@rapfan050 Only Americans who don't really know what the war was about try to claim it was a victory. Most American historians try to claim that it was a kind of stalemate or a moral victory for the U.S. Which is crap but their pride is never going to allow them to admit defeat.
Canadians cannot claim to have defeated America in this war, they cannot claim to have burned down the white house unless they admit that Canada and Britain are the same race, the Anglo Saxons, and that our relations go beyond friendship, that Britain and Canada will always be the same peoples in different corners of the world. And we defeated America very harshly in this war.
@TheLiberalKnight So long as Canada has a British Queen I'm not sure what the difference is.
French Canadians might quibble but the English speaking ones are mostly British. There are more Scotsmen in Canada then Scotland. Thanks to Cockburn's liberation of Black slaves, accepting them in to the Royal Marines & at wars end so many migrated to Canada so even Black Canadians have as much right to boast as anyone else.
@Eddythebeast666 Exactly, we are the same race. Canada and Britain are different countries, but the British government deliberately encouraged immigration from Britain to Canada in order to give the Anglo Saxons more living space. So whilst Canada and Britain are different countries, we are both of the same race, and we are as close allies as possible. We are not only friends, we're siblings.
@TheLiberalKnight I see it more as same culture. At least so long as we have the same Queen. If the UK abolished the monarchy (God forbid) Canada would then be more British then the motherland. XD
I stress culture because if we look at the US they share the same blood but with out the monarchy they aren't British. No matter how pure they kept the bloodline they are not kin.
Many have been adopted in to the British family who are loyal to the common cause but are not of the same blood.
@Eddythebeast666 Canada actually recognised Her Majesty Elizabeth II as the head of state before Britain did. If Britain abolished the monarchy, I would either go to live in Canada or fight to have them restored. But that won't happen, they enjoy huge support. I do like to visit Canada. It's as exciting as visiting America, but you don't get all the fat slobs eating oversized macdonalds. Instead, everyone is polite and civilized.
one day all this nonsense will be centuries behind us and we will look at military uniforms from the past as nothing but costumes. IN a thousand years i think we will be violence free. I sometimes think if sacrificing the scum would create a better world and ensure our survival it would be worth it for a better world.
Long live Canada and RULE BRITANNIA!! Warning to Canada, The U.S failed to invade and conquer, However there plans to invade Canada are in record, In 1930s the U.S started new plans to invade Canada, War plan Red. The American dream to invade Canada or at least make a propaganda about "saving" canda with an invasion!!!
Nobody won the War of 1812. Americans say they did, but Canada is still here. Canadians can say they did, but America is still here. Canadians burned the White House, Americans burned York (aka Toronto). It was effectively a stalemate, and probably for the better.
No, because Canada/Britain didn't start the war of 1812! America started the war with the intention of conquering Canada which they thought they would easily do. However, Canada remained British and Washington was burned and the Americans were humiliated again and again. For example look at the 1814 Battle of Lacolle Mills where 80 Brits defeated 4,000 Americans. Americans choose to remember a few victories but ignore the fact that they obviously failed in their mission i.e lost.
@RaynauddeChatillon typical revisionism. The US didnt start the war, it declared war because britain was attacking US ships at sea and forcing US citizens into the british navy. that is why the war was started, not to invade canada. You also lost battles, like new orleans. The war was a stalemate, you seem to think winning battles is tantamount to winning the war, but in the end it was a draw. any side saying it won is deluding itself.
@CodArk2 The War Hawks were one of the major driving forces towards the war, as they wanted to drive Britain out of North America. New Orleans was also after the war was over. It's true that winning bttles isn't tantamount to winning a war, but the United States also didn't achieve their objective of capturing Canada and removing the British from North America, which I personnally would consider a loss.
@CodArk2 Doesn't matter how you want to frame the war or why it started, the US still lost. Its only revisionist American historians who claim that it was some kind of stalemate. Tactically, Britain ended the war in a dominant position, strategically, Britain won. Britain's first peace offers to the US in 1812 was of a return to the Status Quo, the US refused. It was only in 1814 when everything had failed for America that they dropped all demands -
@Ninja1275 No, they didn't. The US lost battles yes, but this is not the same as losing the war. At the end of the war it was a stalemate, and neither side could really conquer the other. The british could not conquer the US, and the US could not conquer canada or drive the british out
@CodArk2 You didnt go to war simply for the the sake of it. You went to war with clear objectives and failed in all of them. You cannot claim a draw based on the Status Quo, Britain offered the US a return to the Status Quo in 1812 and 1813, each time the US refused because it seemed like they still had a chance to win. In 1814, with the war in Europe coming to a close and the realisation that thousands of British troops could be shipped to the US they had no choice but to accept peace.
@Ninja1275 Most of our goals actually were achieved, the only one that was not was taking canada. You act as though the US was beaten into accepting britain's conditions, but anyone looking at the end of the war would see britain actually was losing since they invaded the US (battle of new orleans, battle of baltimore, the invasion of new york). In reality both sides were tired of fighting and agreed to leave things as they were before the war
@CodArk2 The British never intended to conquer the US, thats simply American propaganda. There is not a shred of evidence Britain intended to re-conquer the US, whereas there is a ton of info that the US intended to conquer Canada. Britain (Canada) was the defender and never wanted this war. As defenders, peace represented victory.
@Ninja1275 Uh, then what were the british doing in washington? in baltimore? in new york? in new orleans? This idea of britain as poor blameless victim of evil american aggression is also propaganda, ignoring why the war started in the first place. Britain was only the defender at first, later it became the aggressor and started losing when they came south to invade the US. Both sides were defending at one point, if britain was purely defending they wouldn't have come into the US.
@CodArk2 - (including impressment and neutrality of the seas) and simply asked for peace. Peace represented victory for Britain, ergo, British victory. America had to accept peace and promise to restore Native lands to their position as they were in 1811, while Britain refused to return 5000 + slaves who had escaped to British freedom, and conceded nothing in terms of Maritime rights. In what possible way was this anything other than an American defeat?
@Ninja1275 As for slavery and the natives, nothing really changed on that front at all. America did not win the war of 1812, but we did not lose it either. Saying we lost is like saying texas lost its war of independence from mexico because they only won one battle. In the end it was a status quo, because both sides didnt really want to fight the war anyway
These quotes by American leaders suggest otherwise:
"We can take the Canadas without soldiers, we have only to send officers into the province and the people . . . will rally round our standard."-William Eustis
"In four weeks from the time that a declaration of war is heard on our frontier, the whole of Canada will be in our possession."-John C Calhoun
[t]he acquisition of Canada this year will be a mere matter of marching,"-James Madison
@RaynauddeChatillon you seem to only be focusing on canada, without seeming to take into account that the US did not start the war with the aim of invading canada, that simply came about because the british, who we were at war with, were in charge of canada, and we needed to fight them somewhere. And britain was a super power at that time, the US was not, but even then our population and economy was larger than canadas (it still is today)
@CodArk2 The US, as part of the Treaty, conceded to the British demand that the Natives be restored to their lands as they were 1811. Typically they later disavowed this and carried on massacring the natives but the point is still clear, America achieved nothing because they could claim nothing, the war was a fiasco, they had to accept peace and accede to British demands.
@Ninja1275 Actually, this is again ignoring history.Britain, which had forces in uninhabited areas near Lake Superior and Lake Michigan and two towns in Maine, demanded the cession of large areas, plus turning most of the Midwest into a neutral zone for Indians. This was a british demand, but never made it into the treaty at all because by 1814 the US was the defender and was repelling british invasions of the US.
@CodArk2 What goals did the US achieve? Britain conceded nothing. Britain did beat the US into accepting peace. The US refused to negotiate on level terms until the war in Europe ended and thousands of British soldiers were freed for service in America. At that point the US realised that they would not be able to claim anything therefore dropped all demands and asked for peace. That is not a stalemate.
@Ninja1275 Actually britain did concede things. Part of the reason the war ended was because impressment was no longer being done. The US stopped trying to invade canada because they were on the defensive because britain was attacking and invading the US. The US dropped all demands to canada, but some of americas demands were in fact met. Most historians view the war as a stalemate, as do i. the only ones that view it as a victory tend to be biased,
@CodArk2 Impressment ended before the war began. The new British government done away with it. But at the Treaty Britain retained the right to use it again in the future. The US challenged this right until 1814, when the war completely reversed and therefore they dropped it (along with everthing else) and asked for peace. British and Canadian historians say it was a strategic British victory, Americans claim it was a draw - convenient?
@Ninja1275 Most independent historians say it was a draw, that is, non US or british. Canadians have a lot of myths around the war that their historians do not repudiate. And britain stopped impressment, which was itself a violation of our sovereignty, and never used it again. It shouldn't have been happening in the first place.
@CodArk2 "independent historians" - Who? Find me names. Impressment happened because the US was encouraging desertion from the Royal Navy at a time when they could ill afford it. Aprox 10% of the US merchant fleet was manned by British sailors, if the US hadn't encouraged desertion then impressment wouldnt have happened. The US achieved nothing in terms of maritime issues and you ended up dropping them.
@Ninja1275 As in those not from the US or britain or canada. Acting like only american historians are biased is just dishonest. I have seen plenty of errors and such in how the canadians and brits portray events too. Many of them left the british navy and became US citizens, that said they had no right to stop our ships, full stop. saying we encouraged it is a stretch, its not like we had a gun to their head forcing them to come here.
@CodArk2 Don't worry, Canadians are terribly biased and have a chip on our shoulders when anyone says we didn't win 1812. Even though we didn't exist in 1812 as a country anyway....
@CodArk2 Actually the impressment issue was ended by an act of parliament at the start of the war but by then the Americans were already on the war path and didn't want to turn back.
@CodArk2 The US was attacking Canada, decimating towns and leaving the population to starve, they were refusing to negotiate on equal terms with Britain. The British attacks on America were lauched to draw off American forces and attack the US economically to weaken their war effort, they were all launched with the ultimate objective being the security of Canada.
@Ninja1275 *British north america, canada was not a country yet. And the british did the same in their invasions of the US, burning towns and cities, but this is "US propaganda" when we say it, but somehow it isn't propaganda when you guys say it. Both sides did bad stuff, not just the US. The US attacked canada because it was british, we were at war with the british, therefore it was a legitimate target.
@CodArk2 The US violated the laws of war by torching towns in Canada, leaving women and children to freeze to death in the middle of winter, and attacking mills and food producing areas to starve the population into submission. Britain retaliated - the biggest of which was Washington, even during this retaliation the British soldiers acted with decency and conduct. Unlike the disorganised American rabble who raped and pillaged in Canada.
@Ninja1275 Uh, no, The british torched towns and such in the US as well. And the only place i heard of the US doing such in british north america was York. did the US do it in other places? likely, but that doesnt really excuse the british doing it (burning down washington was NOT conducted with decency at all). Saying one side committed atrocities and the other didn't is ignoring facts Both sides did bad stuff, not just the americans
@CodArk2 York, Newark etc. Washington was conducted with decency, the British only burnt public buildings and left private property alone. They in fact pulled down one building instead of setting it aflame in case the fire burnt down the house of a young woman who lived next door. Americans meanwhile, carried old women out of their homes and left them in the street to freeze before looting their homes.
