NationStates Jolt Archive

Did America attempt the conquest of Canada in 1812?
No, the US attempted to annex the British colony of Upper Canada in 1812.

No, the US attempted to annex the British colony of Upper Canada in 1812.

You fixed that fast!

You fixed that fast!
I posted and then went... wait a minute, Upper = English, Lower = French, and York (Toranto) is English. ^_^;;

Yes, Americans ARE bad with Geography.

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.

More than half of the soldiers fighting on the Great Lakes border in the British forces were Canadian militia.


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

I posted and then went... wait a minute, Upper = English, Lower = French, and York (Toranto) is English. ^_^;;

Yes, Americans ARE bad with Geography.

S'alright. So are most Canadians. People have a hard time grasping 'upper' means, up the river, and not 'North'.

More than half of the soldiers fighting on the Great Lakes border in the British forces were Canadian militia.


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

Yes the Great Lakes border but there is more to the invasion of Canada than the Great lakes border. And I am at that wikipedia page and if you notice the names given, nearly all of them are either American or *gasp* british

Yes the Great Lakes border but there is more to the invasion of Canada than the Great lakes border. And I am at that wikipedia page and if you notice the names given, nearly all of them are either American or *gasp* british

Did the Americans invade Canada anywhere else? (Other than the Fenian raids?)

The Canadian (not British) perspective of the war of 1812 is this; the yanks were coming to take us over. We, with the help of the motherland, repelled them.

There's nothing incorrect in that view.

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.

The forces that pressed into America were primarily British.
The forces that defended Canada were significantly represented by Canadian regulars and militia. Those numbers have been quoted in this thread already. I was challenged on that point and I used the challenger's own sources to prove he/she was in error.

Was the attempted conquest of Canada by America successful?

The Canadian (not British) perspective of the war of 1812 is this; the yanks were coming to take us over. We, with the help of the motherland, repelled them.

There's nothing incorrect in that view.
That would be a historically correct statement, saying that Canada 'won' the war would be streching things to their breaking point though.

Can we at least agree that overall the War of 1812 was a draw?

Everybody got over it and we became allies. Remeber WWII? Canada even got their own beach at Normandy.

That would be a historically correct statement, saying that Canada 'won' the war would be streching things to their breaking point though.

Yeah, I'm not trying to claim some sort of Canadian 'superiority' over the event, which would be silly (and a common Canadian thing to do, sadly.) But Canadian history has been about 'not being American', and 1812 was a milestone.

Can we at least agree that overall the War of 1812 was a draw?

Everybody got over it and we became allies. Rember WWII? Canada even got their own beach at Normandy.
Oh no, we can't do that! It's taken us 18 pages to get to here! :p :rolleyes:

Sadly, though, this happens EVERY BLOODY TIME this topic is trotted out. It ALWAYS comes down to a few Canuks and Yanks squabbling over if Canada can claim a 'win'.

The entertaining ones are when a few Brits go for gold and start arguing that the US lost and that provokes the really nationalistic Americans to reply.

Did the Americans invade Canada anywhere else? (Other than the Fenian raids?)

The Canadian (not British) perspective of the war of 1812 is this; the yanks were coming to take us over. We, with the help of the motherland, repelled them.

There's nothing incorrect in that view.

To quote Wikipedia: The British scored an important early success, when their detachment at Saint Joseph Island on Lake Huron learned of the declaration of war before the nearby American garrison at the important trading post at Mackinac Island in Michigan did. A scratch force landed on the island on July 17, 1812, and mounted a gun overlooking the fort. The Americans, taken by surprise, surrendered. This early victory encouraged the Indians, and large numbers of them moved to help the British at Amherstburg.

The American Brigadier General William Hull invaded Canada on July 12, 1812 from Detroit, with an army mainly composed of militiamen, but turned back after his supply lines were threatened in the Battles of Brownstown and Monguagon. British Major General Isaac Brock sent false correspondence and allowed it to be captured by the Americans, saying they required only 5,000 Native warriors to capture Detroit. Hull was deathly afraid of North American Indians and some tribes' practice of scalping. Hull surrendered at Detroit on August 16.

Brock promptly transferred himself to the eastern end of Lake Erie, where the American General Stephen Van Rensselaer was attempting a second invasion. Brock fell in action on October 13 at the Battle of Queenston Heights, where the Americans suffered a crushing defeat. While the professionalism of the American forces would improve by the war's end, British leadership suffered after Brock's death.

A final attempt in 1812 by the American General Henry Dearborn to advance north from Lake Champlain failed ingloriously when his militia refused to advance beyond American territory. In contrast to the American militia, the Canadian militia performed well. French-Canadians, who found the anti-Catholic stance of most of the United States troublesome, and United Empire Loyalists, who had fought for the Crown during the American Revolutionary War strongly opposed the American invasion. However, a large segment of Upper Canada's population were recent settlers from the United States who had no obvious loyalties to the Crown. Nevertheless, American forces found, to their dismay, that most of the colony took up arms against them.[/i]

Yes the colony took up arms. No one is disputing that. How can one dispute it as it is an historical fact. The point being made here is that Canada was not a different country but fought for the British and under British Officers.

Now shall we talk about Lower cananda? We were tossed out by the BRITISH again there as well.This time, it was a British Captain and a British Lt.Col. that tossed us out of Lower Canada.

Logic dictates that it was the British that actually tossed us out of Canada.

Yeah, I'm not trying to claim some sort of Canadian 'superiority' over the event, which would be silly (and a common Canadian thing to do, sadly.) But Canadian history has been about 'not being American', and 1812 was a milestone.
Works for me, and I'd rather Canada NOT be American. I'm rather fond of the Canadians I've met over here (namely because their sense of humor is as demented as my own) and I wouldn't want it any other way.

Can we at least agree that overall the War of 1812 was a draw?

Everybody got over it and we became allies. Remeber WWII? Canada even got their own beach at Normandy.

Yes they did and did not achieve all of their objectives on D-Day. No one achieved all of their objectives on D-Day. It was a couple of weeks after D-Day that objectives were being taken.

No, the US attempted to annex the British colony of Upper Canada in 1812.

Are you saying that America did not attack Lower Canada?

They may not have taught much about that in America I guess. They lost 2 decisive battles at Montreal, one with a better than 5 to 1 advantage against a small Canadian (French-Canadian to be more precise) militia supported by a small contingent of Mohawks.

How about I put it in hockey terms (I'm a Sabres fan), the game was a tie, but Canada can claim an assist in the first period. Would that be acceptable?

Are you saying that America did not attack Lower Canada?

They may not have taught much about that in America I guess. They lost 2 decisive battles at Montreal, one with a better than 5 to 1 advantage against a small Canadian (French-Canadian to be more precise) militia supported by a small contingent of Mohawks.

Chrysler's Farm was the biggest battle that ended the final American invasion of Canada. Done by the British.

Are you saying that America did not attack Lower Canada?

