primary goal, just punish the Americans and push them from Canada. So every Nations succeeded at their main goal, and failed their secondary. So everyone wins everyone loss’s its nothing but an extension of the revolution for most part.
Yeah, exactly, wins and losses on all fronts, really, as I said, although the Canadians, in my opinion, "won" more than anyone else.

Overall - a draw.

And just to play some fun, If America can count driving the British out, can North Korea say they won because we never occupied them?
Their is no difference between that and this, so If America counts it as a win, so can North Korea, bwahaha.

And Canada wasn’t a country, that’s like saying Main Could says they won.

Or annoying Americans who say they won the French Indian war,(7 year war). It didn’t win that, as it did not exist

Whoopty-flipping-do. At the cost of your nation's head office.

And I didn't say that Britain won, I said that neither the USA or Britain won, because the US didn't take Canada, which was basically the point of the whole thing, although it did repel the British, but Britain didn't win anything either, losing a fair few soldiers and sailors to indulge in a bit of spiteful activity.

I'd say that as a trade-off, neither side really got what it wanted.
I believe anyone who is acquianted with the conflict will affirm the fact that both sides had overt and hidden goals. The US sought, overtly, to end the practice of impressment. The US also sought to stop the British from continuing to arm the Indians, who were using the British weapons to raid American settlements. Both of these legal pretexts were accomplished.

A faction of the US government also sought the annexation of Canada, but that was not US policy. If anything, that goal remained in dispute for the entirety of the war.

Meanwhile, the overt goals of Britain were to defend it's Canadian colony from the US, and to defend it's shipping from American merchant raiders. It succeeded in the first one, but only had partial success with the second goal. The British maintained a hidden goal of re-annexing the US, and making it a part of the British empire once again. This hidden goal was in dispute amongst members of Parliament throughout the war.



The US failed in its objectives. This is clearly a loss.

On the other hand, it did fight off the British, so I guess it won on that front.

1-1 victories to losses, so yeah, I agree, although the Canadians did 'win' in terms of objectives fulfilled (I'm taking them as another side in this case, although I know that at the time they were a part of the British Emipire).

I didn't really see what was so nationalistic about it...

The Canadians were loyal subjects of the crown, and beholden to the goals of the British Empire. They were not a third party, in any but the most random construct.

You also show little knowledge of what the US attempted to gain by waging this war.

And Canada wasn’t a country, that’s like saying Main Could says they won.


Ding-a-ling-a-ling






Beyond that, Yootopia, the Burning of Washington isn't some glorious feat of military genius or power. The US did not feel that Washington was under any sort of threat from the British, so they sent the troops defending it off to other places that they felt were more important. Eventually the British brought an amphibious force down in secret, landed, assaulted the Capital, burned it, and retreated to ther boats.

It would be like if The Netherlands were to take their troops elsewhere, and then, the US Marines were to land and burn Amsterdam to the ground in the night and flee.

Any Canadians want another go at the White House?



Actually that would be British regulars. Not Canadians.

Ding-a-ling-a-ling






Beyond that, Yootopia, the Burning of Washington isn't some glorious feat of military genius or power. The US did not feel that Washington was under any sort of threat from the British, so they sent the troops defending it off to other places that they felt were more important. Eventually the British brought an amphibious force down in secret, landed, assaulted the Capital, burned it, and retreated to ther boats.

It would be like if The Netherlands were to take their troops elsewhere, and then, the US Marines were to land and burn Amsterdam to the ground in the night and flee.

so a piece of tactical genuis then

Beyond that, Yootopia, the Burning of Washington isn't some glorious feat of military genius or power. The US did not feel that Washington was under any sort of threat from the British, so they sent the troops defending it off to other places that they felt were more important. Eventually the British brought an amphibious force down in secret, landed, assaulted the Capital, burned it, and retreated to ther boats.
Sounds like military genius to me.

A well-orchestrated special forces attack on a capital, which burns down the government's seat of power, whilst escaping pretty much unscathed after making the US leave its seat of power by deluding them that it wasn't in danger is pretty clever stuff.
It would be like if The Netherlands were to take their troops elsewhere, and then, the US Marines were to land and burn Amsterdam to the ground in the night and flee.
In a wartime situation, I'd say that's a pretty impressive feat, actually, simply because you'd have to put in a lot of planning to make a nation like Holland leave its capital pretty much unguarded.