@Ninja1275 How about how the brits acted in the chesapeake bay area, they did burn down towns and villages.Acting like americans were the only ones that did this is revisionism, both sides did it and its a known fact of history. They burned down much of the city of washington, not just public buildings. The fires were seen 50 miles away.
@CodArk2 Are you aware of the demands that the US was making? They demanded that all of Canada be ceded to the United States, that Britain must give up impressment and the US to be allowed to trade with France. This was demanded despite America having not even a toehold on Canadian soil. In contrast, Britain held massive amounts of territory at the end of the war. These were given up to ensure peace and due to pressing European concerns - Napoleon was soon to escape from Elbe.
@Ninja1275 Some of the early demands fro the US demanded canada, but later on, no. impressment was stopped, and we were able to trade with france. Btirain did not hold much US territory at the end of the war. Britain, which had forces in uninhabited areas near Lake Superior and Lake Michigan and two towns in Maine, demanded the cession of large areas, plus turning most of the Midwest into a neutral zone for Indians. They didnt get this at all.
@CodArk2 You obviously know very little of the politics of this war. The US demanded Canada until very late in the war when it became impossible for them to challenge for it - after thousands of British regulars had arrived from Europe.
Britain controlled most of what is now Maine, along with all of the Upper Missisippi (all of Wisconsin), parts of New York (Fort Niagara etc) and Cumberland Island in Georgia. Whereas the US held nothing. That IS a substantial amount.
@Ninja1275 I know some about the politics of the war, i know the US demanded parts of canada for most of the war, when i say end, i mean 1814 and 15. Britain was a superpower, the US was not. britain held tiny parts of maine, a bit of wisconsin, north new york (thought they were being driven back north). At the end of the war we were in a defensive position, but saying this is what forced the end of the war is just not true
@CodArk2 When the war in Europe ended and thousands of British soldiers were freed for service in America the US Government dropped all demands and asked for peace. Britain had been offering peace for the prievious two years, and had to burn down the US capital and cripple the American economy before the US finally accepted.
@Ninja1275 Both sides were tired of fighting. The US was and the british were. The US didnt drop all demands, just demands for land. you really should read the wikipedia artcles on the war of 1812. The US was not on the ropes, the war was basically stopped because neither side had a reason to fight, not because the US was about to be defeated
@CodArk2 I think you should stop reading Wikipedia and start reading books (preferably those of an unbiased nature). The US WAS on the ropes. Anybody can see that. The invasions of Canada had failed and they had lost much territory in return, they had their capital destroyed, their merchant navy eradicated and their navy bottled up in port. A British blockade of the entire eastern seaboard had crippled the economy and the 6 New England states were on the verge of secession.
@Ninja1275 I read other sources, but thing is, american sources are not unbiased, but neither are british or canadian sources. All are biased and pretending otherwise is foolish. Wikipedia is actually a fairly good source of information on wars like this. The US was not on the ropes, though it was on the defensive. I think you are overstating american losses, we still had a navy and merchant fleet, and very little land lost at that time.
@CodArk2 The US DID drop all of their demands. The US efforts relied on Napoleon in Europe. When he failed America had to win quick or it was over. The final Niagara campaign (Chippawa, Lundys Lane and Fort Erie) came to naught and the Government realised it would not be able to push for any demands. The Maritime issues (Impressment, Freedom of the Seas) were dropped and they had no hope in hell of wresting Canada from Britain. Therefore they simply asked for peace.
@Ninja1275 The US mostly wanted impressment to stop and britain to stop arming natives. Canada was actually brought in after the war started as a way to beat the british out of north america. The war was not started just to invade canada. Both sides wanted peace, the americans and the british.
@CodArk2 And neither of those objectives were achieved. The US was on the brink of fianancial collapse and internal secession while Canadian integrity was intact and Britain had conceded nothing to the US. Britain was the defender, they forced the US to make peace and sacrificed nothing of their own. Ergo - British victory.
@Ninja1275 impressment stopped and we expanded westward. The US was not near bankrupt, yes trade was cut off because of blockades, but thats far from being bankrupt, Yes there was a secession plan, so was there one in the civil war. What did america concede to britain? nothing. using the term forced is not accurate, it was a stalemate, neither side won, and most historians agree with that assessment
@CodArk2 The US WAS near bankruptcy. The economy relied on overseas trade. That trade was destroyed as a result of the war and no ships could pass the British blockade. The US government was worried about having to call up a national draft of milita to resist the British and not being able to rely on the Banks, as they had already spent much more than they could afford to pay back.
@Ninja1275 Not exactly. it curtailed trade, but bankruptcy is another matter altogether. The US was only like 30 years old back then, we didnt really have a banking system at the time (at least not a national bank) and most of our economy was based on barter.
@CodArk2 Why was it a stalemate? Because Wikipedia says so? The British and Canadians viewed it as a victory. The US government originally blew it up as a victory despite it depressing most of those who took part. But as the 1800's wore on revisionist American historians went to work and changed it into the stalemate - Second War of Independence you know today.
@Ninja1275 Why was it not one? The british were getting beaten out of the US. Some americans view vietnam as a victory when it wasn't. Most historians view it as a US loss, just like most view the war of 1812 as a stalemate. Canadians are just as guilty of revisionism as the americans were, but they never get called out on it. I know it as the war of 1812, not a war of independence.
@Ninja1275 besides, canadians and the brits acting like the US started the war jsut to conquer canada, and americans went around killing and raping and burning towns down, while saying they didn't do the same (hint: they did, look at buffalo new york which was burned down by the brits). both sides revised history, not just the US, but i can at least admit it.
@CodArk2 The Black Hawk war and the British band? Various natives still attempted to escape to British freedom in Canada. What would the US have done if Britain suddenly started trading with Mexico during the Mexico - American war? The US claimed neutrality because there was a lot of money to be made by staying neutral and playing both sides of the fence, but they found out neutrality came with a price.
@Ninja1275 We wouldn't have liked britain trading with mexico in the mexican american war, but at the same time, i doubt we would have stopped british ships and took sailors off to serve in the american navy. And the US didn't set up a blockade of mexico
@CodArk2 Despite it being a defensive war Britain occupied most of Maine, all of the Upper Mississipi, strategic forts inside New York (Fort Niagara), Cumberland Island in Georgia and Fort Bowyer in Alabama. While the US controlled nothing. How was Britain being beaten out of the US? Baltimore was viewed as a strategic victory and New Orleans took place after the war was over. The same British army went on to take Fort Bowyer and were preparing to take Mobile.
@Ninja1275 Then it wasn't purely defensive. Defensive forces don't occupy land. We pushed the brits out of new york, and were Baltimore was *not* a victory for the british, at all. We won that battle decisively. British forces were being pushed out of the northern US, there were battles in the south, but i should point out that mobile and fort sawyer were after new orleans, which was after the war ended.
@CodArk2 You need to get it out of your head that the US suddenly started "winning" toward the end of the war. The final chance to achieve victory was with the Niagara Campaign 1814 (I believe even the Wikipedia article confirms this). After this the war was lost. With Reinforcements from Britain there was no way of winning and the US was forced solely on to the defensive. The US Government realises this - they drop all demands (find me evidence that they dont) and ask for peace.
@Ninja1275 When the british invaded the US they started losing battles. You need to get it out of your head that the only battles were fought in canada and that that is all the war was about. Canada was a pawn in the war, not the objective, contrary to canadian myths about the "imperialist US". Both sides won some things and both sides lost some things, neither side had absolute victory
@CodArk2 The US did not push the British out of New York. The British occupied the likes of Fort Niagara etc. As well as occupying all of Maine and the Upper Mississipi, with New England on the verge of secession.
New Orleans, Fort Bowyer both took place after the Treaty was signed. They had no strategic impact on the war whatsoever and shouldn't be mentioned in the history of the subject. But to make themselves look good, the US goes on and on about N.O while Fort Bowyer is forgotten.
@Ninja1275 fort niagara is like 10 miles from canada. all of maine is an exaggeration, they held two towns, and only in the eastern part of the state. And the brits left the upper missippi when the americans cut off their supply lines through lake erie. New England threatened secession, but they didn't actually do it. Its kind of like the brits go on and on about the white house to make themselves look good, even though it didnt really do anything but symbolism (like new orleans)
@CodArk2 The British left Detroit after Lake Erie was lost, not the Upper Mississipi, they controlled that, along side most of Maine and areas of New York up until the Treaty. You're trying to argue against me using nothing but hearsay and incorrect facts. You're trying to downplay what the British held, even though for Britain to be holding anything shows that the war was a disaster for the US. After Washington public support for the war died away, it was more than symbolic.
@Ninja1275 They demanded minnesota and maine in 1814, this was not because they held these areas however. The british held smallamounts of land in the US, this is known, but its not like it was massive amounts of territory. And after baltimore and the plattesberg losses, the US was in a stronger position and demanded status quo ante bellum. the war was a stalemate because the US rallied in the end
@CodArk2 You seem to change your tune every comment. Are you simply going from website to website quoting whatever you can find? You said the US wasn't imperialist, now you say they are, but its ok because everybody else was imperialist too?
They didn't attack Florida because Spain was imperialist. They attacked it because Spain was occupied by Napoleon and it looked like it would be easy pickings - just like Canada. There were no British who wanted to re - conquer America.
@CodArk2 The US was imperialist. Tell me, if the war was fought because of "big bad Britain", then why did the US attempt to seize control of Florida from Spain during the Patriot War 1812 - 14, while the much larger war of 1812 was going on?
There is a massive amount of evidence to suggest Canada was the true goal, from newspaper articles to statements from politicians to Madison's demands, soldiers even wore caps with the motto "conquer or die" sewn into them.
@Ninja1275 To a point yes, though then again, the spanish themselves were imperialist, as were the british, but the war of 1812 was not started to form an empire. In the case of britain, its liekly some projection going on, there were some americans that wanted to conquer canada, and some british that wanted to conquer america. The US wanted to drive britain, itself an imperialist power, out of north america. they failed at this, but it was not a complete loss
@CodArk2 America set out with clear objectives and wasted a massive amount of resources, with thousands dead or wounded, and achieved what? None of their war aims were achieved and they found themselves in the same position as they were in 1812, but with their capital in ashes and a ruined economy.
Im still waiting to hear - about the fifth time ive asked - what America achieved in the war.
@Ninja1275 Some of our war aims were achieved, not all, but some. Saying we didn't get anything out of it is wrong. The initial goals were not canada focus, the only reason the US hit canada was because thats all we could hit. the capital of upper canada was also burned and they also had a ruined economy. besides national pride, we did gain several things from the war, but they would likely be ignored or downplayed because we have to be shown as losers no matter what
@CodArk2 I need more than just "we gained things" - like WHAT ??
Natives attacking Georgia using Florida as a base. Are you sure you haven't just made that up? Where have you got that from? Evidence please? I think you're just trying to delude yourself now.