They may not have taught much about that in America I guess. They lost 2 decisive battles at Montreal, one with a better than 5 to 1 advantage against a small Canadian (French-Canadian to be more precise) militia supported by a small contingent of Mohawks.
For the first time, I am forced to use this: :headbang:

You've now gone beyond silliness into irrationality.

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.

"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."

technically since we were british subjects at that time all the Canadian militia's were British. One of leading British Generals a participant of the Battle of Waterloo was in fact Canadian born, sent home to aid his people(I'm embarassed I can't his name).

Canada even as "soveriegn" country did not make a declaration of war against Germany in WW1 Britian did it for us. Canada as "soveriegn" was also not at any major negotiating tables after WW1 or 2. Canada as "soveriegn" country did not even have it's own flag until 196-5?.

You may be a historian but your "understanding" of what is Canadian history and Canada's relationship with Britian seems to be beyond your grasp.

To quote Wikipedia:

Yes the colony took up arms. No one is disputing that. How can one dispute it as it is an historical fact. The point being made here is that Canada was not a different country but fought for the British and under British Officers.

Now shall we talk about Lower cananda? We were tossed out by the BRITISH again there as well.This time, it was a British Captain and a British Lt.Col. that tossed us out of Lower Canada.

Logic dictates that it was the British that actually tossed us out of Canada.

You seem to have a rather cookie-cutter view of history.

Canadians were Canadian long before Confederation. It's like saying that Americans weren't American until the Declaration of Independence.

The fact is, Upper and Lower Canada (primarily Upper) were filled with people who fled the US during the War of Independance because they didn't want to be American. Just because the BNA hadn't been passed yet, doesn't mean the land wasn't filled with colonists who resisted the idea of foreign occupation. Yes, they were part of a larger global empire, and yes, they were led by a superior military force in the British Army. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a succesful Canadian defense of their territory. Canada was British, and not counting the British army in the overall picture is like not counting the Officer staff of the American forces. The British forces wouldn't have defended Canada without the Canadian militia and native allies.

We're arguing over semantics here. Any Canadian who claims some sort of nationalistic pride in this event doesn't know all the facts, and any American who tries to discredit a clear British North American defense of Upper Canada is ignoring the facts.

How about I put it in hockey terms (I'm a Sabres fan), the game was a tie, but Canada can claim an assist in the first period. Would that be acceptable?

With the exception of your fandom of the Sabres, yes. ;)

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".

I think it was Thucydices, unless someone already said who it was, didn't read every page.

technically since we were british subjects at that time all the Canadian militia's were British. One of leading British Generals a participant of the Battle of Waterloo was in fact Canadian born, sent home to aid his people(I'm embarassed I can't his name).

Bullseye.

Canada even as "soveriegn" country did not make a declaration of war against Germany in WW1 Britian did it for us. Canada as "soveriegn" was also not at any major negotiating tables after WW1 or 2. Canada as "soveriegn" country did not even have it's own flag until 196-5?.

No you didn't because in 1914, you did not have complete soveriegnty. You did not get it until 1982 after the process started in 1867.

Yes the Great Lakes border but there is more to the invasion of Canada than the Great lakes border. And I am at that wikipedia page and if you notice the names given, nearly all of them are either American or *gasp* britishplease, tell me what is an American or British name?

You seem to have a rather cookie-cutter view of history.

Canadians were Canadian long before Confederation. It's like saying that Americans weren't American until the Declaration of Independence.

In that case, America won the 7 Years War. After all, it was primarily fought with American militia forces but I do not see anyone doing exactly that. I do see Canadians saying they won 1812 when they were not even a soveriegn nation in 1812. They did not become a completely soveriegn nation till 1982.

The fact is, Upper and Lower Canada (primarily Upper) were filled with people who fled the US during the War of Independance because they didn't want to be American. Just because the BNA hadn't been passed yet, doesn't mean the land wasn't filled with colonists who resisted the idea of foreign occupation. Yes, they were part of a larger global empire, and yes, they were led by a superior military force in the British Army. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a succesful Canadian defense of their territory. Canada was British, and not counting the British army in the overall picture is like not counting the Officer staff of the American forces. The British forces wouldn't have defended Canada without the Canadian militia and native allies.

WHat makes you so sure of that last bit? You are also making a point in my favor when you said they were led by a superior military force in the British Army. That tells me a lot right there. When you are arguing over nationality, one must look at the history of the time period and look at it from that time period and not from today's time period. Back then, they thought themselves as primarily British as they were subjects of the British Empire.

We're arguing over semantics here. Any Canadian who claims some sort of nationalistic pride in this event doesn't know all the facts, and any American who tries to discredit a clear British North American defense of Upper Canada is ignoring the facts.

And the fact remains that I am not ignoring a clear British North American defense of Upper Canada. I have not even taken anything away from the militias of Canada. Frankly, back then, I would rather use them in a fight than our so called militias here in the US back then.

With the exception of your fandom of the Sabres, yes. ;)
NO!!!! Not a hockey war!! VERY NOOOOOOOOOOO!
:D

Did America attempt the conquest of Canada in 1812?

The primary reason was the expolsion of England which was felt was organizing the aboriginals to attack settlers.

England defended her territory.

Canada as "soveriegn" country did not even have it's own flag until 196-5?.


Hey, we (Australia), still don't have our own flag...

on that note www.ausflag.com.au

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".

I think it was Thucydices, unless someone already said who it was, didn't read every page.

You're off by a couple of millennia. It was George Santayana in Reason in Common Sense.

(And the original formulation is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".)

Bullseye.



No you didn't because in 1914, you did not have complete soveriegnty. You did not get it until 1982 after the process started in 1867.We made a declaration of war independently sept 10 139.

excuse me, "did not get it" incorrect we couldn't agree on it so didn't ask for it, we were fully independent we just choose not cross the t's and dot the i's because of internal politics.

USA was born out of violence, Canada was nurtured. You just have no concept of how Canadians viewed their relationship with Britian and our independence.

For the first time, I am forced to use this: :headbang:

You've now gone beyond silliness into irrationality.

:headbang: I agree. ;)

We made a declaration of war independently sept 10 139.

excuse me, "did not get it" incorrect we couldn't agree on it so didn't ask for it, we were fully independent we just choose not cross the t's and dot the i's because of internal politics.

USA was born out of violence, Canada was nurtured. You just have no concept of how Canadians viewed their relationship with Britian and our independence.

Oh I have a concept Free Sex and Beer. However, I am thinking in early 19th century terms and not the mid 19th century terms.

You're off by a couple of millennia. It was George Santayana in Reason in Common Sense.

(And the original formulation is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".)

Ah, makes sense, we talked about both of them in European History class yesterday, I got the names switched around. Thanks for the correction.