In a wartime situation, I'd say that's a pretty impressive feat, actually, simply because you'd have to put in a lot of planning to make a nation like Holland leave its capital pretty much unguarded.

Consider that the US didn't have that much in the way of armed forces in those days, compared to the British, who had arguably the world's most powerful navy, and the world's best army.

Consider that the US didn't have that much in the way of armed forces in those days, compared to the British, who had arguably the world's most powerful navy, and the world's best army.
I'd still say it was pretty impressive, if you have a small army then it's pretty important to protect the most important places of your nation, no?

I'd still say it was pretty impressive, if you have a small army then it's pretty important to protect the most important places of your nation, no?

You don't know much about strategy.

If you're a foreign army, your logistical tail is long. You have trouble being supplied. So if I retreat slowly in front of you, you're going to run out of proper rations, horses, ammunition, clothing, and men.

You only have to be "out of supply" for a little while before your general insists that he re-embark his troops for the trip home.

And if I lose the White House and some buildings, I can rebuild those. And I've lost comparatively few men - men that I would have lost if I had stood and fought.

so a piece of tactical genuis then

And a bit of luck.

But yes, it was a clever tactical move, but in my humble opinion, the troops that were used to burn Washington could have been used far more effectively elsewhere. Strategically shortsighted on the part of the British.

And a bit of luck.

But yes, it was a clever tactical move, but in my humble opinion, the troops that were used to burn Washington could have been used far more effectively elsewhere. Strategically shortsighted on the part of the British.

probably, i dont really know anything about this war, which was, lets be honest now a draw so i dont know why this entire debate is dragging on and on

I'd still say it was pretty impressive, if you have a small army then it's pretty important to protect the most important places of your nation, no?

At that point Philadelphia, Boston, New York, Chaleston, Atlanta, New Orleans, Lake Erie, Pittsburgh and Savannah were more important than Washington, in any real fashion. It was a city under construction, with a citizenry numbering no more than ten-thousand. It was easily abandoned, and strategically of little signifigance.

Once again, I would have taken those British regulars elsewhere to make maximum use of their effectiveness. I'm not quite calling the burning of DC a strategic blunder, but it's not that far off.

At that point Philadelphia, Boston, New York, Chaleston, Atlanta, New Orleans, Lake Erie, Pittsburgh and Savannah were more important than Washington, in any real fashion. It was a city under construction, with a citizenry numbering no more than ten-thousand. It was easily abandoned, and strategically of little signifigance.

Once again, I would have taken those British regulars elsewhere to make maximum use of their effectiveness. I'm not quite calling the burning of DC a strategic blunder, but it's not that far off.

Shhh. Yootopia believes she has the military acumen of a general, having never been in any military at all...

probably, i dont really know anything about this war, which was, lets be honest now a draw so i dont know why this entire debate is dragging on and on

It was also of virtually no consequence. It's just Canadians doing some dick-waving, and Americans doing honor-defending.

You don't know much about strategy.

If you're a foreign army, your logistical tail is long. You have trouble being supplied. So if I retreat slowly in front of you, you're going to run out of proper rations, horses, ammunition, clothing, and men.

You only have to be "out of supply" for a little while before your general insists that he re-embark his troops for the trip home.

And if I lose the White House and some buildings, I can rebuild those. And I've lost comparatively few men - men that I would have lost if I had stood and fought.
On the other hand, fighting off the UK at Washington might well have been useful morale-wise, showing that the strongest army in the world clearly could be beaten, and denying them the pride of knowing that they had just burnt down a building important in cultural significance to their enemy.

Shhh. Yootopia believes she has the military acumen of a general, having never been in any military at all...
*coughs*

I'm actually male.

On the other hand, fighting off the UK at Washington might well have been useful morale-wise, showing that the strongest army in the world clearly could be beaten, and denying them the pride of knowing that they had just burnt down a building important in cultural significance to their enemy.

Only idiots fight for buildings of cultural significance.

You would get your ass handed to you in a war, thinking like that.

Only idiots fight for buildings of cultural significance.

