Social engineering scares the hell out of me. People who want to 'fix' other people tend to oppress them, 'soft tyranny' them into prescribed behavior patterns. Nanny state laws end up with Islamic radicals spitting on British Army parades and a neutered government unable to kick the bastards out of Britain.
@trouzerpants It is a cultural hairshirt you Brits put on back in the '60s. I meant to say you don't have to feel bad anymore about your Empire history. If you're offended, you're taking it the wrong way. Nevermind. Bad word imagery. In America, to bend over backwards is to be so accomodating you harm yourself to appease another.
@Planetar17 I thought so. Thanks for the support, I know undercutting a cherished cultural myth can be painful & truth is we are not being very gentlemanly about it but the high moral ground can be lonely.
I spent July 4th with one of my mates from Saugus MA (near Boston) back in '10, been to the very site of the Boston "Massacre" & got pissed up on bottles of Heineken down where the Tea was dumped. His family also had friends round, one of whom was a particularly obnoxious, fat, ugly, carpet-munching harpy lemon who attempted to "dance" with me re July 4th. She was the only one, everyone else was politeness personified. Boy did she pick on the wrong man. I knew more than all of 'em put together..
@TheLiberalKnight Not really. Americans didn't win this war, but didn't lose either. All the brits here arguing britain won this war are just as jingoistic and nationalistic as the americans they criticize. Neither side won this war.
@Eddythebeast666 Same with most of the brits and canadians on these videos, expressing opinions with little to support it, but doesn't lessen the opinion though. As for neither side winning the war, thats less an opinion, just depends on which bias you buy into
@CodArk2 No, victory stalemate or loss depends entirely where the goalposts are placed.
Pulling back the war objectives & saying you never intended to conquer Canada when that was needed at the very least to be used as leverage to achieve US minimal political goals is flagrant revisionist history.
@Ninja1275 You only give biiased, one sided history, then pretend americans are the only ones that do such. And you and eddy do it in every single fucking video on this. You are both trolling. You play up american atrocities while ignoring british ones and act like we are the most evil nation on earth. That require strong bias.
@CodArk2 "It is absurd to suppose we will not succeed. We have Canada as much under our command as Great Britain has the ocean and the way to conquer her on the ocean is to drive her from the land. I am not for stopping at Quebec or anywhere else, but I would take the whole continent from her and ask her no favours. I wish never to see peace until we do. God has given us the power and the means. We are to blame if we do not use them. The conquest of Canada is in your power." HenryClay
@CodArk2 I only give biased, one sided history? Look at the source I have just posted. I posted this earlier today and you completely ignored it. It's from Henry Clay, one of the U.S's top politicians of the time. Here's another:
"Shortly after the war got underway the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Henry Clay, solemnly pledged that he would never consent to any treaty of peace that did not include the cession of Canada."
@CodArk2 "It is absurd to suppose we will not succeed. We have Canada as much under our command as Great Britain has the ocean and the way to conquer her on the ocean is to drive her from the land. I am not for stopping at Quebec or anywhere else, but I would take the whole continent from her and ask her no favours. I wish never to see peace until we do. God has given us the power and the means. We are to blame if we do not use them. The conquest of Canada is in your power." -HenryClay
@CodArk2 No, the yanks LOST. They thought, 'we'll attack Britain now they're busy fighting the biggest military force in the world, Napoleon. We'll steal Canada and win.' They LOST. And isn't it strange how the yanks hastily singed a peace treaty as soon as they realised Napoleon was screwed? Is that the stench of cowardice?
@TheLiberalKnight No, it was a draw, not a loss. Most historians agree with that assessment. The only ones that don't are the nationalistic canadians and british that insist england must win everything. You conveniently forget that britain was basically raiding US shipping and taking sailors off our ships. That was the cause of the war, not hunger for land. We were negotiating for peace from the start.
@CodArk2 Ha, an American accusing British and Canadian historians of nationalism... what a joke. I'd bet that in American schools, they don't teach you that the US army kidnapped hundreds of Canadians and forced them to fight for the union in the civil war. I'd bet they don't teach you that the Americans colonized Hawaii and other countries. The Americans are notorious for their biased historians and academics.
@TheLiberalKnight Yes because only americans can be nationalistic, riiiight. You'd bet what they teach in US schools? I went to US schools. The civil war thing was called crimping, and we were taught about it. We were also taught that hawaii was an independent kingdom we basically took over (as well as Philippines and puerto rico in spanish american war). People in other countries think americans are more ignorant than we actually are in most cases.