Oh I have a concept Free Sex and Beer. However, I am thinking in early 19th century terms and not the mid 19th century terms.no, quoting some nitpicky facts and figures is not the same as understanding Canadian view themselves or our history.......it's like "is a glass half empty, or half full" We see ourselves as fully independent since 1867 not a colony. And as a people since the landing of the first french settlers and the naming of Canada in the 1500's

You know, I have an excellent idea, let's stop fighting about the War of 1812 and start fighting about the Pig War instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War

Whadda say?

Canadians were Canadian long before Confederation. It's like saying that Americans weren't American until the Declaration of Independence.

Entirely right. There were no Americans until there was the nation of America; no Canadians until the nation of Canada. Only British colonists (and French and Spanish colonists) in North America. (Australia could be said to be a different case, Australia being the continent as well as the nation; but a late 19th century "Australian" would be more likely to identify himself by the name of his colony than the term "Australian".)

I'm not talking complete independence; self rule would be more than enough. But Canada was not self-ruling in 1812.

no, quoting some nitpicky facts and figures is not the same as understanding Canadian view themselves or our history.......it's like "is a glass half empty, or half full" We see ourselves as fully independent since 1867 not a colony. And as a people since the landing of the first french settlers and the naming of Canada in the 1500's

Nit pick facts as you say have an annoying habit of ending arguments. As to seeing yourself completely independent in 1867, you may think that but the rest of the world did not. In fact, it was not until 1931 that Acts of the British Parliment would no longer be extended to Canada thanks to the Statute of Westminster. In 1919, they joined the League of Nations in their own right which was good.

Entirely right. There were no Americans until there was the nation of America; no Canadians until the nation of Canada. Only British colonists (and French and Spanish colonists) in North America. (Australia could be said to be a different case, Australia being the continent as well as the nation; but a late 19th century "Australian" would be more likely to identify himself by the name of his colony than the term "Australian".)

I'm not talking complete independence; self rule would be more than enough. But Canada was not self-ruling in 1812.

Entirely correct. Total self-rule did not occur until 1931 and then become totally complete on April 17, 1982.

Entirely correct. Total self-rule did not occur until 1931 and then become totally complete on April 17, 1982.

I'd be willing to accept limited self-rule, such as what West Australia had from 1890 - total independence at the local level, with Britain calling the shots as far as foreign policy goes. At that point you have a separate body politic, effectively a client state, rather than an extension of the colonizing state.

I'd be willing to accept limited self-rule, such as what West Australia had from 1890 - total independence at the local level, with Britain calling the shots as far as foreign policy goes. At that point you have a separate body politic, effectively a client state, rather than an extension of the colonizing state.

There I will agree with you. However, even that did not exist in Canada in 1812. If it did, then a convincing case that they won in 1812 could be made.

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

Hehe, not everyone. Some would call it last call.

You know, I have an excellent idea, let's stop fighting about the War of 1812 and start fighting about the Pig War instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War

Whadda say?

Heh, We actually studied this in Washington State history class. Much to do about nothing if you ask me. But goes to show how stupid things can nearly cause a major war.

Heh, We actually studied this in Washington State history class. Much to do about nothing if you ask me. But goes to show how stupid things can nearly cause a major war.

Much like the Trent Affair.

Much like the Trent Affair.

You know that particular bit of history could in my mind triggered the first World War. Imagine if the Brits sided with the south. The union would have tried to get other European powers against the Brits. You could have had a very massive war. It is another good example of how a small incident could have produced a very large war.

Nit pick facts as you say have an annoying habit of ending arguments. As to seeing yourself completely independent in 1867, you may think that but the rest of the world did not. In fact, it was not until 1931 that Acts of the British Parliment would no longer be extended to Canada thanks to the Statute of Westminster. In 1919, they joined the League of Nations in their own right which was good.it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thought we were not independent....it's like you telling me what I'm thinking and my outlook at life, when you know nothing about me except some facts, date of birth, school attended, marriage status etc

You know that particular bit of history could in my mind triggered the first World War. Imagine if the Brits sided with the south. The union would have tried to get other European powers against the Brits. You could have had a very massive war. It is another good example of how a small incident could have produced a very large war.

Thank God for Prince Albert who softened the language of the messege that was delivered to President Lincoln. It prevented war with the Brits.

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.

There was no real manifest destiny at the time, Jefferson had taken a lot of crap in the recent past over exceeding his Consitutional authority by transacting the Louisiana Purchase.

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)

Wow. How very jingoistic.

Now shall we talk about Lower cananda? We were tossed out by the BRITISH again there as well.This time, it was a British Captain and a British Lt.Col. that tossed us out of Lower Canada.

Logic dictates that it was the British that actually tossed us out of Canada.

That "British" Lt. Col. was a French Canadian serving in the British military and commanding a Canadian militia called the Voltigeurs. No Brits in that battle against Hampton at all.

Chrysler's Farm was the biggest battle that ended the final American invasion of Canada. Done by the British.

Yes, and Hampton was repelled without British support. That doesn't really answer my point at all.
NERVUN made a point of stating Upper Canada, which would limit the conflict when in fact both Upper and Lower Canada were sites of conflict.

For the first time, I am forced to use this: :headbang:

You've now gone beyond silliness into irrationality.

I made a point bout Canada, you responded limiting the discussion to Upper Canada, I rebutted with facts that show Lower Canada was also involved.

Silly? Irrational?

That "British" Lt. Col. was a French Canadian serving in the British military and commanding a Canadian militia called the Voltigeurs. No Brits in that battle against Hampton at all.

Wanna bet? Morrison was born in *gasp* New York.

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

Wanna bet? Morrison was born in *gasp* New York.

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


Great for Morrison, but I'm talking about Charles de Salaberry.

And you never answered me back a few pages, was the attempted conquest of Canada successful?

I made a point bout Canada, you responded limiting the discussion to Upper Canada, I rebutted with facts that show Lower Canada was also involved.

Silly? Irrational?
No, I made a point that the US did not invade a country called Canada, it invaded a British colony called Upper Canada (and had some small fronts in Lower Canada). There was no Canada as you are claiming at the time.

But this seems to have passed you by which is why I claimed irrationality upon your part.

Which is still holding true.

No, I made a point that the US did not invade a country called Canada, it invaded a British colony called Upper Canada (and had some small fronts in Lower Canada). There was no Canada as you are claiming at the time.

But this seems to have passed you by which is why I claimed irrationality upon your part.

Which is still holding true.


Ahhh, you want to split hairs and argue semantics, how silly of me to not engage you.

Fine, then from now on, never ever describe your war for Independence as the American Revolution. It could only be the Revolt of Thirteen Colonies since your country did not exist yet.

Ooh, or better yet, since our official name is really the Dominion of Canada, there's still no "Canada".



Trying to convince me that Canada was not a country in 1812 is meaningless since I'm quite aware of that and have not disputed it anywhere regardless of how many times Alleghany wants to argue it with me.