You would get your ass handed to you in a war, thinking like that.
I'm aware that this is usually the case (see Stalingrad etc.) but on the other hand, the British really needed cheering up at the time, and if you burn down your enemy's most important building (in the view of the average Brit) then that's going to make you feel a lot better about yourself.

On the other hand, fighting off the UK at Washington might well have been useful morale-wise, showing that the strongest army in the world clearly could be beaten, and denying them the pride of knowing that they had just burnt down a building important in cultural significance to their enemy.

At that point in time the White House had only been the residence of one President (two if you count Jefferson for a little while). The Capitol Building was far from complete. They were of little cultural signifigance, and their burning meant little to the strategic importance of the war, espescially when compared to the other locations I listed.

Beyond that, the Americans fought off the Brits at Baltimore, once we had gotten over our little bit of surprise.

It was also of virtually no consequence. It's just Canadians doing some dick-waving, and Americans doing honor-defending.

is that it?

oh i wish i was a mod so i could DEAT this thread just for annoying me with is repeated arguments...

I find it rather amusing how many Americans in this thread want to discount Canadian participation, motivation and goals in this war simply by saying Canada wasn't a nation yet.

These things are not solely the domain of sovereign nations. You fought a Civil War, and there were clearly different goals and winners and losers, yet the combatants were NOT nations.

Colonies across the globe have particpated in numerous conflicts with their own reasons that may or may not line up with their "crown".

The War of 1812 is quite likely the conflict that directed the formation of our conutry later that century, so to discount our particpation in it is highly self-centred view of events.

You fought a Civil War, and there were clearly different goals and winners and losers, yet the combatants were NOT nations.

Go directly to Remedial US History. Do not pass the section on the civbil war. Do not collect a US High School diploma.

The USA was most certainly a nation.

The CSA certainly had significant hallmarks of nationhood that The Canadas (note: that's The Canadas, NOT Canada, which didn't come into existance until 1840) certainly did not. Notably, the CSA was involved in international diplomacy separate from the USA. The Canadas never were.

That was 8. Just looking at the entire thing everyone is skewing it to its own advantage, the white house burning down, to me, who the hell cares. (I’m an American born in Chicago, so don’t try and say other wise) the president got out, and its not the main building of our government, that would be the CAPITAL BUILDING, but I can understand someone getting that confused, its like saying the prime ministers house is the head of British government, its not.

As for who one the war, everyone got what they wanted, so who won the war is who you supported. America's main goal going in was not really annex Canada, it was to force the British to honor the treaty of Paris (something America wasn’t doing as well since in the treaty they had to return all lands stolen to loyalists, something they never did) annexing Canada just would have been one hell of a nice kicker. Canada wasn’t a nation, so I don’t care what they did. (but from a patriotic stand point you can say Canada won cause they did save their country, but did have a city burnt, and that’s worse then a building). The British wanted to first defend their colonies, and second to fix the flaws they saw in the treaty of Paris, such as America existing. They didn’t do that as getting off the war with napoleon (that was the reason that America choose this time to attack and why you can stretch to say they may have been aiding napoleon in secret, but that’s all conspiracy) and weren’t really apply to flex full muscle in the war of 1812, (British attack was on 9/11, just for fun) and did not fulfill all their goals, but did succeed on their primary goal, just punish the Americans and push them from Canada. So every Nations succeeded at their main goal, and failed their secondary. So everyone wins everyone loss’s its nothing but an extension of the revolution for most part.


Slightly off topic but I love your sig.

I find it rather amusing how many Americans in this thread want to discount Canadian participation, motivation and goals in this war simply by saying Canada wasn't a nation yet.


I find it amusing listening to Canadians talk about the Military prowess of beating these three pathetic invasion attempts like they were the Russians turning back the Germans.

These things are not solely the domain of sovereign nations. You fought a Civil War, and there were clearly different goals and winners and losers, yet the combatants were NOT nations.


The USA wasn't a sovereign nation? :eek:

Even though the CSA wasn't recognized, they thought they were.


Colonies across the globe have particpated in numerous conflicts with their own reasons that may or may not line up with their "crown".


You still answered to the crown.


The War of 1812 is quite likely the conflict that directed the formation of our conutry later that century, so to discount our particpation in it is highly self-centred view of events.

Self-centered???? :D

England: "it was a draw"
US: "It was a draw"
Canada: "We won!"