We expanded yes, but we admitted it. We didn't use some bullshit excuse like - "We only invaded, conquered your lands and stole your resources because we wanted to liberate you from evil."
@Ninja1275 For one, we gained a pretty much straight shot to the pacific without britian trying to stop us. We also did gain a measure of respect on the world stage. We gained a professional army , before the US only had militia, as well as a few other things. Look up the seminole wars, thats one reason we were there. American attitudes toward expansion and conquest were largely from our british heritage :v
@CodArk2 You already had a stake in Oregon Country, meaning you were already on the Pacific, straight shot to the pacific - what?
Measure of respect of the world stage from who? The European nations laughed at the US when they adopted the British - proposed Monroe Doctrine, it was British backing which made them think twice before getting involved in the New World.
You already had a regular army - Thomas Jefferson just downsized it.
@Ninja1275 Britain wanted to stop US expansion westward. We already had the Louisiana purchase from france but that was not to the pacific yet. they tried to make basically thr whole midwest off limits to US settlement. Europeans have always laughed at the US, its just in their nature to think they are better than the rest of the world. The monroe doctrine was in britains interests, but that doesnt mean we were incapable of enforcing anyhting
@CodArk2 Oregon Country wasnt part of the Louisiana Purchase.
They tried to fight for Native rights in the Mid-West as a gentlemanly agreement on behalf of the Natives without which they would not have succeeded during the war and to serve as a buffer between Canada and the US. There was nothing to stop the US expanding South East or straight West.
Even the almighty Wikipedia agrees that the US did not have the power to back up the Doctrine. You dare disagree?!
@Ninja1275 I know oregon country wasn't part of the louisiana purchase. And from a naval standpoint the US could not enforce the monroe doctrine, though in this case, it worked out in the best interests of the US and britain. the US couldn't really enforce the monroe doctrine until the late 19th century because we were not a powerful nation at that time
@CodArk2 As bad as we were Native Americans actually tried to escape to British authorities in Canada. You were butchers on another level.
Slavery was banned in England in 1772, the Slave Trade abolished in 1807 (The Royal Navy made sure other nations did too), by 1830 it was completely phased out all over the Empire.
I know slavery was not the true cause of the civil war but i was using it as an example.
@Ninja1275 Both sides killed natives. it wasnt right at all, but what happened happened. if there had been no war, the british would have viewed the natives the same as the americans did. I mean there are not natives everywhere in canada either, or australia. And slavery was not abolished in the empire until The Slavery Abolition Act of1833. The slave trade was declared illegal in 1807, but slavery was legal til 1833
@CodArk2 We didn't view the Natives the same as you did. Britain had made peace with them through the Royal Proclamation Act 1763 - hence why the majority of the Natives fought against the Rebels during the Revolution. Presents and gifts were exchanged between the British and the various tribes - not making them allies but at least friendly enough that both enjoyed and profitted from the Fur Trade.
We didn't just knowingly exterminate them for the sake of stealing their land.
@Ninja1275 Maybe british propaganda has convinced you of that, but actions speak louder than words, and the fate of native americans and aborigines in australia was the same or worse than natives n the US. And those were british colonies. The british may not have directly, but your colonies did all over the planet, america just gets a worse bad rap among the british because we weren't a british colony doing it
@CodArk2 Never said we were perfect. But we never commited the kind of genocide that your nation did. Trail of Tears? Tens of thousands of natives - many of whom aided you in the war of 1812 were betrayed and forcibly located to the west. Thousands dying on the way. Your fucking government awarded your soldiers medals of honour for massacring women and children at Wounded Knee!
@Ninja1275 Actually you did. Britain was the nation that gave native americans smallpox infected blankets. Several native tribes in canada were wiped out or put on reserves just like in america. In australia, britains treatment of the aborigines was actually worse than how we treated native americans. You didnt even make them march to a native territory, you just outright killed them. Not saying trail of tears was right, but britain is not clean with regards to genocides
@CodArk2 Higher species of human? Are you on drugs?
How many times have i said that we were not perfect? Aboriginal treatment was terrible yes, but our government never knowingly enforced it or handed out medals for commiting massacres like yours did.
Only after the Civil War did the US gain any semblance to a traditional nation. Before that it was a lying, cheating, opportunistic haven of traitors and scoundrels.
@Ninja1275 Re-read it, I meant I don't like the idea many british people have that they are a higher species of human or such and americans are somehow lesser beings. We did do bad things, evil things, but so did everyone else. Doesnt make our actions more right though. And the US was a nation before the civl war, but we didnt really come across as one til the 1840s really
@CodArk2 There was a growing abolitionist movement in Britain as far back as the 1770's. Slavery was illegal in England and Wales from 1772. During the Revolution 40,000 Slaves escaped to the British and gained their freedom - the British then set up the Sierra Leone colony in West Africa (at personal expense) for these freed slaves. The Slave Trade was abolished 1807 and Britain used the Royal Navy to stamp it out and make sure other nations did too.
@Ninja1275 The US was not importing slaves after 1807, and this had nothign to do with britain, but because of changes in US law. Slavery was actually becoming less and less common in the US before the civil war, Only the wealthy owned slaves, and with the coming of industry, it likely would have ceased to be a common practice. The war just sped it up. America set up Liberia to send our former cslaves to, and its right next to Sierra Leone. Most stayed in the US
@CodArk2 You can't seem to accept that your nation has ever done anything wrong! You only invaded Canada and Florida because you wanted to liberate the people there, you only commited genocide because you wanted to help them, you only carried slavery on longer than any other nation because it was "in" at the time - despite the rest of the world getting rid of it.
@Ninja1275 No, american can and does do bad, stupid things. My arguemnet is with the idea that british people are a somehow higher species of human incapable of making the same mistakes. You completely ignore britains wrongdoing, while holding up americas and acting like we are worse. native genocide was wrong, not helping them at all. Slavery was wrong as well, europe had fewer slaves so it took less time. canada was a pawn in a war. thats what i have been saying throughout
@CodArk2 The US slave ban in 1807 WAS because of Britain. Britain abolished the Slave Trade but wasnt prepared to let other nations gain any sort of advantage by carrying on with it. The Ban was practically forced down the throats of many nations. Even if they didn't agree with the ban - the Royal Navy treated any Slave ships they found the same as pirates and they were either captured or destroyed.
@Ninja1275 Matbe maybe not. We still were not importing slaves. It was passed into law in the US by the US government. Might the british act have contrributed? probably, but there were other factors at work too, like that many whites were afraid of blacks outnumbering them if importation continued. It was an evil practice and really, no matter how it stopped, its a good thing it was ceased.
@CodArk2 We set up the West Africa Squadron of the Royal Navy which between 1808 and 1860 captured some 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 slaves. By 1833 Slavery had gradually been phased out all over the Empire hence the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Our attitude to slavery wasn't perfect but ten times better than yours.
@Ninja1275 bitains attitude toward slavery was better than ours? How so? Slavery is slavery. Its like saying our dads were both wife beaters, but because my dad stopped beating my mother and tried to get yours to stop that my dad is 10 times better than yours. Its also ignoring the fact that the US was more agricultural and had more slaves than brirain did
If not for General Wolfe and the British military there would have been no American western expansion. The colonials had been plagued by the French Canadians since the Deerfield raid and had tried to defeat them over and over since 1690, but only had one significant victory (despite outnumbering the French Canadians by over 950,000) at Louisbourg. What a way to thank Britain who saved America in 1759 by rebelling in 1775.
@RaynauddeChatillon Britain was taxing people without giving them a right to any say in how they were taxed, and when they spoke out or rebelled against thsi, britain reacted in a heavy handed manner that had the US done it to anyone else, you brits would be screeching about it to no end as an example of our imperialism.
@RaynauddeChatillon You are also ignoring that much of the fighting in what we call the french and indian war was done by british (american) militia and soldiers. We were british subjects back then, but unlike the canadians we don't take credit for victories while we were a british colony
You're simply wrong. The vast majority of the fighting in the American theater of the Seven Years War was done by British troops. The conquest of Quebec was achieved with 12 regiments of British troops and only 6 companies of American Rangers, and guess what, most of the prominent Rangers were loyalists during the revolution. Now if you refer to the French and Indian wars (plural) then you're right, colonials played the largest role, that almost always ended in failure.
@RaynauddeChatillon The attacks on canada were done by both colonists and british soldiers. Most of the british soldiers were based in the colonies too. Let me put it this way, "americans" did more fighting in the french and indian war than "canadians" did in the war of 1812. But the fighting we did is counted as british fighting, because we were british at that time. We aren't like canada and claim another nations victory as ours
No, most of the British soldiers that participated in the conquest of Canada were brought directly over from Britain (a high proportion from Scotland) or Ireland (not Irish, but garrisoned Brits), see my last post. Unlike Americans, a great proportion of Canadians continued to serve in British regiments fighting all around the world well into the 19th century, so you're wrong there too. The Americans were defeated at Lacolle Mills the first time by the mere local militia.
And I thought this was a war between the US and Britain, not the US and Canada. You assert Canada's independence from Britain to justify one point (heritage), but strip it when trying to justify the other(the motivation for the invasion).
@CodArk2 This constant jibe that Canada claims credit for another nations victory is simply wrong. The "Canadian" identity predates the identity of being "American". The US Government even refered to it as "Canada" while they were demanding its cession - not by its proper name of British North America. Canadians saw themselves as living in Canada but as rightful British subjects. To them the Redcoats were "their" soldiers. They played a massive part - Glengarry Light Infantry, the Fencibles etc
@Ninja1275 How can the canadian identity predate the american one? The 13 colonies were founded first and saw themselves as americans to a point as far back as the 1660s. The US referred to it as canada because at the time it was upper and lower canada territories
Well the French Canadian identity certainly predates any American one. In case you didn't know, the patriots called "the regulars are coming" not the "British" are coming. America was founded by British (and some Dutch) people, now they are a minority and the country is filled with Irish and all sorts of other people who have no connection to its past who for some reason say "we" when referring to deeds done by patriots while their ancestors were peasants 4,000 miles away.
@RaynauddeChatillon The french one yes, the english one, no. In fact many of the english canadians were loyalists fleeing the US when it declared independence. Since most of the US bashing I see from canadians is in english, i assume they are of english descent. And actually, most americans are of german, british and irish descent. I myself have all three back there. Americans say we when referring to americans, just as canadians do with canada and english do with england
America is roughly 13% British. Most Americans are descended from Irish and Germans who came well after the Revolution. It doesn't seem appropriate for one to claim events as your (in general) heritage if your ancestors definitely played no role in it. So many Americans hate Britain, yet fail to realize that America wouldn't exist without it. There would have been no shelter, jobs, or meals to greet their pitiful immigrant ancestors if not for the dreaded puritans.
@RaynauddeChatillon My ancestry is british, but is mixed. Americans tend to mix more, unless you have been here for one generation you likely have ancestors from all over europe. And most americans like britain, so no clue where the "we hate britain" thing comes from. Most british people seem to hate the US. America was built by people from all over the planet, not just the english.