Fine, then from now on, never ever describe your war for Independence as the American Revolution. It could only be the Revolt of Thirteen Colonies since your country did not exist yet.
You would be incorrect as the first shots of the war were April 18, 1775. July 4, 1776 the country called the United States of America was born, so we were actually invloved in it. However, Canada (even as a united colony) didn't bloody exist in 1812!

Trying to convince me that Canada was not a country in 1812 is meaningless since I'm quite aware of that and have not disputed it anywhere regardless of how many times Alleghany wants to argue it with me.
Then perhaps you can finally get the point that what does not exist cannot be said to win a war.

You would be incorrect as the first shots of the war were April 18, 1775. July 4, 1776 the country called the United States of America was born, so we were actually invloved in it. However, Canada (even as a united colony) didn't bloody exist in 1812!

Psst. He is to nationalistic to contemplate that.

Then perhaps you can finally get the point that what does not exist cannot be said to win a war.

Doubtful as I told him the same thing and got ignored.

You would be incorrect as the first shots of the war were April 18, 1775. July 4, 1776 the country called the United States of America was born, so we were actually invloved in it. However, Canada (even as a united colony) didn't bloody exist in 1812!
'

*sigh*
So, who was involved in April 1775? I guess the British were fighting a one sided war by themselves until the Americans got around to declaring themselves independent?


Then perhaps you can finally get the point that what does not exist cannot be said to win a war.

Did not exist?
Did the world end at the northern border of America? Was it just a big nothingness, a white void?

Not being a country does not equal not existing.

'

*sigh*
So, who was involved in April 1775? I guess the British were fighting a one sided war by themselves until the Americans got around to declaring themselves independent?

Simple answer is insurgents were involved at Lexington and Concorde in 1775. :D

Did not exist?
Did the world end at the northern border of America? Was it just a big nothingness, a white void?

Not being a country does not equal not existing.

The country did not exist in 1812. That is what he is saying. So much for Canada's vaunted educational system.

Simple answer is insurgents were involved at Lexington and Concorde in 1775. :D



The country did not exist in 1812. That is what he is saying. So much for Canada's vaunted educational system.

Has someone been vaunting our educational system again? I'll have to put a stop to that.


Does Canada need to be a 'country' to exist? I guess Michigan doesn't exist because it's not a 'country'? Was the region invaded not known as 'Upper Canada'? Did the people there not refer to themselves as Canadians? Just because it wasn't a 'country', doesn't mean that the colonists didn't describe themselves by the name of the colony or fight in the battles for its defense. Even prior to the American Revolution, the colonists in each individual colony would classify themselves based on the colony they live in. Hell, it took the Civil War to end that kind of thinking.

The US invaded Upper Canada, which was defended by a British regulars and Canadian militia. That's right, Canadian militia. How can there be Canadian militia if there's no such thing as Canada?

Simple answer is insurgents were involved at Lexington and Concorde in 1775. :D


Amazing. So you do recognise that you don't have to be a country to particpate in a conflict.


The country did not exist in 1812. That is what he is saying.

Everyone is saying that.
I'm saying that.

I'll say it again for you so you can stop trying to convince me of it.
Canada was not a country in 1812.



I'm still waiting for you to answer my question though, was the attempted conquest of Canada successful?

For like the hundreth time in this thread, the nation of canada did not exist in 1812. Hence, the country did not exist in 1812. Michigan was never a "country" but it does exist as a state of the United States of America.

Texas was a country after it won its independence from Mexico. Then wanted to be annexed by the United States and it too became a state. Texas is no longer a country but is now a state in the Union.

Once again, I fail to see how good Canada's educational system is if this has to be explained to Canadians who think they know their history.

Amazing. So you do recognise that you don't have to be a country to particpate in a conflict.

I guess you missed the post that in 1775, we were not a country but in 1776 we were a country.

Everyone is saying that.
I'm saying that.

I'll say it again for you so you can stop trying to convince me of it.
Canada was not a country in 1812.

Then drop the part about Canada winning in 1812 because in order to win, you have to exist and since Canada as a nation did not exist in 1812, you did not win a thing.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question though, was the attempted conquest of Canada successful?

Show me that I said it did. I will tell you now that I have said numerous times (as did others I might add) that it did not so why ask the same question when it was answered many times before? It has also been pointed out that it was primarily the Brits that drove us out.

For like the hundreth time in this thread, the nation of canada did not exist in 1812. Hence, the country did not exist in 1812. Michigan was never a "country" but it does exist as a state of the United States of America.

Texas was a country after it won its independence from Mexico. Then wanted to be annexed by the United States and it too became a state. Texas is no longer a country but is now a state in the Union.

Once again, I fail to see how good Canada's educational system is if this has to be explained to Canadians who think they know their history.

This is almost surreal now...

You are SO wrong Alleghany!!! Canada was NOT a country in 1812!!!!

This is almost surreal now...

You are SO wrong Alleghany!!! Canada was NOT a country in 1812!!!!

Then why are you saying that Canada won in 1812 when it did not exist?

And also, all of us have been saying you did not exist as a country.

For like the hundreth time in this thread, the nation of canada did not exist in 1812. Hence, the country did not exist in 1812. Michigan was never a "country" but it does exist as a state of the United States of America.

Texas was a country after it won its independence from Mexico. Then wanted to be annexed by the United States and it too became a state. Texas is no longer a country but is now a state in the Union.

Once again, I fail to see how good Canada's educational system is if this has to be explained to Canadians who think they know their history.

You're missing the point professor.

Nobody's saying Canada was a country. We're saying that the people living in the area called Canada, the ancestors of many current Canadians, were Canadian, and served alongside British officers in a fight, in Canada. It doesn't have to be a country to exist, or for the people in it to identify themselves as Canadians.

So instead of insulting our education system, try listening to what we're actually saying; The US invaded British North America, in the colony called Canada, and were successfully repelled by combined British regulars and Canadian colonial militia. Thus, the attempt to invade Canada (the colony, not the country which did not yet exist) was a failure.

From a Canadian viewpoint, how could this not be seen as 'winning' the war, when the concern of the average Canadian (the colonists, not the country that did not yet exist) was to not be taken over by the US?

From a Canadian viewpoint, how could this not be seen as 'winning' the war, when the concern of the average Canadian (the colonists, not the country that did not yet exist) was to not be taken over by the US?

Simple fact that you were not a country and not fighting under your own flag.

The civil war was a waste of time. Canida is basicly part of the USA and the UK and the USA are the best of friends. All that blood for what? Re-unification 50 years or so down the line? :headbang:

Saying Canada won the War of 1812 is like saying Minnesota won Vietnam.

Simple fact that you were not a country and not fighting under your own flag.

I guess that modern greeks can't claim that Greece defeated the Persian Empire at Thermopolae then. After all, Greece wasn't a 'country', and it didn't have a 'flag'.