Hello Pot. ;)

Not to mention the fact that number 10 happened two weeks after the war ended. Kind of pointless.

Actually no. New Orleans only drove the point home that Baltimore and Lake Champlain(Battle of Plattsburgh) were not simply luck.

Yeah, exactly, wins and losses on all fronts, really, as I said, although the Canadians, in my opinion, "won" more than anyone else.

Overall - a draw.

Canada wasn't a country.

That's kind of like saying Scotland beat ol' Nappy because of the contribution of the Highland regiments.

Sounds like military genius to me.

A well-orchestrated special forces attack on a capital, which burns down the government's seat of power, whilst escaping pretty much unscathed after making the US leave its seat of power by deluding them that it wasn't in danger is pretty clever stuff.


Burned a capitol. Wow. That really accomplished a whole great deal. Too bad they didn't capture the government.

In a wartime situation, I'd say that's a pretty impressive feat, actually, simply because you'd have to put in a lot of planning to make a nation like Holland leave its capital pretty much unguarded.

Not really. The Russians left Moscow and what did that buy Napoleon?

I'd still say it was pretty impressive, if you have a small army then it's pretty important to protect the most important places of your nation, no?

Actually no.

Did China hold it's capitol against the Japanese during WWII?

Would the Russians have stopped fighting if Moscow had fallen?

Would England have stopped fighting if the Germans had invaded and taken London?

The USA wasn't a sovereign nation? :eek:

So it appears... :rolleyes:

Even though the CSA wasn't recognized, they thought they were.

Well, we did have diplomatic missions abroad, counting for psuedo de facto recognition. Which is more than Britan's colonies in the Canadas (again it still was not Canada at the time) could claim.

You still answered to the crown.

Exactly so.


England: "err what? Some sort of side show while we were kicking Napoleon's butt"
US: "It was a draw, but we ended up achieving our goals incidentaly"
Canada: (myopic nationalistim overwhelms history) "'We' WON!"

Corrected for accuracy.

Couldn't have made the point any better TBF. Thank you.

Canadian, here.

If you only consider the War of 1812 to have been about territory, and you ignore the British re-invasion of the US once they'd dealt with Napoleon, then the US lost the war.

But that's a really narrow view of the war. Here's what happened:
----------

Britain was basically enslaving Americans to serve in the Royal Navy.
The US wanted that to stop.

Napoleon was keeping Britain pretty busy.
The US saw how vulnerable that made Britain in North America.

As such, the US invaded British North America. British North America did a pretty good job of defending itself. The British made good use of native forces in the war, and the peasant conscripts (let's be honest) making up the US forces weren't terribly effective. British North America didn't really have a peasant class, largely by virtue of being too underpopulated to create one. The "Canadian" forces tended to be wealthier folks: self-reliant and wilderness-trained. The US forces didn't have much chance.

Then, the British finished with Napoleon and invaded the US. That didn't work well at all. Deprived of the natural advantages they'd enjoyed in Upper and Lower Canada (shorter supply lines, local knowledge, native support, people defending their homes), they got their ass handed to them (despite some high profile victories, like burning down the presidential mansion).

So the two sides signed a treaty, and agreed to a draw. Why a draw? Well, the US got the British to stop stealing their sailors (though that might have happened anyway once Napoleon was defeated), and the British got the US to agree not to invade British North America for a while (though this was directly contradicted by the Monroe Doctrine in 1823).

It was a draw, people.

interesting trivia-there were americans fighting for Canada against the USA in the War of 1812-there were english fighting for the USA against the English-In the US Civil War 50,000 Canadians fought for the Union and about 200 for Dixie.
That is interesting. I had no idea the British had so many troops involved. Thanks.

Far more importantly then all the discussion about which side 'won' the war (I say Upper Peninsula Michigan won, BTW), I think the greatest achievement of the War of 1812 was when the British officer who had the Mackinac Coat commissioned (made from colorful Hudson bay blankets, for those of you that don't know) for his troops at Fort Mackinac (which he won without a shot being fired, by the way of superior troop movement strategies).

Now, who knows where you can actually buy a Mackinac coat these days anyway? You’d think that colorful thing would be popular with certain groups.