The thirteen American Colonies were founded by Englishmen and populated (originally) by the British. You speak English. Your laws are English. Your Constitution is based on the Constitution used during the English Civil War. "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" came from Englishman John Locke. Your national anthem is sung to the tune of a British drinking song. The Monroe Doctrine was given to you by George Canning - a British statesman.
@CodArk2 Oh and your flag is a slightly altered British design. Basically you don't share similarities with England/Britain because it is a convenience, it is because your nation was built by Englishmen, whether you want to admit it or not.
@Ninja1275 Slightly altered? Nah, anyone looking at our flags would be hard pressed to say the stars and stripes is slightly modified from the union jack. They use the same colors, but thats about it. Now malaysia and liberia, there are some slightly modified flags. As for stuff we got from the english, its true that much of what we got was from them, much like much of what england has comes from the french, germans and romans.
@CodArk2 It's slightly altered from the British East India Company flag, not the Union Jack. You just replaced the Union Jack with stars and called it your own.
@Ninja1275 False. the east india company flag with stripes on it came after 1801. The US had its flag in the 1770s. The US flag existed before the east india company flag.
All signers of the declaration of Independence were of British origin. The vast majority of the soldiers in the revolution were British and considered themselves that. Separation of Church and State has its origin with England's Roger Williams. Ninja1275 has summarized the origins of the rest. England did not inherit Magna Carta, Parliament, the House of Commons, or any other of its other great achievements from anyone.
@RaynauddeChatillon Actually many of the signers of the declaration of independence were born in the colonies, not in britain. They considered themselves british because these were british colonies. Magna Carta is in itself a latin term for Great Charter. Parliament is a french term, and the idea far predates england. Same with the idea of a house of commons. Democracy was not invented in england.
British origin. They considered themselves British because they were ethnically English/Scot/Welsh, spoke English, and if they were not born in those places their great grandparents were at the least. Today tons of Irish in America go wild on St. Patrick's day because "they are Irish", despite being born in America. The etymology of the name does not define the substance. No country had anything like Magna Carta or parliament at that time or in the recent past.
@RaynauddeChatillon Technically I am of british origin. My ancestry is largely british, with some german mixed in. My great grandparents came from england and scotland. That does not make anything I do "british". Most of the signers of the declaration of independence were not born in england either. No country had a magna carta, but others did have a parliament (representation), it just had a different name
They were ethnically British (easier than saying English/Scot/Welsh ect.) and the country they founded was based entirely on British ideas and systems. Therefore America was founded by Brits. You can take away the Irish, Poles, Germans, and all other ethnic groups and you'd still have America, but take away the British and you have a wilderness sparsely populated by French fur trappers.
@RaynauddeChatillon Yes, britain was crucial to founding modern america as it was, then again the romans , french and germans were the same way with regards to britain.
England stands out from Europe because of its successful early baron wars; they are the origin of magna carta, parliament, and the ambitious nobility/merchant class and ultimately the typical English mindset. Sure the big players in those early wars were of Norman origin, but those events and results weren't based off anything characteristically Norman. Besides, the average Englishman can claim that as his heritage since he is likely trace his descent from many of them.
@CodArk2 Democracy wasn't invented in Britain but we were democratic long before the majority of Europe was. We were a Constitutional Monarchy while nations like France, Austria and Russia etc were Absolute Monarchies.
That's why I don't like the idea that America somehow gained "freedom and liberty" from the Revolution, because you already had that under the British system. All you gained was the ability to manage your own affairs - which only a small amount of the population wanted.
No contemporary country had a Parliament that approached England's in the 13th century. France largely operated under the feudal system until their revolution.
And Actually the US does indeed take credit for victories achieved while a British colony. Haven't you heard of Roger's Rangers? The US Army Rangers ridiculously claim descent from Roger's Rangers even though Robert Rogers, his brother, and ultimately his unite, were loyalists! The fact is the only significant victories achieved by majority colonial troops in the French and Indian wars were Louisbourg, Roger's snowshoe fight, and the taking of Port Royal.
@CodArk2 The Seminole Wars occured as a result of American incursions into Florida - NOT the other way around. The Seminoles were fighting for their lives against American expansionism.
@CodArk2 Have a little read of Donald R. Hickey's book - "Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812". Or "1812: War with America" by Jon Latimer. Both are completely unbiased and both show the war for what it really was.
Unless you believe your nation's history is white as white? Wouldn't be the first time your government has lied to you would it?
@Ninja1275 Hickeys book seems to only show misconceptions americnas have about the war, but doesnt seem to show ANY of the falsehoods and such brits and canadians use, While its good to point out falshoods americans believe and call them out, again, we arent the only ones doing it. And Latimers book loses any pretense of being unbiased in its description "In the first complete history of the War of 1812 written from a British perspective".
@CodArk2 Im still waiting to hear what the US achieved.
- Impressment ended before the war began and the US were forced to drop their demands in 1814 for it to end permenantly.
- Neutrality of the Seas failed in that Britain simply refused to let the US trade with France.
- Britain did not adhere to stop aiding the natives and in fact by the Treaty the US should have returned native lands to their position as they were in 1811.
- The cesessation of Canada was a humiliating defeat.
@Ninja1275 PBS has a very good, *actually* unbiased account of all that went on in the war of 1812, just search for The War of 1812 Full Program and its the first google link.
There was actually no provision for a native buffer zone, this was a british demand but did not make it into the treaty itself. britain also demanded minnesota and maine, which they did not get. with napoleon gone there was no reason for impressment and neutrality. Britain suffered its own humiliating defeats as well.
@Ninja1275 because native americans were attacking georgia using florida as a base. Its odd though that britain and other european powers think they have the right to expand wherever they please and its ok, but when america does it its evil and imperialist. The war was not about canada, canada was just a theatre of conflict.
@CodArk2 Canada's economy was booming due to massive British investment - it was not ruined. Ports like Halifax were literally overflowing. The US economy on the other hand, was ruined.
@Ninja1275 parts of canada were booming and parts were destroyed, like near the niagara region. Same is also true of the US. Parts of the Us were devastate, but not all of it, or even most. Most of the US was the same before the war as it was after. We were not knocked back to the stone age or something
@CodArk2 The British idea of expansion generally didn't involve Genocide. Britain had made peace with the Native Americans prior to the American Revolution and thirty years after it Slavery was abolished too.
America kept slavery going till 1865 then had to fight a bloody civil war trying to stamp it out - the only country in the world who had to fight itself to abolish it. Native genocide still continued up to the 1880's and 90's.
@Ninja1275 The british had the bloodiest empire in history, and yes, britain did conduct actions that would be considered genocide if done today. The American disdain for the "savages" came from the english. And don't get all high and mighty about slavery, britain was one of the main slave trading nations, and only banned it in the 1830s, only 30 years before the US did. its also a common misconception that war was started because of slavery when it was not the cause of the civil war
@Ninja1275 Both books seem to appeal to you because they are from a british perspective, and depict americans as evil aggressive imperialist warmongers. America's history isn't perfect, but people in other nations have a tendency to act like america is the worst nation on earth and they are comparatively blameless. The british govt. can lie to its people,as can the canadian gov. I accept all sides have bias in war, you seem to be saying only americans have a bias which is dishonest
@CodArk2 - George Cockburn was also preparing to besiege Savannah, Georgia from his base at Cumberland Island. The US was economically crippled and was unable to do anything but defend in the final months of the war.
@Ninja1275 The US was defending in the last months of the war, hence the battle of new orleans. If it had gone on longer they likely would have been driven from the island as well
@CodArk2 Last comment : Against Napoleon Britain was fighting for its very existance, the blockade was justifiable and necessary to achieve victory. America's actions were undermining that.
I have several books on this conflict from both sides. Nationalistic Americans take the Second War of Independence view whereas more Liberal minded Americans such as Donald R. Hickey actually agree with the British perspective.
There were no more US offensives after the Niagara campaign failed.
@Ninja1275 Of course, liberals tend to side with anything as long as its anti american. I don't side with the british story of it, but I dont side with the nationalist american one either. Both sides have bias, but again, both sides have it, the british/canadian story AND the american one. I have read books from both, but i dont pretend the british werent just as biased as the americans. And the US was sovereign, stopping trade was one thing, but impressment was wrong.
@CodArk2 Baltimore was hardly a decisive victory. The British admiralty viewed it as a strategic victory. The city was targeted because it was the main base of US privateers. The city wasnt taken but the Americans were forced to sink much of their fleet in order to block the harbour - thus taking it out of the war. The Admiralty also stressed the rout of the US forces at the battle of North Point and the chaos and terror the British attack it caused.
@Ninja1275 baltimore cannot be considered a british victory. I dont see how it can be considered a victory. The larger battle of baltimore was a US victory. Of course the british are going to stress their victories and not their losses, everyone does that
@Ninja1275 Why are "facts" that you dont like something in parentheses? You only seem to get information from british and canadian history books, which would be biased as much as an american text would be. This war has a lot of nationalism tied up in it on both sides, so your "facts" are likely as accurate as mine
@CodArk2 What is it you think America gained in this war?
And please don't say "national pride". German soldiers went home after WW1 to a heroes welcome. It doesn't mean they won the war. Give me a list of actual objectives accomplished or goals attained.
@Ninja1275 the war for the US had 2 main affects.it ended the british plan for a semi autonomous indian sanctuary, allowing westward expansion, it also ended impressment and restrictions on trade
@CodArk2 The war had no impact on impressment or trade. The US' own trade was destroyed by the war as a result. The Indian confederation was Tecumseh's dream, Britain only supported it due to the war. Its not as if you wiped the natives out as a threat. The Indian wars continued for the next 100 years.
@Ninja1275 Trade with france was, because the british interfered with US trade. Impressment was over before the war started, as for the natives, the british no longer supported them.
@Ninja1275 I'm Canadian but the only thing we won was not being conqured by the US. It's hardly a British victory, yes it's basically a draw otherwise. And the Americans did have valid issues with the Brits taking over ships in their waters and impressing sailors. Besides what did we win in the end? Being dominated by that old Queen in England in the 21st Century? Maybe we would have been better off if the Yanks had won.
Britain never wanted the war with the USA in the first place. The British focus never left Europe & Napoleon. The USA had proven to be a more valuable as a independent trading partner then it had been as a colony.
With that in mind conquest of the USA would have been counter productive & never an objective. Defending loyal subjects was a different matter even so in 1867 Britain dumped Canada as a colony.
@blacbraun Not being conquered is a huge victory. Just examine the fate of Tecumseh & his people. Look at the chaos in the USA, the wild west & 100 years of warfare on Natives & a civil war.
As a Native as bad as things were in Canada I'm horrified at what happened in the USA. That a fellow Canadian would so causally flip off the difference between the USA & Canada is stunning.
If you want to be a republican I'm sure the USA would welcome you but stop trashing what we've accomplished here.
and to think.... 100 years later an even shittier war was bound to become
rapfan050 2 days ago
if the americans were pissed at britain and invaded canada, wouldn't that be a win for us if we'd held our ground? why do americans say they won?
rapfan050 2 days ago
@rapfan050 Only Americans who don't really know what the war was about try to claim it was a victory. Most American historians try to claim that it was a kind of stalemate or a moral victory for the U.S. Which is crap but their pride is never going to allow them to admit defeat.
