Posted on 11/17/2008 4:53:59 PM PST by JACKRUSSELL
You are leaving quite a bit of historical fact out of this. As I had stated, impressment wasn't the only casus belli, so one yet to be proven concession isn't a reason to stop acts of declared war. I am not a historian, but from what I remember, the impressment did not stop until the end of the Napoleonic Wars. There may have been "war hawks set off to conquer Canada," but the United States of that time was anything but united, and those that advocated invading Canada did so thinking it would be a liberation. They were wrong.
Furthermore, the north east was vehemently anti-war, and continued illegal trade with the British Empire throughout the war, even supplying its army in Canada. Also, at the start of the war, the Americans fought with mostly militiamen, some refusing to fight beyond American borders. It is not accurate to say that Americans wanted to conquer Canada.
Simply stated, the US declared war on the British Empire for three reasons. None of them (by your own admission) were resolved before the US declared war. If you declare war on the British, you attack the British where they are. That was Canada. Your history books may say we intended to conquer Canada because of that; our say that is where we went to attack after establishing the casus belli. Where would you have the Americans attack after declaring war? England?
Using your logic, then the British did intend to reoccupy the United States because they had launched numerous offensive campaigns into the US. If status quo was all they wanted, why did they not simply repulse offensive American attacks and stop at the borders?
Britain, having not wanted the war in the first place, had achieved its principle war aim of defending British North America and a return to the status quo, as well as it's return to normal trade links with the US that they wished to continue. The spectacular but irrelevent victory at New Orleans helped cement this myth that the Americans had won the war of 1812. Considering the overall picture, it takes a great deal of logical gymnastics to portray a failed war of conquest that ended with you fighting to defend yourself from the avenging British Armies rampaging around your own territory, especially when the reasons espoused on the American side for declaring war were resolved by factors that were unrelated to the war itself. I don't see why Americans still feel the need to claim this war as a victory for themselves when it was to any sane impartial observer anything but. It's not as if the US today isn't a big badass superpower in it's own right today with nothing to prove to itself or outsiders by engaging in historical revisionism.
If the British did not want the war in the first place, perhaps they should have ceased the activities that gave the US casus belli before the declaration of war. If status quo was all the British wanted, why did they launch offensive attacks into United States territory? As I stated before, why not simply repulse the attacks and stop at the borders?
The spectacular victory at New Orleans was not irrelevant in the sense that a superior force (2 to 1?) of British crack troops intended to invade New Orleans and they were soundly defeated. Yes it had no affect on the Treaty of Ghent, as it took place after the treaty. But the Americans defended an important port from attack; that is not irrelevant.
And you are leaving out quite a few battles in the overall picture which would portray an American victory. The tide had turned. The ragtag easily defeated Americans of 1812 had become a professional army by 1814 that repulsed the three-pronged British invasion: See the Battle of Baltimore, the Battle of Plattsburg, and aforementioned Battle of New Orleans.
Not only that, but the US Navy had its share of victories. Our heavy frigates were fast enough to outrun a ship-of-the-line and so strong they could take any other frigate one-on-one. In fact, the British were issued orders not to attack a lone American heavy frigate unless at squadron strength. One on one, the USS Constitution destroyed the frigates HMS Java and HMS Guerriere. The USS United States captured the HMS Macedonian. It took a squadron to capture the USS President.
There are two decisive naval battles that come to mind: The Battle of Lake Erie allowing the recapture of Detroit and dissolving of the native coalition, and the Battle of Lake Champlain where the corvette USS Saratoga defeated the frigate HMS Confiance and allowed the victory at Plattsburg.
So I don’t know if there is any revisionism involved by calling it an American victory. By the end of the war, the three reasons for the US declaring war were resolved in the American’s favor, and the British discovered they were incapable of invading the United States. It also cost the British treasury a significant sum to return to status quo. IOW, the US met its objectives and the British gained nothing.
The way I see it, this joke will act as an acid test as to whether someone who dislikes America is a leftist or a contratarian. Surely a lot of foreigners would find the 2000 version funny, but this time the butt of this joke is a leftist Barack Obama. Are they going to keep the laugh, or going to hiss at this joke?
My prediction is that a genuine leftist like Ken Livingstone and Helen Clark (New Zealand) will be outraged by this joke but amused by the 2000 version, but contratarians will cheer at this joke as well.
But we already have a Governor for America, albeit with the need of a 2012 election, due to the unfortunate inattention of the American Sheeple. She's nine hours behind Margaret, but she'll catch up!
Yes, but they did invade Washingon D.C. and burn down the White House. Why couldn’t they have waited until 2009?!