Whoopty-flipping-do. At the cost of your nation's head office.

And I didn't say that Britain won, I said that neither the USA or Britain won, because the US didn't take Canada, which was basically the point of the whole thing, although it did repel the British, but Britain didn't win anything either, losing a fair few soldiers and sailors to indulge in a bit of spiteful activity.

I'd say that as a trade-off, neither side really got what it wanted.

Canada was not a country in the War of 1812 so they won nothing. To say they won something is to completely dodge the legality of the events. Canada was part of Great Britain at the time and therefore, their goals were the same goals as Britain's. Britain did not accomplish their goals so that means Canada did not accomplish their goals.

And no. Canada was not the point of the whole war. The point of the war was mostly the forts in the west and the impressment of our sailors at sea by the Brits. Something that the French were also doing but stopped.

The US failed in its objectives. This is clearly a loss.

Britain failed in its objectives. This is clearly a loss.

On the other hand, it did fight off the British, so I guess it won on that front.

Therefore, your statement that I responded too was inaccurate.

1-1 victories to losses, so yeah, I agree, although the Canadians did 'win' in terms of objectives fulfilled (I'm taking them as another side in this case, although I know that at the time they were a part of the British Emipire).

Canada was not a country so please stop thinking in terms that they were. They did not win anything.

I didn't really see what was so nationalistic about it...

Not a surprise.

I'd still say it was pretty impressive, if you have a small army then it's pretty important to protect the most important places of your nation, no?

Well...the Brits did take Philadelphia which was the Capital during the American Revolutionary War and set up shop all around the country as they stayed ahead of the British. So what precisely is an important target is in the eye of the beholder. D.C. really was not all that important back then as it is today.

It was also of virtually no consequence. It's just Canadians doing some dick-waving, and Americans doing honor-defending.

That is true.

On the other hand, fighting off the UK at Washington might well have been useful morale-wise, showing that the strongest army in the world clearly could be beaten, and denying them the pride of knowing that they had just burnt down a building important in cultural significance to their enemy.

Cultural significance? You know nothing of the early 19th century do you? The WHite House had no cultural significance back then my friend. And fighting the Brits for D.C. would have been suicide for the American Army.

I find it rather amusing how many Americans in this thread want to discount Canadian participation, motivation and goals in this war simply by saying Canada wasn't a nation yet.

That is because Canada was not a nation in 1812 :rolleyes:

These things are not solely the domain of sovereign nations. You fought a Civil War, and there were clearly different goals and winners and losers, yet the combatants were NOT nations.

Actually, the US was a nation during the Civil War. In retrospect, the CSA could have been considered a nation as well. It had its own currency, flag, army, and boundaries.

Colonies across the globe have particpated in numerous conflicts with their own reasons that may or may not line up with their "crown".

If they were fighting under the "crown's" flag, then it does not matter.

The War of 1812 is quite likely the conflict that directed the formation of our conutry later that century, so to discount our particpation in it is highly self-centred view of events.

I bolded a key phrase in there.

Self-centered???? :D

England: "it was a draw"
US: "It was a draw"
Canada: "We won!"

Hello Pot. ;)

And people say that the US are nationalistic :D

Far more importantly then all the discussion about which side 'won' the war (I say Upper Peninsula Michigan won, BTW), I think the greatest achievement of the War of 1812 was when the British officer who had the Mackinac Coat commissioned (made from colorful Hudson bay blankets, for those of you that don't know) for his troops at Fort Mackinac (which he won without a shot being fired, by the way of superior troop movement strategies).

Now, who knows where you can actually buy a Mackinac coat these days anyway? You’d think that colorful thing would be popular with certain groups.

I posted pictures of some places on Mackinac Island earlier in the thread. I took a trip up there earlier this month.

I find it amusing listening to Canadians talk about the Military prowess of beating these three pathetic invasion attempts like they were the Russians turning back the Germans.


The quality of the battles is not the issue and I'm not making any claim regarding that.

Whether we prevented the conquest of Canada because we left out piles of banana peels in our trash that Americans slipped on and that saved our back bacon while we slept or whether we pulled off the greatest victory in history is irrelevant.


The USA wasn't a sovereign nation? :eek:

Even though the CSA wasn't recognized, they thought they were.