Ninja1275 1 day ago
Good doc, mate. Pity about the rough sound quality. Was it taken from an old VHS or something?
trouzerpants 6 days ago in playlist The War Of 1812
Canadians cannot claim to have defeated America in this war, they cannot claim to have burned down the white house unless they admit that Canada and Britain are the same race, the Anglo Saxons, and that our relations go beyond friendship, that Britain and Canada will always be the same peoples in different corners of the world. And we defeated America very harshly in this war.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight So long as Canada has a British Queen I'm not sure what the difference is.
French Canadians might quibble but the English speaking ones are mostly British. There are more Scotsmen in Canada then Scotland. Thanks to Cockburn's liberation of Black slaves, accepting them in to the Royal Marines & at wars end so many migrated to Canada so even Black Canadians have as much right to boast as anyone else.
Eddythebeast666 1 month ago
@Eddythebeast666 Exactly, we are the same race. Canada and Britain are different countries, but the British government deliberately encouraged immigration from Britain to Canada in order to give the Anglo Saxons more living space. So whilst Canada and Britain are different countries, we are both of the same race, and we are as close allies as possible. We are not only friends, we're siblings.
TheLiberalKnight 4 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight I see it more as same culture. At least so long as we have the same Queen. If the UK abolished the monarchy (God forbid) Canada would then be more British then the motherland. XD
I stress culture because if we look at the US they share the same blood but with out the monarchy they aren't British. No matter how pure they kept the bloodline they are not kin.
Many have been adopted in to the British family who are loyal to the common cause but are not of the same blood.
Eddythebeast666 4 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 Canada actually recognised Her Majesty Elizabeth II as the head of state before Britain did. If Britain abolished the monarchy, I would either go to live in Canada or fight to have them restored. But that won't happen, they enjoy huge support. I do like to visit Canada. It's as exciting as visiting America, but you don't get all the fat slobs eating oversized macdonalds. Instead, everyone is polite and civilized.
TheLiberalKnight 4 weeks ago
Can you tell us what the name of this feature is called? I can't stand the quality.
SpoonHysteria 2 months ago in playlist The War Of 1812
one day all this nonsense will be centuries behind us and we will look at military uniforms from the past as nothing but costumes. IN a thousand years i think we will be violence free. I sometimes think if sacrificing the scum would create a better world and ensure our survival it would be worth it for a better world.
210482fmj 2 months ago
Long live Canada and RULE BRITANNIA!! Warning to Canada, The U.S failed to invade and conquer, However there plans to invade Canada are in record, In 1930s the U.S started new plans to invade Canada, War plan Red. The American dream to invade Canada or at least make a propaganda about "saving" canda with an invasion!!!
martynrobin121 3 months ago
God Save the queen and the commonwealth!
kpelletier343 3 months ago
Canada and America are allies today, so all you anti-Canada or anti-America pinheads can piss off.
AgApE010 3 months ago
Nobody won the War of 1812. Americans say they did, but Canada is still here. Canadians can say they did, but America is still here. Canadians burned the White House, Americans burned York (aka Toronto). It was effectively a stalemate, and probably for the better.
Caiddenn 3 months ago
@Caiddenn No.
Americans totally got their asses handed to them.
Eddythebeast666 3 months ago
@Caiddenn
No, because Canada/Britain didn't start the war of 1812! America started the war with the intention of conquering Canada which they thought they would easily do. However, Canada remained British and Washington was burned and the Americans were humiliated again and again. For example look at the 1814 Battle of Lacolle Mills where 80 Brits defeated 4,000 Americans. Americans choose to remember a few victories but ignore the fact that they obviously failed in their mission i.e lost.
RaynauddeChatillon 3 months ago
@RaynauddeChatillon typical revisionism. The US didnt start the war, it declared war because britain was attacking US ships at sea and forcing US citizens into the british navy. that is why the war was started, not to invade canada. You also lost battles, like new orleans. The war was a stalemate, you seem to think winning battles is tantamount to winning the war, but in the end it was a draw. any side saying it won is deluding itself.
CodArk2 2 months ago
@CodArk2 The War Hawks were one of the major driving forces towards the war, as they wanted to drive Britain out of North America. New Orleans was also after the war was over. It's true that winning bttles isn't tantamount to winning a war, but the United States also didn't achieve their objective of capturing Canada and removing the British from North America, which I personnally would consider a loss.
Hamsterloki 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Doesn't matter how you want to frame the war or why it started, the US still lost. Its only revisionist American historians who claim that it was some kind of stalemate. Tactically, Britain ended the war in a dominant position, strategically, Britain won. Britain's first peace offers to the US in 1812 was of a return to the Status Quo, the US refused. It was only in 1814 when everything had failed for America that they dropped all demands -
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 No, they didn't. The US lost battles yes, but this is not the same as losing the war. At the end of the war it was a stalemate, and neither side could really conquer the other. The british could not conquer the US, and the US could not conquer canada or drive the british out
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 You didnt go to war simply for the the sake of it. You went to war with clear objectives and failed in all of them. You cannot claim a draw based on the Status Quo, Britain offered the US a return to the Status Quo in 1812 and 1813, each time the US refused because it seemed like they still had a chance to win. In 1814, with the war in Europe coming to a close and the realisation that thousands of British troops could be shipped to the US they had no choice but to accept peace.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Most of our goals actually were achieved, the only one that was not was taking canada. You act as though the US was beaten into accepting britain's conditions, but anyone looking at the end of the war would see britain actually was losing since they invaded the US (battle of new orleans, battle of baltimore, the invasion of new york). In reality both sides were tired of fighting and agreed to leave things as they were before the war
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The British never intended to conquer the US, thats simply American propaganda. There is not a shred of evidence Britain intended to re-conquer the US, whereas there is a ton of info that the US intended to conquer Canada. Britain (Canada) was the defender and never wanted this war. As defenders, peace represented victory.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Uh, then what were the british doing in washington? in baltimore? in new york? in new orleans? This idea of britain as poor blameless victim of evil american aggression is also propaganda, ignoring why the war started in the first place. Britain was only the defender at first, later it became the aggressor and started losing when they came south to invade the US. Both sides were defending at one point, if britain was purely defending they wouldn't have come into the US.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 - (including impressment and neutrality of the seas) and simply asked for peace. Peace represented victory for Britain, ergo, British victory. America had to accept peace and promise to restore Native lands to their position as they were in 1811, while Britain refused to return 5000 + slaves who had escaped to British freedom, and conceded nothing in terms of Maritime rights. In what possible way was this anything other than an American defeat?
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 As for slavery and the natives, nothing really changed on that front at all. America did not win the war of 1812, but we did not lose it either. Saying we lost is like saying texas lost its war of independence from mexico because they only won one battle. In the end it was a status quo, because both sides didnt really want to fight the war anyway
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2
These quotes by American leaders suggest otherwise:
"We can take the Canadas without soldiers, we have only to send officers into the province and the people . . . will rally round our standard."-William Eustis
"In four weeks from the time that a declaration of war is heard on our frontier, the whole of Canada will be in our possession."-John C Calhoun
[t]he acquisition of Canada this year will be a mere matter of marching,"-James Madison
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@RaynauddeChatillon you seem to only be focusing on canada, without seeming to take into account that the US did not start the war with the aim of invading canada, that simply came about because the british, who we were at war with, were in charge of canada, and we needed to fight them somewhere. And britain was a super power at that time, the US was not, but even then our population and economy was larger than canadas (it still is today)
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The US, as part of the Treaty, conceded to the British demand that the Natives be restored to their lands as they were 1811. Typically they later disavowed this and carried on massacring the natives but the point is still clear, America achieved nothing because they could claim nothing, the war was a fiasco, they had to accept peace and accede to British demands.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Actually, this is again ignoring history.Britain, which had forces in uninhabited areas near Lake Superior and Lake Michigan and two towns in Maine, demanded the cession of large areas, plus turning most of the Midwest into a neutral zone for Indians. This was a british demand, but never made it into the treaty at all because by 1814 the US was the defender and was repelling british invasions of the US.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 What goals did the US achieve? Britain conceded nothing. Britain did beat the US into accepting peace. The US refused to negotiate on level terms until the war in Europe ended and thousands of British soldiers were freed for service in America. At that point the US realised that they would not be able to claim anything therefore dropped all demands and asked for peace. That is not a stalemate.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Actually britain did concede things. Part of the reason the war ended was because impressment was no longer being done. The US stopped trying to invade canada because they were on the defensive because britain was attacking and invading the US. The US dropped all demands to canada, but some of americas demands were in fact met. Most historians view the war as a stalemate, as do i. the only ones that view it as a victory tend to be biased,
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Impressment ended before the war began. The new British government done away with it. But at the Treaty Britain retained the right to use it again in the future. The US challenged this right until 1814, when the war completely reversed and therefore they dropped it (along with everthing else) and asked for peace. British and Canadian historians say it was a strategic British victory, Americans claim it was a draw - convenient?
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Most independent historians say it was a draw, that is, non US or british. Canadians have a lot of myths around the war that their historians do not repudiate. And britain stopped impressment, which was itself a violation of our sovereignty, and never used it again. It shouldn't have been happening in the first place.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 "independent historians" - Who? Find me names. Impressment happened because the US was encouraging desertion from the Royal Navy at a time when they could ill afford it. Aprox 10% of the US merchant fleet was manned by British sailors, if the US hadn't encouraged desertion then impressment wouldnt have happened. The US achieved nothing in terms of maritime issues and you ended up dropping them.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 As in those not from the US or britain or canada. Acting like only american historians are biased is just dishonest. I have seen plenty of errors and such in how the canadians and brits portray events too. Many of them left the british navy and became US citizens, that said they had no right to stop our ships, full stop. saying we encouraged it is a stretch, its not like we had a gun to their head forcing them to come here.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Don't worry, Canadians are terribly biased and have a chip on our shoulders when anyone says we didn't win 1812. Even though we didn't exist in 1812 as a country anyway....
blacbraun 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Actually the impressment issue was ended by an act of parliament at the start of the war but by then the Americans were already on the war path and didn't want to turn back.