@CodArk2 I never claimed that 'only americans can be nationalistic'. Every time I visit America, I am outstanded at their lack of knowledge on the topic of the war of independence. They still say that it was because 'George III levied taxes on us and we did not have democracy'. Such ignorance IS widespread, and foreigners find it offensive.
@TheLiberalKnight Actually the initial cause of the american rebellion against british rule *was* because of taxation. "No taxation without representation" was one of the main causes of the war. As for democracy, we had a democratic government at the time. Most americans do find the idea of monarchy undemocratic, but many know britain had a parliament at the time. George III was insane though
@TheLiberalKnight Alright smart ass, what WAS the reason americans rebelled against britain for? In schools we are taught the primary reasons were taxation without representation and acts by the british govt. that we had no say in. The boston massacre, intolerable acts, and lexington and concord were what happened right before war broke out. if those werent the reasons americans fought, what were?
John Locke's writings, basically telling the governed that, if they've got the power and force, they can throw off their chains and govern themselves. The same attitude can be found in the Occupy Wall Street mobs, only they lack power and force and will fail to throw off their imaginary chains. The clergy bought into the ideal, too, using liberty scriptures, 'no divine right of kings', etc, because Christ was King. If we colonized another planet, Earth would face the same hippie rebellions.
@Planetar17 I know of Locke, but I do not think that was the reason americans rebelled against the british. I mean its abit of a stretch for m to accept that americans were just sitting around, then all of a sudden said "shit, we have more men and guns than the brits, lets govern ourselves!". There were actions that led to us becoming independent besides philosophy, lockes ideas influenced the crafting of our government though.
@CodArk2 Seriously, can you not accept that there were ulterior motives in any form?
In regards to the Revolution, it wasn't poor, oppressed peasants calling for independence. It was a small group of the richest men in the country, a number of them smugglers, who were being hurt by Britain's actions. George Washington became the richest man in the country through Indian Land Speculation, the Royal Proclamtion 1763 put a stop to that.
@CodArk2 Britain was also working to abolish slavery, it was outlawed in England and Wales in 1772. This obviously alarmed the very wealthy Slave Owners of the South, men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The French - Canadians were given religious and political freedom through the Quebec Act 1774 - this pissed off the staunchly protestant Americans. At the start of the war the ones wanting independence were a minority, and even at their height they were still only a third.
@Ninja1275 Those might have been contributing factors, but for the most part it was stuff happening in the colonies. Slavery was not that common at that time actually, most were not rich enough to own slaves (this was true in the civil war as well). The reason america rebelled was because of taxes and the harsh (to the colonists) british response to protests against said taxes.
@Ninja1275 Nah, that is too high a number, i would think 10 percent,at the most, but 1/4th? nope. I cant find anything saying 25 percent of people in the colonies were slaves, and im pretty sure thats too high a number. Some in the US pushed for annexing canada, but that does not make it a cause of the war
@CodArk2 Dude even ignoring all the evidence to the contrary you had to capture Canada to use as leverage to get what ever crap you claim to have been after.
You failed. Big time. Instead Britain captured a good bit of US territory & used that as leverage to force the US to return lands to Natives. (Article IX)
@Eddythebeast666 In capturing canada, yes, we failed. That was not our only objective though. Britain held small amounts of maine and what became minnesota. The US held some land that became canada near detroit as well. The US did not lose the war, militarily it was a stalemate. looking at it from a canada centric biased view we lost, but most believe it was a draw
@Eddythebeast666 Britain could attack the US, but attacking it and calling that victory are different things. Every time Britain tried invading the US (which you also tried multiple times) you were repulsed. Neither side decisively defeated the other militarily, The US was actually doing rather well in the last year of the war.
@CodArk2 That is exactly why I call British actions raids not invasions. It is US historians hyping British motives that call it invasions. No where is there any historical data that Britain had military plans of permanently occupying the USA & you need to have that. You need to have historical proof that Britain wanted control of the USA before you can say it was something the British failed to do.
@Eddythebeast666 much as canadian historians hype american motives. both sides do this. the brits did plan to occupy US territory, like new york. This was defeated at the battle of lake champlain. There were invasions, not just raids. No one lost this war, except the natives. The US failed at one thing, capturing canada, we got everything else though
Is it pride that denies your ability to accept the US did not gain what it wanted from this war? Mate, Eddy and Ninja have both repeatedly told you that at the peace treaty, the US threw ALL of it's demands from the table whereas GB insisted upon Article IX (US return post 1811 usurped native land which it reneged on.) Even your most eminent historians now accept that although the war may not have initially been motivated by annexation, it sure was as it dragged on.