Maybe in WWII, India didn't exist, because it was a British Colonial posession, therefore any Indians fighting in the Indian military units weren't Indian, because it 'wasn't a country', and 'wasn't fighting under it's own flag.' Therefore they can't claim any Indian military victories (or failures). They're only 'British' ones?

Show me that I said it did. I will tell you now that I have said numerous times (as did others I might add) that it did not so why ask the same question when it was answered many times before?

Your grammar doesn't match up with the question, but I'm going to presume that you are agreeing that the attempted conquest of Canada was in fact not successful.

So, we have established and agreed that there was an attempted conquest of Canada in 1812.
We have established and agreed that the attempted conquest did not succeed.
We have limited agreement on who participated, with you seemingly holding the belief that the Canadian forces played an insignificant role in defending Canada from the attempted conquest.

Therefore, Canadians claim to have 'won' in 1812 because our objectives, the objectives of the people living in the area identified as Canada (not yet a country) were met. We sought to repel an invading and conquering force and we did so.

Now, does this mean that Americans 'lost' the war?
No, not really, because Americans had broader interests in the war. They lost the 'battles' for Canada, but achieved some of their other goals, but not all of them.
Britain is in a similar situation, where they achieved some of their goals, but not all of them.

Which is why I said way back on one of the early pages.

From an American perspective, it was a draw.
From a British perspective, it was a draw.
From a Canadian perspective, it was a win.

Saying Canada won the War of 1812 is like saying Minnesota won Vietnam.

If the Viet Cong attacked Minnesota and tried to conquer it, sure they could.

And also, all of us have been saying you did not exist as a country.


I do not exist as a country and I'll fight any man that says I do!!!

The Canadian militias didn't win "their war," they assisted the British on the northern front. Since they weren't a country yet, they were still colonists, and British subjects. Yes, the same thing can be said about Americans before the Dec. of Independance. And untill you are a country you can't claim a different outcome than that of the overall war.

The Canadian militias didn't win "their war," they assisted the British on the northern front. Since they weren't a country yet, they were still colonists, and British subjects. Yes, the same thing can be said about Americans before the Dec. of Independance. And untill you are a country you can't claim a different outcome than that of the overall war.

Hezbollah?

Hezbollah?

Canadians are terrorists?

Doesn't Canada reconize Israels right to exist?

Doesn't Canada reconize Israels right to exist?

Yes Canada does.

Point being that Lebanon was clearly the loser in the recent conflict while a case can be made that Israel and Hezbollah had a draw.

Just because the country Lebanon lost, doesn't mean that Hezbollah did.

I'm using it as an example to counter your claim

untill you are a country you can't claim a different outcome than that of the overall war

Canada didn't realy win their "war" what they won was their front. It was one war, they just got the upperhand on one front.

People seem to be getting rather carried away with the question of Canadian national existence but yet so far the most important question remains unasked (and thus answered).

The question is thus: did the Canadian militia identify themselves as Canadian or did they identify themselves as British?

Imposing the relatively modern concept of Canadian nationhood onto a historical event which precedes its formation would be historically unsound and could lead to poor conclusions. This is a common problem in the study of history: people have a tendency to impose the concepts of their era onto eras in which modern concepts have no place whatsoever. A good example of this can be seen in the historical studies of the British Victorians. They believed that English (and subsequently, British) history was one long struggle for parliamentary democracy/liberty and so they imposed this ideal of parliamentary democracy onto eras that had no conception of it. The barons who signed the Magna Carta were not interested in bringing the nation a step closer to parliamentary democracy: they were interested in maintaining their privileges as a class. Thus we can see why it is dangerous to place our modern concept of Canada as a nation into a historical period where people may have not had any inkling of our concept.

If the 'native' militia did identify themselves with Canada then it could perhaps be claimed that they were fighting for Canada rather than Britain. But this claim will require evidence and this thread so far lacks any real presentation of historical sources. I myself am not interested enough in this matter to engage in more thorough research but I am sure at least one of you is competent enough to show us some sources from the period in which the 'native' militias display their thoughts on what they were fighting for.

Unless these sources can be provided, then I am afraid this thread will continue to be nothing more than mere conjecture and will provide no useful conclusions for anyone.

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?

nobody has ever marched that far across the continent. this is what happened. at the beginning of the war the US military launched a 3 prong invasion of quebec in order to end the british occupation, because of their provocation of the indians. the overwhelming majority of american believed that it would be a matter of marching. obviously the 3 prong strategy was the most flawed military plan in US military history.
The british navy landed in virginia, i believe but dont quote me on it, and marched into DC and burning it down. At the same time the navy blockaded N. Orleans, however Andrew Jackson and his sharpshooters managed to pick off half the british navy blockading the city. (little known fact, the battle of new orleans was fought after the peace treaty, they just didnt get word fast enough) so yes the americans failed miserably in the quebec campaign and were utterly embarassed by the burning of DC, but in true American style they managed the win the 2nd war for independence against the strongest military power at that time since the romans. :D

*Sigh*

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

Joy.


although, the americans truly are the best. look at the history, American militia beat off the greatest power in the world at that time with militia, twice. then came to the rescue in 2 world wars to save your asses. and now america is the strongest nation state which has ever existed. When compared to the roman empire at its strongest, the american military is still night and day stronger.

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.

on that campaign, you forget the war went on for another 2 years.

People seem to be getting rather carried away with the question of Canadian national existence but yet so far the most important question remains unasked (and thus answered).

The question is thus: did the Canadian militia identify themselves as Canadian or did they identify themselves as British?

Imposing the relatively modern concept of Canadian nationhood onto a historical event which precedes its formation would be historically unsound and could lead to poor conclusions. This is a common problem in the study of history: people have a tendency to impose the concepts of their era onto eras in which modern concepts have no place whatsoever. A good example of this can be seen in the historical studies of the British Victorians. They believed that English (and subsequently, British) history was one long struggle for parliamentary democracy/liberty and so they imposed this ideal of parliamentary democracy onto eras that had no conception of it. The barons who signed the Magna Carta were not interested in bringing the nation a step closer to parliamentary democracy: they were interested in maintaining their privileges as a class. Thus we can see why it is dangerous to place our modern concept of Canada as a nation into a historical period where people may have not had any inkling of our concept.

If the 'native' militia did identify themselves with Canada then it could perhaps be claimed that they were fighting for Canada rather than Britain. But this claim will require evidence and this thread so far lacks any real presentation of historical sources. I myself am not interested enough in this matter to engage in more thorough research but I am sure at least one of you is competent enough to show us some sources from the period in which the 'native' militias display their thoughts on what they were fighting for.

Unless these sources can be provided, then I am afraid this thread will continue to be nothing more than mere conjecture and will provide no useful conclusions for anyone.