blacbraun 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The US was attacking Canada, decimating towns and leaving the population to starve, they were refusing to negotiate on equal terms with Britain. The British attacks on America were lauched to draw off American forces and attack the US economically to weaken their war effort, they were all launched with the ultimate objective being the security of Canada.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 *British north america, canada was not a country yet. And the british did the same in their invasions of the US, burning towns and cities, but this is "US propaganda" when we say it, but somehow it isn't propaganda when you guys say it. Both sides did bad stuff, not just the US. The US attacked canada because it was british, we were at war with the british, therefore it was a legitimate target.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The US violated the laws of war by torching towns in Canada, leaving women and children to freeze to death in the middle of winter, and attacking mills and food producing areas to starve the population into submission. Britain retaliated - the biggest of which was Washington, even during this retaliation the British soldiers acted with decency and conduct. Unlike the disorganised American rabble who raped and pillaged in Canada.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Uh, no, The british torched towns and such in the US as well. And the only place i heard of the US doing such in british north america was York. did the US do it in other places? likely, but that doesnt really excuse the british doing it (burning down washington was NOT conducted with decency at all). Saying one side committed atrocities and the other didn't is ignoring facts Both sides did bad stuff, not just the americans
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 York, Newark etc. Washington was conducted with decency, the British only burnt public buildings and left private property alone. They in fact pulled down one building instead of setting it aflame in case the fire burnt down the house of a young woman who lived next door. Americans meanwhile, carried old women out of their homes and left them in the street to freeze before looting their homes.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 How about how the brits acted in the chesapeake bay area, they did burn down towns and villages.Acting like americans were the only ones that did this is revisionism, both sides did it and its a known fact of history. They burned down much of the city of washington, not just public buildings. The fires were seen 50 miles away.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Actually the Yanks burned Newark (present day Niagra On the Lake) during winter and many did freeze to death. But we got you back in DC :)
blacbraun 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 It's war my countryman. Shit happens.
blacbraun 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Are you aware of the demands that the US was making? They demanded that all of Canada be ceded to the United States, that Britain must give up impressment and the US to be allowed to trade with France. This was demanded despite America having not even a toehold on Canadian soil. In contrast, Britain held massive amounts of territory at the end of the war. These were given up to ensure peace and due to pressing European concerns - Napoleon was soon to escape from Elbe.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Some of the early demands fro the US demanded canada, but later on, no. impressment was stopped, and we were able to trade with france. Btirain did not hold much US territory at the end of the war. Britain, which had forces in uninhabited areas near Lake Superior and Lake Michigan and two towns in Maine, demanded the cession of large areas, plus turning most of the Midwest into a neutral zone for Indians. They didnt get this at all.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 You obviously know very little of the politics of this war. The US demanded Canada until very late in the war when it became impossible for them to challenge for it - after thousands of British regulars had arrived from Europe.
Britain controlled most of what is now Maine, along with all of the Upper Missisippi (all of Wisconsin), parts of New York (Fort Niagara etc) and Cumberland Island in Georgia. Whereas the US held nothing. That IS a substantial amount.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 I know some about the politics of the war, i know the US demanded parts of canada for most of the war, when i say end, i mean 1814 and 15. Britain was a superpower, the US was not. britain held tiny parts of maine, a bit of wisconsin, north new york (thought they were being driven back north). At the end of the war we were in a defensive position, but saying this is what forced the end of the war is just not true
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 When the war in Europe ended and thousands of British soldiers were freed for service in America the US Government dropped all demands and asked for peace. Britain had been offering peace for the prievious two years, and had to burn down the US capital and cripple the American economy before the US finally accepted.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Both sides were tired of fighting. The US was and the british were. The US didnt drop all demands, just demands for land. you really should read the wikipedia artcles on the war of 1812. The US was not on the ropes, the war was basically stopped because neither side had a reason to fight, not because the US was about to be defeated
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 I think you should stop reading Wikipedia and start reading books (preferably those of an unbiased nature). The US WAS on the ropes. Anybody can see that. The invasions of Canada had failed and they had lost much territory in return, they had their capital destroyed, their merchant navy eradicated and their navy bottled up in port. A British blockade of the entire eastern seaboard had crippled the economy and the 6 New England states were on the verge of secession.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 I read other sources, but thing is, american sources are not unbiased, but neither are british or canadian sources. All are biased and pretending otherwise is foolish. Wikipedia is actually a fairly good source of information on wars like this. The US was not on the ropes, though it was on the defensive. I think you are overstating american losses, we still had a navy and merchant fleet, and very little land lost at that time.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The US DID drop all of their demands. The US efforts relied on Napoleon in Europe. When he failed America had to win quick or it was over. The final Niagara campaign (Chippawa, Lundys Lane and Fort Erie) came to naught and the Government realised it would not be able to push for any demands. The Maritime issues (Impressment, Freedom of the Seas) were dropped and they had no hope in hell of wresting Canada from Britain. Therefore they simply asked for peace.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The US mostly wanted impressment to stop and britain to stop arming natives. Canada was actually brought in after the war started as a way to beat the british out of north america. The war was not started just to invade canada. Both sides wanted peace, the americans and the british.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 And neither of those objectives were achieved. The US was on the brink of fianancial collapse and internal secession while Canadian integrity was intact and Britain had conceded nothing to the US. Britain was the defender, they forced the US to make peace and sacrificed nothing of their own. Ergo - British victory.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 impressment stopped and we expanded westward. The US was not near bankrupt, yes trade was cut off because of blockades, but thats far from being bankrupt, Yes there was a secession plan, so was there one in the civil war. What did america concede to britain? nothing. using the term forced is not accurate, it was a stalemate, neither side won, and most historians agree with that assessment
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The US WAS near bankruptcy. The economy relied on overseas trade. That trade was destroyed as a result of the war and no ships could pass the British blockade. The US government was worried about having to call up a national draft of milita to resist the British and not being able to rely on the Banks, as they had already spent much more than they could afford to pay back.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Not exactly. it curtailed trade, but bankruptcy is another matter altogether. The US was only like 30 years old back then, we didnt really have a banking system at the time (at least not a national bank) and most of our economy was based on barter.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Why was it a stalemate? Because Wikipedia says so? The British and Canadians viewed it as a victory. The US government originally blew it up as a victory despite it depressing most of those who took part. But as the 1800's wore on revisionist American historians went to work and changed it into the stalemate - Second War of Independence you know today.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Why was it not one? The british were getting beaten out of the US. Some americans view vietnam as a victory when it wasn't. Most historians view it as a US loss, just like most view the war of 1812 as a stalemate. Canadians are just as guilty of revisionism as the americans were, but they never get called out on it. I know it as the war of 1812, not a war of independence.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 besides, canadians and the brits acting like the US started the war jsut to conquer canada, and americans went around killing and raping and burning towns down, while saying they didn't do the same (hint: they did, look at buffalo new york which was burned down by the brits). both sides revised history, not just the US, but i can at least admit it.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The Black Hawk war and the British band? Various natives still attempted to escape to British freedom in Canada. What would the US have done if Britain suddenly started trading with Mexico during the Mexico - American war? The US claimed neutrality because there was a lot of money to be made by staying neutral and playing both sides of the fence, but they found out neutrality came with a price.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 We wouldn't have liked britain trading with mexico in the mexican american war, but at the same time, i doubt we would have stopped british ships and took sailors off to serve in the american navy. And the US didn't set up a blockade of mexico
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Despite it being a defensive war Britain occupied most of Maine, all of the Upper Mississipi, strategic forts inside New York (Fort Niagara), Cumberland Island in Georgia and Fort Bowyer in Alabama. While the US controlled nothing. How was Britain being beaten out of the US? Baltimore was viewed as a strategic victory and New Orleans took place after the war was over. The same British army went on to take Fort Bowyer and were preparing to take Mobile.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Then it wasn't purely defensive. Defensive forces don't occupy land. We pushed the brits out of new york, and were Baltimore was *not* a victory for the british, at all. We won that battle decisively. British forces were being pushed out of the northern US, there were battles in the south, but i should point out that mobile and fort sawyer were after new orleans, which was after the war ended.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 You need to get it out of your head that the US suddenly started "winning" toward the end of the war. The final chance to achieve victory was with the Niagara Campaign 1814 (I believe even the Wikipedia article confirms this). After this the war was lost. With Reinforcements from Britain there was no way of winning and the US was forced solely on to the defensive. The US Government realises this - they drop all demands (find me evidence that they dont) and ask for peace.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 When the british invaded the US they started losing battles. You need to get it out of your head that the only battles were fought in canada and that that is all the war was about. Canada was a pawn in the war, not the objective, contrary to canadian myths about the "imperialist US". Both sides won some things and both sides lost some things, neither side had absolute victory
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The US did not push the British out of New York. The British occupied the likes of Fort Niagara etc. As well as occupying all of Maine and the Upper Mississipi, with New England on the verge of secession.
New Orleans, Fort Bowyer both took place after the Treaty was signed. They had no strategic impact on the war whatsoever and shouldn't be mentioned in the history of the subject. But to make themselves look good, the US goes on and on about N.O while Fort Bowyer is forgotten.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 fort niagara is like 10 miles from canada. all of maine is an exaggeration, they held two towns, and only in the eastern part of the state. And the brits left the upper missippi when the americans cut off their supply lines through lake erie. New England threatened secession, but they didn't actually do it. Its kind of like the brits go on and on about the white house to make themselves look good, even though it didnt really do anything but symbolism (like new orleans)
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The British left Detroit after Lake Erie was lost, not the Upper Mississipi, they controlled that, along side most of Maine and areas of New York up until the Treaty. You're trying to argue against me using nothing but hearsay and incorrect facts. You're trying to downplay what the British held, even though for Britain to be holding anything shows that the war was a disaster for the US. After Washington public support for the war died away, it was more than symbolic.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 They demanded minnesota and maine in 1814, this was not because they held these areas however. The british held smallamounts of land in the US, this is known, but its not like it was massive amounts of territory. And after baltimore and the plattesberg losses, the US was in a stronger position and demanded status quo ante bellum. the war was a stalemate because the US rallied in the end
CodArk2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CodArk2 You seem to change your tune every comment. Are you simply going from website to website quoting whatever you can find? You said the US wasn't imperialist, now you say they are, but its ok because everybody else was imperialist too?
They didn't attack Florida because Spain was imperialist. They attacked it because Spain was occupied by Napoleon and it looked like it would be easy pickings - just like Canada. There were no British who wanted to re - conquer America.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The US was imperialist. Tell me, if the war was fought because of "big bad Britain", then why did the US attempt to seize control of Florida from Spain during the Patriot War 1812 - 14, while the much larger war of 1812 was going on?
There is a massive amount of evidence to suggest Canada was the true goal, from newspaper articles to statements from politicians to Madison's demands, soldiers even wore caps with the motto "conquer or die" sewn into them.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 To a point yes, though then again, the spanish themselves were imperialist, as were the british, but the war of 1812 was not started to form an empire. In the case of britain, its liekly some projection going on, there were some americans that wanted to conquer canada, and some british that wanted to conquer america. The US wanted to drive britain, itself an imperialist power, out of north america. they failed at this, but it was not a complete loss
CodArk2 1 month ago
Comment removed
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@CodArk2 America set out with clear objectives and wasted a massive amount of resources, with thousands dead or wounded, and achieved what? None of their war aims were achieved and they found themselves in the same position as they were in 1812, but with their capital in ashes and a ruined economy.
Im still waiting to hear - about the fifth time ive asked - what America achieved in the war.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Some of our war aims were achieved, not all, but some. Saying we didn't get anything out of it is wrong. The initial goals were not canada focus, the only reason the US hit canada was because thats all we could hit. the capital of upper canada was also burned and they also had a ruined economy. besides national pride, we did gain several things from the war, but they would likely be ignored or downplayed because we have to be shown as losers no matter what
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 I need more than just "we gained things" - like WHAT ??