@trouzerpants The US did not gain land. We pretty much gained everything else we sought. The US didnt throw all demands off the table, the brits had some demands they did not get. Why there is a refusal to accept the war as a draw and not a loss is beyond me, most historians accept this.
"In a relatively rare admission for an American scholar, a leading US historian who authored a provocative new tome about North American military conflicts states bluntly that Canada won the War of 1812.Johns Hopkins University professor E Cohen, a senior adviser to former US secretary of state C Rice, writes in his just-published book Conquered Into Liberty that, “ultimately, Canada and Canadians won the War of 1812.”
“If the conquest of Canada had not been an American objective when the war began, it surely had become such shortly after it opened,” Cohen argues in the book. “Not only did the colony remain intact: It had acquired heroes, British and French, and a narrative of plucky defence against foreign invasion, that helped carry it to nationhood.” - Eliot Cohen, eminent US historian.
Care to argue with your most eminent historian? He admits that it was a US defeat.
I do find it slightly amusing that certain Americans desperately need to feel some kinda "positive" from this American debacle whereas the British (by and large) are more than cognisant the only really important theatre of this conflict was in Europe, that all that happened in N America (where GB was HORRIBLY OUTNUMBERED) was of next to no concern at all...
@CodArk2 Its not hype if the facts support the claim. We have supplied quotes showing US motive & intent.
Where the hell are yours? Don't give me historians opinions from 120 years after the fact. Give me quotes of people who shaped policy in the day. That's history.
@Eddythebeast666 The idea the war was all about canada and the US invading canada and if the US had not been greedy and expansionist/imperialist the war wouldn't have started is hype. The war did not start because of canada, it started because of impressment and trade restrictions, canada was just the battlefield
Madison had to "legitimise" his war somehow, just like Bush did with his BS "weapons of mass destruction."
Besides, d'ya really wanna place your confidence in a man who not only ran away, leaving his wife behind to fend for herself (pure cowardice), not to mention altering his memoirs/records/documents in an effort to spare him from an ugly legacy of mendacity, dishonesty, cowardice and embarrassment?
BTW - Whaddya think of the most eminent US historian E Cohen's comments?
@Eddythebeast666 You only use facts that are on your side, while ignoring conflicting evidence. You say it started so the US could invade canada, when most sources say it started for other reasons. The official US version is different than this video, but still holds it was a draw. You fanatical closed minded smearing of US honor when the simple historical truth contradicts often it is just as pathetic.
If the US states that had the majority of sailors who were impressed had voted for the war there would be no argument but that's not what happened. The vast majority of those taken were from anti war Federalist states.
If there was a shred of evidence British were encouraging Native hostility... well I don't care, that was still greed for land ether way.
But Trade issues when Napoleon treated you no better.
@Eddythebeast666 Yes, because the US was the only nation to practice slavery. No one else did. right. And of course, to you the war was all about conquest and slavery, even though, you know, it wasnt. But anything to make america look evil and monstrous
@CodArk2 I don't have to do anything aside for point out the facts. I didn't call it evil. That is your mind filling in the blanks because that is what it actually was. That's why we don't do that any more. You know as we look closer it looks bad for the USA.
Your negotiators even gave ground on land issues with article IX all the fucking human turds your nation sent to make peace cared about was fucking SLAVES.
Most are smart enough to know politicians lie why do you defend these guys?
@Eddythebeast666 Because you focus on slavery and natives as pretty much the only things the US has done. something that eclipses anything good our nation has done at all. I find slavery evil, but the US was not the only or biggest practicer of it. There were other negotiations besides slaves. At the time slavery was legal in canada and the british empire, so on slavery you have no high ground.
@CodArk2 Slavery was not legal in Canada at the time of the War of 1812, Simcoe had stamped it out. It had also been outlawed in England and Wales in 1774 and the Slave Trade as a whole was abolished in 1807.
@Ninja1275 Slavery in what now comprises Canada existed into the 1830s, when slavery was officially abolished. The slave trade was abolished across the British Empire in 1833. The act of 1807 abolished the slave trade in the *British Empire* (not worldwide), but not slavery itself.
@CodArk2 "John Graves Simcoe, first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, was responsible for ending slavery in Upper Canada long before it was abolished in the British Empire as a whole – by 1810 there were no slaves in Upper Canada."
By 1833 Slavery had already gradually been phased out. Hence the passing of the Abolition Act 1833.
@Ninja1275 In upper canada, but there was lower canada and newfoundland too. Slavery in the US was also gradually vanishing, especially in the north. The only reason the south clung to it was because of agriculture (which canada did not have the climate for like the southern US did).Slavery was not a widespread practice in the US either, with only the wealthiest owning slaves.