The first Canadian Regulars
Recruited in 1794-95, this was the Royal Canadian Volunteers, which is the name that appears on the flags and insignia, although in French they are called the Volontaires royaux canadiens. The complement authorized for each battalion was 750 officers and soldiers, divided into 10 companies. Pay and allowances were identical to those of the metropolitan army. Officers' commissions were granted only to gentlemen living in Lower and Upper Canada.
Canadian Military Heritage - http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_356.asp



Canadian militia is made up of French Canadians, English Canadians and American born men in 1812. They are not identifying themselves as British, rather as Canadians.
The total population of the British colonies in North America was barely half a million, three fifths of whom lived in Lower Canada. The vast majority of the 60,000 militiamen from this province were French Canadians. There were approximately 11,000 militiamen in Upper Canada, the same number in Nova Scotia and 4,000 in New Brunswick. By adding the militias of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, as well as the Amerindians, whose precise numbers are not known, the total was about 90,000 men.

The militia of Lower Canada was the only force capable of protecting the country, both numerically and geographically. Without its cooperation it is doubtful that the British army would have been able to stave off the Americans indefinitely. In addition to the members of the Canadian Voltigeurs and the four battalions of the Embodied Militia, all men capable of bearing arms were recruited into what was called the Sedentary Militia. As before, militiamen were spread throughout parish companies. However, these were combined into numerous "districts," equivalent to regiments, commanded by a colonel and his staff. The Sedentary Militia was called up for active service only in emergencies.

The Upper Canada militia, though, was a source of considerable worry. Governor General Prevost reported to Lord Liverpool, Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, that "it would perhaps not be prudent" 64 to arm more than 4,000 of the 11,000 militiamen in the province in the event of war! This mistrust was the result of the fact that more than half the population was of American origin.
http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_368.asp




Canadian Voltigeurs were a regiment of Light Infantry raised to fight in the war of 1812.
The Voltigeurs were formed on April 15, 1812 by Sir George Prévost, with the Regiment being paid for by the government of Lower Canada. All men were to be Canadian-born between the ages of 17 and 35 with a minimum height of 5 feet 3 inches. The commander was Charles de Salaberry who was allowed to choose all his own officers except for the quartermaster and the adjutant who were chosen from other regiments. The headquarters was Fort Chambly with the regiment consisting of ten companies of French- and English-speaking men, (orders were to be made in English) and each company was allowed one bugler.
http://reenacting.net/qhc/voltigeurs/index.html



I don't believe there is any dispute that Canadian militia identified themselves as Canadian, not British. To even pose the question displays a distinct lack of knowledge of Canadian history.

although, the americans truly are the best. look at the history, American militia beat off the greatest power in the world at that time with militia, twice.
The first time, the French, Dutch, Spanish and various privateers all saved you. Otherwise, you would have been annihilated.

The second time, we had much more important things to attend to - Napoleon.

Could it be - the butt of your warhawks' jokes, the French, have actually stopped your nation being burnt to the ground twice?
then came to the rescue in 2 world wars to save your asses.
World War one : No, not in the slightest, bunch of Johnny-come-latelies...

World War two : Incorrect again, the only time in which the US got involved which helped anyone but themselves was when the war was already won.

The USSR won that one, not the USA.
and now america is the strongest nation state which has ever existed.
What about China in its various dynasties, and indeed today?
When compared to the roman empire at its strongest, the american military is still night and day stronger.
I think you'll find it most certainly isn't.

World War one : No, not in the slightest, bunch of Johnny-come-latelies...
Um... while I do know that the US didn't contribute a lot to WWI (and indeed, we didn't ride in to save the day) the threat of fresh US troops and supplies pouring into the Western front did have an effect. It was not an all for nothing influance.

World War two : Incorrect again, the only time in which the US got involved which helped anyone but themselves was when the war was already won.

The USSR won that one, not the USA.
Ok... that's a new one. I didn't realize that the USSR did anything in the Pacific theater (past the last month of).

And I'm ALMOST positive that all the nice equipment and supplies we sent over before we started the ground war was a big help to the UK at the time.

You guys certainly wanted a lot of it after all.

What about China in its various dynasties, and indeed today?
China, while fast devloping, has yet to match the US in terms of military or economic might. Give them 20 years or so and then you're going to have something, but right now...

Past history is hard to actually judge, they were the largest land empire and their culture had a huge infulance that is felt down to this day. How that would compare to the US ability to ship its culture around the world at lightspeed thanks to the Net and the prevasiveness of Hollywood, Music, Micro$oft and McDonalds is rather hard to judge.

Give it a few hundred years and then we'll talk.

I think you'll find it most certainly isn't.
In terms of what, landmass, reach, or actual strength? Landmass... Hmm... No, I think the Romans had us beat, barely. Reach, the US has far more reach, operating on a global basis every day. Strength... Legions vs a Carrier group, now on Civ XI! ;)

Um... while I do know that the US didn't contribute a lot to WWI (and indeed, we didn't ride in to save the day) the threat of fresh US troops and supplies pouring into the Western front did have an effect. It was not an all for nothing influance.
So how the hell did they "save our asses", then?
Ok... that's a new one. I didn't realize that the USSR did anything in the Pacific theater (past the last month of).
Did anyone other than the US care about the Pacific Theatre to any great deal?

No.

The Russians also helped you guys a hell of a lot when they did get involved, their kill rates in the Pacific were 10:1 against the Japanese - not too shabby considering the climatic differences, no?
And I'm ALMOST positive that all the nice equipment and supplies we sent over before we started the ground war was a big help to the UK at the time.
Urmm... we didn't really need it, due to the fact that the USSR was always going to win.

We were only really given it because OH NOES communism would have spread all over Europe had we not attacked at Normandy.

For the actual defense of Britain, we were fine.
China, while fast devloping, has yet to match the US in terms of military or economic might. Give them 20 years or so and then you're going to have something, but right now...
Do you know nothing of quite how powerful ancient China was?

And I would personally say that it's stronger militarily at the moment, and certainly has the potential to be extremely powerful if it chooses to switch its production from economic to military efforts.
Past history is hard to actually judge, they were the largest land empire and their culture had a huge infulance that is felt down to this day. How that would compare to the US ability to ship its culture around the world at lightspeed thanks to the Net and the prevasiveness of Hollywood, Music, Micro$oft and McDonalds is rather hard to judge.
Extremely favourably, the Chinese tought people how to make paper, play cards, print etc. in Western Europe - no mean feat considering what a distance that is, especially at the time.
Give it a few hundred years and then we'll talk.
I can say the same about the US, and I know who's going to come off better when the shit hits the fan and the oil runs out.
In terms of what, landmass, reach, or actual strength? Landmass... Hmm... No, I think the Romans had us beat, barely. Reach, the US has far more reach, operating on a global basis every day. Strength... Legions vs a Carrier group, now on Civ XI! ;)
You're not equating like with like.

"OH YEAH M4s > GLADIA" is foolish.

Because the enemy didn't have carrier groups, or nuclear missiles, the enemy had... well... sharp sticks.

Their tactics and equipment, as well as level of training, was extremely good for the time period, much better by comparison than the US army today.