Natives attacking Georgia using Florida as a base. Are you sure you haven't just made that up? Where have you got that from? Evidence please? I think you're just trying to delude yourself now.
We expanded yes, but we admitted it. We didn't use some bullshit excuse like - "We only invaded, conquered your lands and stole your resources because we wanted to liberate you from evil."
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 For one, we gained a pretty much straight shot to the pacific without britian trying to stop us. We also did gain a measure of respect on the world stage. We gained a professional army , before the US only had militia, as well as a few other things. Look up the seminole wars, thats one reason we were there. American attitudes toward expansion and conquest were largely from our british heritage :v
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 You already had a stake in Oregon Country, meaning you were already on the Pacific, straight shot to the pacific - what?
Measure of respect of the world stage from who? The European nations laughed at the US when they adopted the British - proposed Monroe Doctrine, it was British backing which made them think twice before getting involved in the New World.
You already had a regular army - Thomas Jefferson just downsized it.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Britain wanted to stop US expansion westward. We already had the Louisiana purchase from france but that was not to the pacific yet. they tried to make basically thr whole midwest off limits to US settlement. Europeans have always laughed at the US, its just in their nature to think they are better than the rest of the world. The monroe doctrine was in britains interests, but that doesnt mean we were incapable of enforcing anyhting
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Oregon Country wasnt part of the Louisiana Purchase.
They tried to fight for Native rights in the Mid-West as a gentlemanly agreement on behalf of the Natives without which they would not have succeeded during the war and to serve as a buffer between Canada and the US. There was nothing to stop the US expanding South East or straight West.
Even the almighty Wikipedia agrees that the US did not have the power to back up the Doctrine. You dare disagree?!
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 I know oregon country wasn't part of the louisiana purchase. And from a naval standpoint the US could not enforce the monroe doctrine, though in this case, it worked out in the best interests of the US and britain. the US couldn't really enforce the monroe doctrine until the late 19th century because we were not a powerful nation at that time
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 As bad as we were Native Americans actually tried to escape to British authorities in Canada. You were butchers on another level.
Slavery was banned in England in 1772, the Slave Trade abolished in 1807 (The Royal Navy made sure other nations did too), by 1830 it was completely phased out all over the Empire.
I know slavery was not the true cause of the civil war but i was using it as an example.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Both sides killed natives. it wasnt right at all, but what happened happened. if there had been no war, the british would have viewed the natives the same as the americans did. I mean there are not natives everywhere in canada either, or australia. And slavery was not abolished in the empire until The Slavery Abolition Act of1833. The slave trade was declared illegal in 1807, but slavery was legal til 1833
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 We didn't view the Natives the same as you did. Britain had made peace with them through the Royal Proclamation Act 1763 - hence why the majority of the Natives fought against the Rebels during the Revolution. Presents and gifts were exchanged between the British and the various tribes - not making them allies but at least friendly enough that both enjoyed and profitted from the Fur Trade.
We didn't just knowingly exterminate them for the sake of stealing their land.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Maybe british propaganda has convinced you of that, but actions speak louder than words, and the fate of native americans and aborigines in australia was the same or worse than natives n the US. And those were british colonies. The british may not have directly, but your colonies did all over the planet, america just gets a worse bad rap among the british because we weren't a british colony doing it
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Never said we were perfect. But we never commited the kind of genocide that your nation did. Trail of Tears? Tens of thousands of natives - many of whom aided you in the war of 1812 were betrayed and forcibly located to the west. Thousands dying on the way. Your fucking government awarded your soldiers medals of honour for massacring women and children at Wounded Knee!
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Actually you did. Britain was the nation that gave native americans smallpox infected blankets. Several native tribes in canada were wiped out or put on reserves just like in america. In australia, britains treatment of the aborigines was actually worse than how we treated native americans. You didnt even make them march to a native territory, you just outright killed them. Not saying trail of tears was right, but britain is not clean with regards to genocides
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Higher species of human? Are you on drugs?
How many times have i said that we were not perfect? Aboriginal treatment was terrible yes, but our government never knowingly enforced it or handed out medals for commiting massacres like yours did.
Only after the Civil War did the US gain any semblance to a traditional nation. Before that it was a lying, cheating, opportunistic haven of traitors and scoundrels.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Re-read it, I meant I don't like the idea many british people have that they are a higher species of human or such and americans are somehow lesser beings. We did do bad things, evil things, but so did everyone else. Doesnt make our actions more right though. And the US was a nation before the civl war, but we didnt really come across as one til the 1840s really
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 There was a growing abolitionist movement in Britain as far back as the 1770's. Slavery was illegal in England and Wales from 1772. During the Revolution 40,000 Slaves escaped to the British and gained their freedom - the British then set up the Sierra Leone colony in West Africa (at personal expense) for these freed slaves. The Slave Trade was abolished 1807 and Britain used the Royal Navy to stamp it out and make sure other nations did too.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The US was not importing slaves after 1807, and this had nothign to do with britain, but because of changes in US law. Slavery was actually becoming less and less common in the US before the civil war, Only the wealthy owned slaves, and with the coming of industry, it likely would have ceased to be a common practice. The war just sped it up. America set up Liberia to send our former cslaves to, and its right next to Sierra Leone. Most stayed in the US
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 You can't seem to accept that your nation has ever done anything wrong! You only invaded Canada and Florida because you wanted to liberate the people there, you only commited genocide because you wanted to help them, you only carried slavery on longer than any other nation because it was "in" at the time - despite the rest of the world getting rid of it.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 No, american can and does do bad, stupid things. My arguemnet is with the idea that british people are a somehow higher species of human incapable of making the same mistakes. You completely ignore britains wrongdoing, while holding up americas and acting like we are worse. native genocide was wrong, not helping them at all. Slavery was wrong as well, europe had fewer slaves so it took less time. canada was a pawn in a war. thats what i have been saying throughout
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The US slave ban in 1807 WAS because of Britain. Britain abolished the Slave Trade but wasnt prepared to let other nations gain any sort of advantage by carrying on with it. The Ban was practically forced down the throats of many nations. Even if they didn't agree with the ban - the Royal Navy treated any Slave ships they found the same as pirates and they were either captured or destroyed.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Matbe maybe not. We still were not importing slaves. It was passed into law in the US by the US government. Might the british act have contrributed? probably, but there were other factors at work too, like that many whites were afraid of blacks outnumbering them if importation continued. It was an evil practice and really, no matter how it stopped, its a good thing it was ceased.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 We set up the West Africa Squadron of the Royal Navy which between 1808 and 1860 captured some 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 slaves. By 1833 Slavery had gradually been phased out all over the Empire hence the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Our attitude to slavery wasn't perfect but ten times better than yours.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 bitains attitude toward slavery was better than ours? How so? Slavery is slavery. Its like saying our dads were both wife beaters, but because my dad stopped beating my mother and tried to get yours to stop that my dad is 10 times better than yours. Its also ignoring the fact that the US was more agricultural and had more slaves than brirain did
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2
If not for General Wolfe and the British military there would have been no American western expansion. The colonials had been plagued by the French Canadians since the Deerfield raid and had tried to defeat them over and over since 1690, but only had one significant victory (despite outnumbering the French Canadians by over 950,000) at Louisbourg. What a way to thank Britain who saved America in 1759 by rebelling in 1775.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@RaynauddeChatillon Britain was taxing people without giving them a right to any say in how they were taxed, and when they spoke out or rebelled against thsi, britain reacted in a heavy handed manner that had the US done it to anyone else, you brits would be screeching about it to no end as an example of our imperialism.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@RaynauddeChatillon You are also ignoring that much of the fighting in what we call the french and indian war was done by british (american) militia and soldiers. We were british subjects back then, but unlike the canadians we don't take credit for victories while we were a british colony
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2
You're simply wrong. The vast majority of the fighting in the American theater of the Seven Years War was done by British troops. The conquest of Quebec was achieved with 12 regiments of British troops and only 6 companies of American Rangers, and guess what, most of the prominent Rangers were loyalists during the revolution. Now if you refer to the French and Indian wars (plural) then you're right, colonials played the largest role, that almost always ended in failure.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@RaynauddeChatillon The attacks on canada were done by both colonists and british soldiers. Most of the british soldiers were based in the colonies too. Let me put it this way, "americans" did more fighting in the french and indian war than "canadians" did in the war of 1812. But the fighting we did is counted as british fighting, because we were british at that time. We aren't like canada and claim another nations victory as ours
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2
No, most of the British soldiers that participated in the conquest of Canada were brought directly over from Britain (a high proportion from Scotland) or Ireland (not Irish, but garrisoned Brits), see my last post. Unlike Americans, a great proportion of Canadians continued to serve in British regiments fighting all around the world well into the 19th century, so you're wrong there too. The Americans were defeated at Lacolle Mills the first time by the mere local militia.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@CodArk2
And I thought this was a war between the US and Britain, not the US and Canada. You assert Canada's independence from Britain to justify one point (heritage), but strip it when trying to justify the other(the motivation for the invasion).
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@CodArk2 This constant jibe that Canada claims credit for another nations victory is simply wrong. The "Canadian" identity predates the identity of being "American". The US Government even refered to it as "Canada" while they were demanding its cession - not by its proper name of British North America. Canadians saw themselves as living in Canada but as rightful British subjects. To them the Redcoats were "their" soldiers. They played a massive part - Glengarry Light Infantry, the Fencibles etc
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 How can the canadian identity predate the american one? The 13 colonies were founded first and saw themselves as americans to a point as far back as the 1660s. The US referred to it as canada because at the time it was upper and lower canada territories
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2
Well the French Canadian identity certainly predates any American one. In case you didn't know, the patriots called "the regulars are coming" not the "British" are coming. America was founded by British (and some Dutch) people, now they are a minority and the country is filled with Irish and all sorts of other people who have no connection to its past who for some reason say "we" when referring to deeds done by patriots while their ancestors were peasants 4,000 miles away.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@RaynauddeChatillon The french one yes, the english one, no. In fact many of the english canadians were loyalists fleeing the US when it declared independence. Since most of the US bashing I see from canadians is in english, i assume they are of english descent. And actually, most americans are of german, british and irish descent. I myself have all three back there. Americans say we when referring to americans, just as canadians do with canada and english do with england
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2
America is roughly 13% British. Most Americans are descended from Irish and Germans who came well after the Revolution. It doesn't seem appropriate for one to claim events as your (in general) heritage if your ancestors definitely played no role in it. So many Americans hate Britain, yet fail to realize that America wouldn't exist without it. There would have been no shelter, jobs, or meals to greet their pitiful immigrant ancestors if not for the dreaded puritans.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@RaynauddeChatillon My ancestry is british, but is mixed. Americans tend to mix more, unless you have been here for one generation you likely have ancestors from all over europe. And most americans like britain, so no clue where the "we hate britain" thing comes from. Most british people seem to hate the US. America was built by people from all over the planet, not just the english.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Lets not beat around the bush.