I’ve already provided a link demonstrating that Lord Castlereagh had announced the repeal of the orders in council to Parliament before the declaration of war. The news of this did not arrive until after the declaration. Even when it did, it failed to persuade the US government to ceasefire and negotiate for peace again, they wanted to use the momentum to throw the British out of Canada.
This attempt failed disastrously, and for most of the rest of the war, Britain had taken the fight to the Americans. A few one-on-one victories at sea did not change the fact that America was effectively blockaded (except for New England). The land victories held the British in check to a certain extent, but it didn’t change the fact that the US never again fought the war to any significant degree on British territory. The issue of trade with France, as I said, was redundant after the conclusion of the Napoleonic War.
Granted, it wasn’t a total victory for the British, but on balance, it was a British Victory. Britain had defended British North America and stopped the US from making the territorial acquisition at her expense she hoped to make. To say that the US had no intention of conquering and annexing Canada is frankly crap, judging by what happened with the Spanish-Mexican war a few years later. The US sought to own the entire North American continent, and they were prevented from doing so, thanks to the Battle of Queenston Heights (which as far as I’m aware, the Canadians have been too polite to actually name ships after, and the British too indifferent to what was for them a very minor colonial war).
Britain did not want the war, she wanted to secure her territory in North America and to continue her lucrative trade with the US, and she did. Claiming this war as a US victory is ridiculous. America gained no territory as she originally envisaged, and other grievances were resolved by diplomacy or other circumstances unrelated to the war, rather than the war itself. At best, all America did was protect itself from being punished too harshly by the British for waging war on them...
PS, if you ever go to England, I highly recommend a visit to the Chesapeake Mill in Hampshire, made from the timbers of the USS Chesapeake, captured in a brilliant victory by HMS Shannon on June 1st 1813.
http://www.southernlife.org.uk/chesapeake.htm
This particular ship-on-ship engagement is probably not one of the better known ones in the US...
History is written by the WINNERS.
Not quite true. History is written by those who have a vested interest in it. Britain fought hundreds of colonial wars throughout the 19th Century, and the perceived importance of this war to Britain was further eclipsed by the fact that Britain’s main struggle was with Napoleon.
For the Americans, this was a very big deal indeed, and they wrote extensively about it. Consequently, the mainstream historical perspective on this is skewed, concentrating on irrelevent but spectacular events such as the Battle of New Orleans and a few 1-on-1 second and third rate ship victories to convince themselves that the war had gone on and ended in America’s favour...
Welcome to American politics where we still have the Wild West, but we don't say 'hiss'. It evokes the ghost of Alger Hiss who went to his grave denying being a communist agent. The latter outings from the Venoma files, plus those found in the Kremlin archives proved otherwise.
Long story, and it would make New Zealand politics look like a Sunday afternoon in Heaven.
And the British waged a very costly war, essentially alone, to finally defeat the Corsican. Converted European countries finally joined in, but without the bulldog stubborn British it could easily have been a very different story for Europe.
Britain also stood alone against Hitler in WWII, and if they had ever caved like the French, again, European history would be very different.
So chill your jets, sinso - or whatever the hell you chose for a screen name.
EXCELLENT!
EXCELLENT!
What's so excellent about that? Can't you just see the Congress critters wandering loose all over the country side, just looking for for pork barrels to tip over and eat?
They'll starve when they have to go outside of the Beltway, and actually have to survive! We don't have enough zoos to take them all in! Reconsider your comment....
That nonsense about the French ‘caving’ is also grossly unfair and a distortion of the facts. The German blitzkrieg tactics had no effective counter at that time, and France was left in a completely hopeless position and had no choice but to surrender. Britain would have to, were it not for the English Channel. Russia was only saved by it’s sheer vastness, and America’s initial performance against the Germans at Kasserine Pass was similarly pathetic. France collapsed because unfortunately for her, she was a medium-sized country bordering Germany and she had chance for breathing space, and no opportunity to learn from her mistakes and revise their tactics the way the British, Americans and Russians did.
There is no point in distorting history just to fit around one’s own preconceived nationalistic prejudices and wishful thinking, you have to look at the facts as they are, and draw your conclusions from that....
Perhaps we could find a nice desolate place in South Dakota and set up a large corporate style hog containment farm.
(Nothin' against South Dakotans, mind you.)
pingy-dingy.
Gee, who’s that guy with the cute little button nose? Is he in politics by any chance?
First of all, the British impressed Americans since the beginning of the Napoleonic War in 1803 as they needed all the sailors they could get and did not recognize naturalized American citizenship. So the British had done this for nearly a decade before the declaration of war, and news that they had reversed their policy did not arrive until after the declaration of war, and you fault the Americans?
Secondly, this did nothing to address the major cause of the war, which was the British hindering trade with France, nor did it address the issue of the British arming the Indians on the frontier which harassed American settlers—but it was in the Treaty of Ghent.