Sure.
Point being, anyone can be a faction in a war if they choose to be, it's not limited to the list you want to write that only includes recognised nations.


You still answered to the crown.


Of course we did. Even today, we still do and the Queen is on our money, so what?

The quality of the battles is not the issue and I'm not making any claim regarding that.

Whether we prevented the conquest of Canada because we left out piles of banana peels in our trash that Americans slipped on and that saved our back bacon while we slept or whether we pulled off the greatest victory in history is irrelevant.

Considering that it was not all that hard, I do not call it the greatest victory in history. And Canada did not do all that much. It was Primarily the Brits that defeated us in Canadas.

Sure.
Point being, anyone can be a faction in a war if they choose to be, it's not limited to the list you want to write that only includes recognised nations.

On the list is recognized countries. I do not see Canada on that list in 1812.

Of course we did. Even today, we still do and the Queen is on our money, so what?

Today, you are a soveriegn nation. In 1812, you were anything but a soveriegn nation.

The quality of the battles is not the issue and I'm not making any claim regarding that.

Whether we prevented the conquest of Canada because we left out piles of banana peels in our trash that Americans slipped on and that saved our back bacon while we slept or whether we pulled off the greatest victory in history is irrelevant.


Well? It keeps comming up. Kind of suggests it is. For other Canadians, it is.


Sure.
Point being, anyone can be a faction in a war if they choose to be, it's not limited to the list you want to write that only includes recognised nations.


Difference is the CSA basically declared itselfs a seperate country. They had a formal goverment, laws, and their own army. All that was missing was another country recognising them.

Not the same as a colony.

Not the same as a colony.
I wouldn't even go so far as to say we were a colony, then. We were an extension of British commerce.

Our days as a colony probably started in 1867. We weren't self governed until 1931. And even after that, the British forced us to absorb Newfoundland in 1949, and we weren't allowed to amend our own constitution until 1982.

Look, if there's something you want to complain about Americans ignoring, don't use the War of 1812. Use Lewis & Clark instead. Alexander Mackenzie beat them to the Pacific by more than a decade.

Look, if there's something you want to complain about Americans ignoring, don't use the War of 1812. Use Lewis & Clark instead. Alexander Mackenzie beat them to the Pacific by more than a decade.

:confused:

Ok what are we ignoring? Granted he is not mentioned much but what has he to do with Lewis and Clark?

I don't recall anybody ever saying the two discovered the Pacific Ocean. Mackenzie did discover the Arctic ocean.

Even with Jeffersons directive:

The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri river, and such principal stream of it as by its course and communication with the waters of the Pacific ocean whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado or any other river may offer the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent for the purposes of commerce.

So we kind of knew it was out there. :p

Considering that it was not all that hard, I do not call it the greatest victory in history. And Canada did not do all that much. It was Primarily the Brits that defeated us in Canadas.

Actually Canadians natives, french and anglo were responsible for defeat the US in Canada. Don't downplay their contribution or effectiveness.

:confused:

Ok what are we ignoring? Granted he is not mentioned much but what has he to do with Lewis and Clark?

I don't recall anybody ever saying the two discovered the Pacific Ocean. Mackenzie did discover the Arctic ocean.

Even with Jeffersons directive:

The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri river, and such principal stream of it as by its course and communication with the waters of the Pacific ocean whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado or any other river may offer the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent for the purposes of commerce.

So we kind of knew it was out there. :p

Didn't Balboa discover the Pacific Ocean?

Didn't Balboa discover the Pacific Ocean?

Rocky Balboa?

Rocky Balboa?

Vasco Núñez de Balboa

Canadians were not there at the White House when it was burned :rolleyes:

I :rolleyes: your :rolleyes: , only since my entire post was in jest, and if you didn't see that, well :rolleyes: .


And besides, history has shown that the following Canadians were there (at the burning of the White House in 1812);

Celine Dion
John Candy
William Shatner
Captain Canuck
Allanis Morisette
Mikesburg
Sir John A MacDonald
Rick the Anvil
Alex Trebeck
Ren
Stimpy
Dobbsworld (I might be wrong on that one, but he seems like he was there).
Pamela Anderson



So there. :rolleyes:

Considering that it was not all that hard, I do not call it the greatest victory in history.