The thirteen American Colonies were founded by Englishmen and populated (originally) by the British. You speak English. Your laws are English. Your Constitution is based on the Constitution used during the English Civil War. "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" came from Englishman John Locke. Your national anthem is sung to the tune of a British drinking song. The Monroe Doctrine was given to you by George Canning - a British statesman.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Oh and your flag is a slightly altered British design. Basically you don't share similarities with England/Britain because it is a convenience, it is because your nation was built by Englishmen, whether you want to admit it or not.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Slightly altered? Nah, anyone looking at our flags would be hard pressed to say the stars and stripes is slightly modified from the union jack. They use the same colors, but thats about it. Now malaysia and liberia, there are some slightly modified flags. As for stuff we got from the english, its true that much of what we got was from them, much like much of what england has comes from the french, germans and romans.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 It's slightly altered from the British East India Company flag, not the Union Jack. You just replaced the Union Jack with stars and called it your own.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 False. the east india company flag with stripes on it came after 1801. The US had its flag in the 1770s. The US flag existed before the east india company flag.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2
All signers of the declaration of Independence were of British origin. The vast majority of the soldiers in the revolution were British and considered themselves that. Separation of Church and State has its origin with England's Roger Williams. Ninja1275 has summarized the origins of the rest. England did not inherit Magna Carta, Parliament, the House of Commons, or any other of its other great achievements from anyone.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@RaynauddeChatillon Actually many of the signers of the declaration of independence were born in the colonies, not in britain. They considered themselves british because these were british colonies. Magna Carta is in itself a latin term for Great Charter. Parliament is a french term, and the idea far predates england. Same with the idea of a house of commons. Democracy was not invented in england.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2
British origin. They considered themselves British because they were ethnically English/Scot/Welsh, spoke English, and if they were not born in those places their great grandparents were at the least. Today tons of Irish in America go wild on St. Patrick's day because "they are Irish", despite being born in America. The etymology of the name does not define the substance. No country had anything like Magna Carta or parliament at that time or in the recent past.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@RaynauddeChatillon Technically I am of british origin. My ancestry is largely british, with some german mixed in. My great grandparents came from england and scotland. That does not make anything I do "british". Most of the signers of the declaration of independence were not born in england either. No country had a magna carta, but others did have a parliament (representation), it just had a different name
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2
They were ethnically British (easier than saying English/Scot/Welsh ect.) and the country they founded was based entirely on British ideas and systems. Therefore America was founded by Brits. You can take away the Irish, Poles, Germans, and all other ethnic groups and you'd still have America, but take away the British and you have a wilderness sparsely populated by French fur trappers.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@RaynauddeChatillon Yes, britain was crucial to founding modern america as it was, then again the romans , french and germans were the same way with regards to britain.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2
England stands out from Europe because of its successful early baron wars; they are the origin of magna carta, parliament, and the ambitious nobility/merchant class and ultimately the typical English mindset. Sure the big players in those early wars were of Norman origin, but those events and results weren't based off anything characteristically Norman. Besides, the average Englishman can claim that as his heritage since he is likely trace his descent from many of them.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Democracy wasn't invented in Britain but we were democratic long before the majority of Europe was. We were a Constitutional Monarchy while nations like France, Austria and Russia etc were Absolute Monarchies.
That's why I don't like the idea that America somehow gained "freedom and liberty" from the Revolution, because you already had that under the British system. All you gained was the ability to manage your own affairs - which only a small amount of the population wanted.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@CodArk2
No contemporary country had a Parliament that approached England's in the 13th century. France largely operated under the feudal system until their revolution.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@CodArk2
And Actually the US does indeed take credit for victories achieved while a British colony. Haven't you heard of Roger's Rangers? The US Army Rangers ridiculously claim descent from Roger's Rangers even though Robert Rogers, his brother, and ultimately his unite, were loyalists! The fact is the only significant victories achieved by majority colonial troops in the French and Indian wars were Louisbourg, Roger's snowshoe fight, and the taking of Port Royal.
RaynauddeChatillon 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The Seminole Wars occured as a result of American incursions into Florida - NOT the other way around. The Seminoles were fighting for their lives against American expansionism.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Have a little read of Donald R. Hickey's book - "Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812". Or "1812: War with America" by Jon Latimer. Both are completely unbiased and both show the war for what it really was.
Unless you believe your nation's history is white as white? Wouldn't be the first time your government has lied to you would it?
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Hickeys book seems to only show misconceptions americnas have about the war, but doesnt seem to show ANY of the falsehoods and such brits and canadians use, While its good to point out falshoods americans believe and call them out, again, we arent the only ones doing it. And Latimers book loses any pretense of being unbiased in its description "In the first complete history of the War of 1812 written from a British perspective".
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Im still waiting to hear what the US achieved.
- Impressment ended before the war began and the US were forced to drop their demands in 1814 for it to end permenantly.
- Neutrality of the Seas failed in that Britain simply refused to let the US trade with France.
- Britain did not adhere to stop aiding the natives and in fact by the Treaty the US should have returned native lands to their position as they were in 1811.
- The cesessation of Canada was a humiliating defeat.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 PBS has a very good, *actually* unbiased account of all that went on in the war of 1812, just search for The War of 1812 Full Program and its the first google link.
There was actually no provision for a native buffer zone, this was a british demand but did not make it into the treaty itself. britain also demanded minnesota and maine, which they did not get. with napoleon gone there was no reason for impressment and neutrality. Britain suffered its own humiliating defeats as well.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The Other War of 1812: The Patriot War and the American Invasion of Spanish East Florida
The US targeted Florida for expansion while Spain was weak. Is it really so much of a stretch to imagine Canada was targeted for the same reason?
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 because native americans were attacking georgia using florida as a base. Its odd though that britain and other european powers think they have the right to expand wherever they please and its ok, but when america does it its evil and imperialist. The war was not about canada, canada was just a theatre of conflict.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Canada's economy was booming due to massive British investment - it was not ruined. Ports like Halifax were literally overflowing. The US economy on the other hand, was ruined.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 parts of canada were booming and parts were destroyed, like near the niagara region. Same is also true of the US. Parts of the Us were devastate, but not all of it, or even most. Most of the US was the same before the war as it was after. We were not knocked back to the stone age or something
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The British idea of expansion generally didn't involve Genocide. Britain had made peace with the Native Americans prior to the American Revolution and thirty years after it Slavery was abolished too.
America kept slavery going till 1865 then had to fight a bloody civil war trying to stamp it out - the only country in the world who had to fight itself to abolish it. Native genocide still continued up to the 1880's and 90's.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The british had the bloodiest empire in history, and yes, britain did conduct actions that would be considered genocide if done today. The American disdain for the "savages" came from the english. And don't get all high and mighty about slavery, britain was one of the main slave trading nations, and only banned it in the 1830s, only 30 years before the US did. its also a common misconception that war was started because of slavery when it was not the cause of the civil war
CodArk2 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Both books seem to appeal to you because they are from a british perspective, and depict americans as evil aggressive imperialist warmongers. America's history isn't perfect, but people in other nations have a tendency to act like america is the worst nation on earth and they are comparatively blameless. The british govt. can lie to its people,as can the canadian gov. I accept all sides have bias in war, you seem to be saying only americans have a bias which is dishonest
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 - George Cockburn was also preparing to besiege Savannah, Georgia from his base at Cumberland Island. The US was economically crippled and was unable to do anything but defend in the final months of the war.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The US was defending in the last months of the war, hence the battle of new orleans. If it had gone on longer they likely would have been driven from the island as well
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Last comment : Against Napoleon Britain was fighting for its very existance, the blockade was justifiable and necessary to achieve victory. America's actions were undermining that.
I have several books on this conflict from both sides. Nationalistic Americans take the Second War of Independence view whereas more Liberal minded Americans such as Donald R. Hickey actually agree with the British perspective.
There were no more US offensives after the Niagara campaign failed.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Of course, liberals tend to side with anything as long as its anti american. I don't side with the british story of it, but I dont side with the nationalist american one either. Both sides have bias, but again, both sides have it, the british/canadian story AND the american one. I have read books from both, but i dont pretend the british werent just as biased as the americans. And the US was sovereign, stopping trade was one thing, but impressment was wrong.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Baltimore was hardly a decisive victory. The British admiralty viewed it as a strategic victory. The city was targeted because it was the main base of US privateers. The city wasnt taken but the Americans were forced to sink much of their fleet in order to block the harbour - thus taking it out of the war. The Admiralty also stressed the rout of the US forces at the battle of North Point and the chaos and terror the British attack it caused.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 baltimore cannot be considered a british victory. I dont see how it can be considered a victory. The larger battle of baltimore was a US victory. Of course the british are going to stress their victories and not their losses, everyone does that
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 Anyway im going to bed but i have no doubt i'll find this page assaulted with more Wikipedia "facts" next time i log on.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Why are "facts" that you dont like something in parentheses? You only seem to get information from british and canadian history books, which would be biased as much as an american text would be. This war has a lot of nationalism tied up in it on both sides, so your "facts" are likely as accurate as mine
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 What is it you think America gained in this war?
And please don't say "national pride". German soldiers went home after WW1 to a heroes welcome. It doesn't mean they won the war. Give me a list of actual objectives accomplished or goals attained.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 the war for the US had 2 main affects.it ended the british plan for a semi autonomous indian sanctuary, allowing westward expansion, it also ended impressment and restrictions on trade
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 The war had no impact on impressment or trade. The US' own trade was destroyed by the war as a result. The Indian confederation was Tecumseh's dream, Britain only supported it due to the war. Its not as if you wiped the natives out as a threat. The Indian wars continued for the next 100 years.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Trade with france was, because the british interfered with US trade. Impressment was over before the war started, as for the natives, the british no longer supported them.
CodArk2 1 month ago
@CodArk2 "Actually britain did concede things" - What? You never specified?
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 I'm Canadian but the only thing we won was not being conqured by the US. It's hardly a British victory, yes it's basically a draw otherwise. And the Americans did have valid issues with the Brits taking over ships in their waters and impressing sailors. Besides what did we win in the end? Being dominated by that old Queen in England in the 21st Century? Maybe we would have been better off if the Yanks had won.
blacbraun 1 month ago
@blacbraun Wow lots of posts.
Britain never wanted the war with the USA in the first place. The British focus never left Europe & Napoleon. The USA had proven to be a more valuable as a independent trading partner then it had been as a colony.
With that in mind conquest of the USA would have been counter productive & never an objective. Defending loyal subjects was a different matter even so in 1867 Britain dumped Canada as a colony.
Thus just defending Canada was a British victory.
Eddythebeast666 1 month ago
@blacbraun Not being conquered is a huge victory. Just examine the fate of Tecumseh & his people. Look at the chaos in the USA, the wild west & 100 years of warfare on Natives & a civil war.
As a Native as bad as things were in Canada I'm horrified at what happened in the USA. That a fellow Canadian would so causally flip off the difference between the USA & Canada is stunning.
If you want to be a republican I'm sure the USA would welcome you but stop trashing what we've accomplished here.
Eddythebeast666 1 month ago