Thirdly, you are still laboring under the false assumption that invading Canada was a goal instead of a strategy. Perhaps you are Canadian. I’m sure up there it is taught that we intended to annex Canada, but it is agreed by most historians that this was not a goal of the US.
This attempt failed disastrously, and for most of the rest of the war, Britain had taken the fight to the Americans. A few one-on-one victories at sea did not change the fact that America was effectively blockaded (except for New England). The land victories held the British in check to a certain extent, but it didn’t change the fact that the US never again fought the war to any significant degree on British territory.
There were more than a few one-on-one victories at sea as the Americans were highly effective at raiding British commerce. I don’t know what did more harm, the British blockade, or the capture of British merchant ships, but the blockade managed to dramatically affect American manufacturing capability for the better, and the ships captured by the Americans drove insurance up for the British considerably.
The land victories that held the British in check convinced the American people that we could fend off any foreign threat. This of course doesn’t seem like a victory to anyone still believing that the goal of the Americans was to conquer Canada, but it did show the world that it could not invade the United States.
The issue of trade with France, as I said, was redundant after the conclusion of the Napoleonic War.
The conclusion of the Napoleonic War was two years after the start of the War of 1812. I don’t understand how this removes the free trade with France issue as casus belli.
Granted, it wasn’t a total victory for the British, but on balance, it was a British Victory. Britain had defended British North America and stopped the US from making the territorial acquisition at her expense she hoped to make.
Again, you fail to address the actual grievances the US had with the British and incorrectly state that the US intended to annex Canada. All three reasons the US went to war had been addressed in favor of the US, and the British Empire amassed nothing except considerable war debt, yet you call this a British victory.
To say that the US had no intention of conquering and annexing Canada is frankly crap, judging by what happened with the Spanish-Mexican war a few years later.
What happened with the Spanish-Mexican War? We call it the Mexican War of Independence, but as far as I know, the US had nothing to do with it and gained no territory.
Perhaps you meant the Mexican-American War which was not a few years later but over three decades after the War of 1812. While we did gain areas which are now Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, we didn’t start that war.
Texas seceded from Mexico in 1836 and remained an independent republic until 1845 when it petitioned for statehood. We accepted. Mexico raided Texas within a year, and that gave us casus belli.
Linking intentions of the US in 1812 because of actions done in 1846 is ridiculous. The Monroe Doctrine (keep Europeans out of affairs of the Western Hemisphere) wasn’t policy until the 1820’s, and the Manifest Destiny (the US should expand from the Atlantic to the Pacific) wasn’t a term until the 1840s and was never an official policy.
The US sought to own the entire North American continent, and they were prevented from doing so, thanks to the Battle of Queenston Heights (which as far as I’m aware, the Canadians have been too polite to actually name ships after, and the British too indifferent to what was for them a very minor colonial war).
Again, Manifest Destiny, which was never an official policy, did not become a political term for several decades after the War of 1812. Prior to what is know as the Manifest Destiny Era, the US acquired land motivated by a defensive posture, not as conquests.
In the Battle of Queenston Heights, the British regular army fought against New York militia men and new recruits of the regular US Army within the first few months of the war. This was not the same army that defeated the British in Baltimore, Plattsburg, and New Orleans. Maybe that’s why the British are indifferent. The Canadians may be too polite to name a ship after the battle, but they do sing about it in their national anthem.
Britain did not want the war, she wanted to secure her territory in North America and to continue her lucrative trade with the US, and she did. Claiming this war as a US victory is ridiculous. America gained no territory as she originally envisaged, and other grievances were resolved by diplomacy or other circumstances unrelated to the war, rather than the war itself. At best, all America did was protect itself from being punished too harshly by the British for waging war on them...
I suppose that one’s opinion of the war all comes down to whether or not you were taught that the United States desired to take Canadian lands or not. Most historians agree that this was not an aim, but if you wish to cling to that assumption, so be it. Free trade, sailors’ rights, and British interference with the Indians were the real reasons for the declaration of war, and all three were resolved in favor of the Americans.
The fate of the USS Chesapeake is well known in the US, as far as any naval battle being well known. And if the average American doesn’t know the ship or battle specifically, they’ll know the imortalized words of the captain.
Perhaps you’ve heard the term “Don’t give up the ship!”
Funny no mention of the Lend-Lease Act of 1941. You can't fight a war if you have no equipment. It's the reason Germany declared war on the US.
America’s initial performance against the Germans at Kasserine Pass was similarly pathetic
It sure was. But three weeks after that battle, Patton was placed in command, and the Americans kept pushing the Germans eastward without giving up ground again (while Monty pushed them westward). The Germans surrendered in North Africa two months after Patton was placed in command.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.