Neither do I.
Huzzah, we agree on something.
Can that point be done now?


On the list is recognized countries. I do not see Canada on that list in 1812.

It wouldn't be on that list in 1812.
Another point we agree on and can stop bringing up!


Today, you are a soveriegn nation. In 1812, you were anything but a soveriegn nation.

Correct, we were not a sovereign nation in 1812.
Today, we are.
We're three for three and all 3 points can be put to bed.

Neither do I.
Huzzah, we agree on something.
Can that point be done now?




It wouldn't be on that list in 1812.
Another point we agree on and can stop bringing up!




Correct, we were not a sovereign nation in 1812.
Today, we are.
We're three for three and all 3 points can be put to bed.

Sure when you stop saying that Canada won in 1812 when facts prove you wrong.

Sillys, there wasn't a war in 1812!

Well? It keeps comming up. Kind of suggests it is. For other Canadians, it is.


Fine. Quote these other Canadians that are saying it and tell them, not me.
I'll even chime in and agree with you when you do it.


Difference is the CSA basically declared itselfs a seperate country. They had a formal goverment, laws, and their own army. All that was missing was another country recognising them.

Not the same as a colony.

It doesn't have to be the same as a colony, especially since it WASN'T a colony. It was just an example to support the fact that conflicts are not limited to sovereign nations.

Sure when you stop saying that Canada won in 1812 when facts prove you wrong.

Your opinion is what you believe is proving me wrong, not facts.

Your opinion is what you believe is proving me wrong, not facts.

Fact. Canada was not a soveriegn nation.
Fact. British forces drove the US out of Canada
Fact. It was the British that burned down the White House, the Treasury, and other public Buildings and not Canada

Ok so now that I have just sent you three key pieces of information, do you still think that what I am saying is opinion? Would you like more pieces of "opinions"?

Only one spouting opinions here is you.

Fact. Canada was not a soveriegn nation.
Fact. British forces drove the US out of Canada
Fact. It was the British that burned down the White House, the Treasury, and other public Buildings and not Canada

Ok so now that I have just sent you three key pieces of information, do you still think that what I am saying is opinion? Would you like more pieces of "opinions"?

Only one spouting opinions here is you.

You listed one fact, one half truth and one fact.

I don't argue that anything there is wrong. Still doesn't prove me wrong.

You listed one fact, one half truth and one fact.

I don't argue that anything there is wrong. Still doesn't prove me wrong.

And I doubt nothing will get through to you that you are indeed wrong. You are to nationalistic to see facts that contradict yourside of events.

And I doubt nothing will get through to you that you are indeed wrong. You are to nationalistic to see facts that contradict yourside of events.

The events are not in dispute.
I'm not too nationalistic to accept your country's successes in this war and others, while you apparently are incapable of seeing the Canadian perspective on events; what we wanted, what we got, what we learned about ourselves and what we did about it.

The events are not in dispute.
I'm not too nationalistic to accept your country's successes in this war and others, while you apparently are incapable of seeing the Canadian perspective on events; what we wanted, what we got, what we learned about ourselves and what we did about it.

I'm sorry but you know what? Since Canada was not a country and was answerable to British Officers, and did not fight under their own flag but that of the British Empire at the time, I group them in (as it should since I am an historian) with that of the British Empire. Canada did not win in this conflict as they were not soveriegn and were not at the peace table. That is another thing you have failed to look at. Canada was not at the negotiating table.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say we were a colony, then. We were an extension of British commerce.

Our days as a colony probably started in 1867.

?? That's what colonies generally are; a commercial and territorial venture by planting colonists on foreign soil. Canada was a colony long before Confederation.

1867 was our first steps towards taking the reins of our own destiny on the continent.

I'm sorry but you know what? Since Canada was not a country and was answerable to British Officers, and did not fight under their own flag but that of the British Empire at the time, I group them in (as it should since I am an historian) with that of the British Empire. Canada did not win in this conflict as they were not soveriegn and were not at the peace table. That is another thing you have failed to look at. Canada was not at the negotiating table.


Did America attempt the conquest of Canada in 1812?

Did America attempt the conquest of Canada in 1812?

I did not say that they did not. I pointed out (numerous times I might add as did others) that they were defeated primarily by british forces.