They controlled basically the whole world at one stage.

Urmm... we didn't really need it, due to the fact that the USSR was always going to win...
For the actual defense of Britain, we were fine.

While we know with 20/20 hindsight exactly what happened and what led up to it; the way it turned out wasn't inevitable. We needed material to fight with, and got it - grudgingly and eventually, fine, but we did get it - from the US. It was a strategic blunder, the whim of a meglomaniac, that we weren't invaded - we needed those US-bought resources to defend ourselves.

Oh, and the Roman Empire outstrips anything the US has done in terms of influence and power projection; but it was extant for centuries. See what the situation's like in another 500 years or so; maybe the US'll have that sort of kudos, or maybe it'll have gone under, or maybe we'll have wiped ourselves out, solving a knotty dilemma quite neatly.

So how the hell did they "save our asses", then? I didn't say that we did, I just called your attention that US troops in WWI were not useless either. It was not a glorious calvary charge to ride to the rescue, but it DID help end the war.

Not the only reason but a part of it.

Did anyone other than the US care about the Pacific Theatre to any great deal?

No.
My friend, please go find the first WWII Pacific vet from the UK colonies, a Dutchman, or Aussie and say that. Then run very, very fast. They cared a whole hell of a lot.

The Russians also helped you guys a hell of a lot when they did get involved, their kill rates in the Pacific were 10:1 against the Japanese - not too shabby considering the climatic differences, no?
The USSR managed to drive a demoralized army out of China and take 4 islands. 2 weeks before the end of the war when Japan was already reeling, unable to defend or supply itself, and had been bombed flat (and was about ready to be intoroduced to the concept of nuclear warfare).

No, they DIDN'T help a hell of a lot.

Urmm... we didn't really need it, due to the fact that the USSR was always going to win.

We were only really given it because OH NOES communism would have spread all over Europe had we not attacked at Normandy.

For the actual defense of Britain, we were fine.
Riiiiight... sure you guys were. Go argue it with Churchill.

Do you know nothing of quite how powerful ancient China was?
*looks at location, thinks about all the infulance China has had on Japan and Japanese culture, the amount of items brought over from China to Japan that I have seen, all the time I spent studying Chinese and Japanese history*
No, I don't know ANYTHING about how powerful ancient China was. Nothing at all. Please inform me.

And I would personally say that it's stronger militarily at the moment, and certainly has the potential to be extremely powerful if it chooses to switch its production from economic to military efforts.
It doesn't have a blue water navy, it cannot move its troops anywhere they can't walk, its airforce is improving, but still somewhere in the mid-80's, and in terms of nuclear arms, the US can blow up the planet by itself, China can only blow up the US.

And China is more powerful how now?

Extremely favourably, the Chinese tought people how to make paper, play cards, print etc. in Western Europe - no mean feat considering what a distance that is, especially at the time.
Well, paper yes. The printing press never made it over. And the trade did go both ways. China was very powerful indeed, however it still cannot get its ideas across the globe the way the US can in the short time the US can. Not historically and not now.

In the future, we'll see. China grows quickly and one should always keep an eye on it because it always survives.

I can say the same about the US, and I know who's going to come off better when the shit hits the fan and the oil runs out.
Just about everyone as evey country is dependant upon oil.

Their tactics and equipment, as well as level of training, was extremely good for the time period, much better by comparison than the US army today.
And you base this idea upon... what comparison? For the time period, they were the best, they also got bowled over when the tactics changed and they didn't.

They controlled basically the whole world at one stage.
That would have been news to the people beyond the wall, in China, on the steps, in Japan, Southern Africa, and in North and South America.

They had a large Empire, but it mainly streached around Europe and the Middle East. They never really did get into Asia and further than the coastline of Northern Africa. There's still quite a bit of populated world left with large empires hanging out there that the Romans didn't even know about.

I don't believe there is any dispute that Canadian militia identified themselves as Canadian, not British. To even pose the question displays a distinct lack of knowledge of Canadian history.

Someone had to pose it. It might seem like common sense but common sense is something that this forum often lacks.

Having said this, your sources are all secondary sources which means that your claim still lacks any primary evidence, something which is vital to the question I posed. The secondary sources you have produced have some problems too. The Canadian Military Heritage, for example, will clearly see history with the aim of identifying and displaying Canadian military exploits, rather than with the aim of portraying a balanced and accurate version of the past. Finally, your evidence only demonstrates that there were some regiments that went by the name 'Canadian'. Such does not prove that the men in these regiments felt they were more Canadian than British/French: the name of a regiment is simply a geographical designation.

Someone had to pose it. It might seem like common sense but common sense is something that this forum often lacks.

Having said this, your sources are all secondary sources which means that your claim still lacks any primary evidence, something which is vital to the question I posed. The secondary sources you have produced have some problems too. The Canadian Military Heritage, for example, will clearly see history with the aim of identifying and displaying Canadian military exploits, rather than with the aim of portraying a balanced and accurate version of the past. Finally, your evidence only demonstrates that there were some regiments that went by the name 'Canadian'. Such does not prove that the men in these regiments felt they were more Canadian than British/French: the name of a regiment is simply a geographical designation.


It's a fair question to pose, but it is certainly a question from someone unfamiliar with Canadian history. It presumed a dichotomy of British or Canadian.
By 1812, Canada had only been British for about half a century, being French prior to that. The War of 1812 was the first time that English Canadian and French Canadian military fought together and then you also have Americans in Canada fighting for Canada.

As for primary vs. secondary sources, I'm not publishing a paper, so I'm not going to put that level of effort to assure your as you learn Canadian history. If you believe these secondary sources are biased, supply sources that demonstrate that. I'll happily review yours and withdraw them.

although, the americans truly are the best. look at the history, American militia beat off the greatest power in the world at that time with militia, twice. then came to the rescue in 2 world wars to save your asses. and now america is the strongest nation state which has ever existed. When compared to the roman empire at its strongest, the american military is still night and day stronger.

Even more nationalism. Gah! First Canadians now more Americans.

Do I have to set the record straight about this as well?

I leave for two days....

It's a fair question to pose, but it is certainly a question from someone unfamiliar with Canadian history. It presumed a dichotomy of British or Canadian.
By 1812, Canada had only been British for about half a century, being French prior to that. The War of 1812 was the first time that English Canadian and French Canadian military fought together and then you also have Americans in Canada fighting for Canada.

All of Canada was French? Nice to see someone here who does not know their own history all that well. The First ENGLISH colony in Canada was founded around 1610. So to say that Canada was an english colony for half a century is pretty much inaccurate.

As for primary vs. secondary sources, I'm not publishing a paper, so I'm not going to put that level of effort to assure your as you learn Canadian history. If you believe these secondary sources are biased, supply sources that demonstrate that. I'll happily review yours and withdraw them.

Secondary sources are wonderful but Primary Sources are better. Especially if you are doing research into history.

All of Canada was French? Nice to see someone here who does not know their own history all that well. The First ENGLISH colony in Canada was founded around 1610. So to say that Canada was an english colony for half a century is pretty much inaccurate.


No, I'm afraid you're not correct in this instance. New France (to be known later as Lower Canada) was ceded to Britain in 1763. Canada - the two Canadas, Upper and Lower, had been administrated as a British colony for roughly fifty years prior to the War of 1812. So Snow Eater's assessment is fairly accurate, yes.

And yes, Canada (at that point consisting only of New France, later known as Lower Canada) had originally been French - at least, where there Europeans, they spoke French.

So what's your problem, again?

No, I'm afraid you're not correct in this instance. New France (to be known later as Lower Canada) was ceded to Britain in 1763. Canada - the two Canadas, Upper and Lower, had been administrated as a British colony for roughly fifty years prior to the War of 1812. So Snow Eater's assessment is fairly accurate, yes.

No he was not. He stated that Canada was French prior to the British acquire Canada. British did have upper Canada while France had lower Canada. That debunks his statement that Canada was French prior to British takeover in 1763. You do not have to tell me this history Dobbsworld. I have studied history, including history on this continet.

And yes, Canada (at that point consisting only of New France, later known as Lower Canada) had originally been French - at least, where there Europeans, they spoke French.

Newfoundland was found by the British in the 1600s so to say that canada was French is inaccurate.

So what's your problem, again?

I will ask you the samething.

No, I'm afraid you're not correct in this instance. New France (to be known later as Lower Canada) was ceded to Britain in 1763.

I don't know, but France would rather keep Guadaloupe than Canada. Buuuurn!!

No he was not. He stated that Canada was French prior to the British acquire Canada. British did have upper Canada while France had lower Canada. That debunks his statement that Canada was French prior to British takeover in 1763. You do not have to tell me this history Dobbsworld. I have studied history, including history on this continet.



Newfoundland was found by the British in the 1600s so to say that canada was French is inaccurate.



I will ask you the samething.

Newfoundland wasn't a part of Canada until the 20th century, so that doesn't figure into the equation, period. And the area later known as Upper Canada (now Southern Ontario) was administered by the French prior to 1763 - it was not then a colony of Britain.

France never had 'Lower Canada'. France had 'New France' which was located in Canada. Only Britain ever had Upper and Lower Canada, Lower Canada being the name given to the former 'New France'.

Your take on history smacks of revisionism, but with what motive in mind neither intrigues nor rouses curiosity.

*snip*

Dobbsworld, we can go back and forth about this all day but I really do not have time for it today. Why don't we just agree to disagree on this subject and call it a day.

Dobbsworld, we can go back and forth about this all day but I really do not have time for it today. Why don't we just agree to disagree on this subject and call it a day.

You don't have time? It's ten after 9 on a holiday Monday morning. Good grief. I think you're just trying to back out of that corner you've painted yourself into.

You don't have time? It's ten after 9 on a holiday Monday morning.

Dammit, I'm late!! See you, guys!

You don't have time? It's ten after 9 on a holiday Monday morning. Good grief. I think you're just trying to back out of that corner you've painted yourself into.

I'm going to a fair with my girlfriend soon! Jeez. Just because it is a holiday does not mean that I do not have important things to do. Maybe you should brush up on your peoples skills today. You could learn something about tact and diplomacy.

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.

Thats precious.

Why should we learn insignificant history? I state once more, Austerlitz and the retreat from Moscow radically altered European, colonial, and, presumably, global, history. A small dispute with an ascetic group of estanged dissidents is not.

All of Canada was French? Nice to see someone here who does not know their own history all that well. The First ENGLISH colony in Canada was founded around 1610. So to say that Canada was an english colony for half a century is pretty much inaccurate.


No he was not. He stated that Canada was French prior to the British acquire Canada. British did have upper Canada while France had lower Canada. That debunks his statement that Canada was French prior to British takeover in 1763. You do not have to tell me this history Dobbsworld. I have studied history, including history on this continet.

Newfoundland was found by the British in the 1600s so to say that canada was French is inaccurate.



You know, if you're going to correct me AND claim to have studied this history, you really might want to get your basics down.

Newfoundland was not part of Canada until modern times. It was never a part of the colony we have been discussing.

The British did not have Upper Canada. They acquired what would be called Upper Canada and Lower Canada when the acquired New France.
For someone that claims to have studied this period of history on this continet, that is a significant error, even more significant since you are actually trying to 'debunk' someone else with entirely false information.

I believe that your error is that after France gave up New France, the French-Canadians stayerd in Lower Canada and the British-Canadians settled in Upper Canada. This is why Upper is described as British and Lower is French, but that has nothing to do with what you claimed.

In addition to being wrong, you have also missed the context for why I was mentioning that Canada had only been under British rule for half a century.

The question was posed regarding whether Canadians identified themselves as British or or actually as Canadians in 1812. Since much of the colony was not British and since the colony had not ben under British rule for all that long, that demonstrates WHY Canadians would not have seen themselves as British, but rather Canadians with British allies.

A British colony out on Newfoundland that will join Canada 150 years later doesn't have any bearing on the discussion.

Thats precious.

Why should we learn insignificant history? I state once more, Austerlitz and the retreat from Moscow radically altered European, colonial, and, presumably, global, history. A small dispute with an ascetic group of estanged dissidents is not.

I must disagree with you there. The war of 1812 is an even which sparked the formation of a permanent military in the US, and spurred wesward expansion (not the only factor, of course, but an important one).

Napoleon's reach ever exceeded his grasp. He would have overstretched himself eventually, even had he not chosen to invade Russia. The War of 1812 laid the foundations for the US we have today.

I must disagree with you there. The war of 1812 is an even which sparked the formation of a permanent military in the US, and spurred wesward expansion (not the only factor, of course, but an important one).

Napoleon's reach ever exceeded his grasp. He would have overstretched himself eventually, even had he not chosen to invade Russia. The War of 1812 laid the foundations for the US we have today.

Because you'd never have militaried otherwise? Perhaps with more retardation, but dear me.....

Napoleon would have had nowhere to over-extend himself into had Russia capitulated, and thus been supplanted by another client knigdom.

Thats precious.

Why should we learn insignificant history? I state once more, Austerlitz and the retreat from Moscow radically altered European, colonial, and, presumably, global, history. A small dispute with an ascetic group of estanged dissidents is not.

Insignificant history according to whom? Frankly, the war should not have been fought but thanks to slow communications at the time it was. However, it did have an impact on the US as a whole when it was over. To say it was insignificant really depends on what side of the ocean you were living on.

Auuuugggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!



Churble sputz puzzzzz,aportha;lha hurrrrrrr hurrrrrr hurrrrrrrrr paoigh purble nux nux nux kilingo ellis audooo!

Schnuurrrrr schnuurrrrrrr schnurbart! Kwilieof! littttini albedonji! Incolo?@