@Eddythebeast666 The american revolution did not start because of slavery. Full stop. It started in massachusetts, slavery was more in the south. Saying the US only got into wars because of slavery is wrong. The only war the US got into where slavery played a major role in the cause was the civil war. And slavery was not the main or only cause there either
@CodArk2 I'm mostly just messing with you now, Hard to take you seriously.
Of your founding fathers Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington & Madison owned slaves.
My Loyalist slave owing ancestor freed his slaves to fight as free men for the King.
@Eddythebeast666 I've been sparring with this dude on other channels. He offers nothing but conjecture then calls you Anti-American when you present him with detailed evidence.
@Eddythebeast666 Jeez Glenn Beck. Man what a character. Love his rants, for all the wrong reasons though. That guy chats utter bollocks but his sheer stupidity cracks me up haha.
Yummmm - the "Old Empire" (Marston's) is goin' down the 'atch pretty damn smoothly - even gotta lil' map on the front of the bottle depicting it's geographic route from GB to the Raj...
It's weird how the Americans viewed Tecumseh as the prime "Enemy of the State" yet, after they'd desecrated his body (wasn't he skinned?), they then erect statues of him in some kinda sick deference.
Perhaps the only good injun [sic] is a dead one...
@Eddythebeast666 And? most people did not own slaves. Acting like america was all about slavery is false. There were onyl about 60 thousand slaves in the US at independence, almost 3 million freemen. America was not built on slavery nor was it widely practiced. I refuse to feel guilt for something I have not had any part in, nor my ancestors (who were not slaveowners).
@CodArk2 25% of the population. 500,000 Slaves! Not 60,000. Between 30 - 40,000 alone joined the British during the Revolution. How much evidence have I presented you with and yet you still refuse to accept any other view except your own?
@Eddythebeast666 If anyone is a troll its you. I see you on every single war of 1812 video going on about how evil the US is and how it was all greed the war started for. When anyone contests this they are a stupid american to be condescending to. You basically troll these videos and attack anyone without an anti-american viewpoint. Disagreement is fine, but you meet the troll criteria more than I do.
@Eddythebeast666 What happened 200 years ago is not something I feel responsibility for. Hating the US and no other nation is not a just cause. The US was far from the only nation to kill or mistreat natives, nor were we the worst about it either. I mean natives are the majority in canada and are dominant in society right? right? Oh....yeah..they aren't. wonder why....must be americas fault somehow.
@CodArk2 You should not be defending US myths about the 1812 war. The more you do that the worse your nation looks.
I've been fighting local BS towards Natives, if the British want to spin a fantasy about how things were & call it history I'll fight them as well but generally they know better.
I'm here now because some of your idiots are damn well asking for it.
@Eddythebeast666 Depends on the myth. Some myths I wont defend, others are others myths about the US they are defending and are upset to see proven wrong. This doesnt really focus on the natives, it actually glosses over it too much, US history tends to cover it much better
Heh man, we (the Brits) are big enough to admit our foul play (Opium Wars are a "fine" example), why can't you man up and just admit that this was not a just war?
"In a relatively rare admission for an American scholar, a leading US historian who authored a provocative new tome about North American military conflicts states bluntly that Canada won the War of 1812.Johns Hopkins University professor E Cohen, a senior adviser to former US secretary of state C Rice, writes in his just-published book Conquered Into Liberty that, “ultimately, Canada and Canadians won the War of 1812.”
“If the conquest of Canada had not been an American objective when the war began, it surely had become such shortly after it opened,” Cohen argues in the book. “Not only did the colony remain intact: It had acquired heroes, British and French, and a narrative of plucky defence against foreign invasion, that helped carry it to nationhood.” - Eliot Cohen, eminent US historian.
He disagrees with you, as do other eminent (American) historians..
The book also echoes a key message trumpeted by the fed Conservative government in recent weeks as it unveiled ambitious plans to commemorate the bicentennial of the War of 1812 over the next 3 years: that the successful fight by British, English, French-Canadian & First Nations allies to resist would-be American conquerors (battles such as Queenston Heights and Chateauguay) set the stage for the creation of a unified and independent Canada a half-century later.
@Ninja1275 No, it was not 25 percent of the population. Otherwise we would have had to conduct a massive genocide against blacks in the US. The first US census had 60,000 slaves in the US. Even in the 1860 census there were 1,775,515 slaves. Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S. (1970) . I live in the south, which has more blacks than other parts of the US, and even here it never was that high.
@CodArk2 Well then you're obviously misinformed. Just go on Google and find out. Im sure it will back me up.
During the Revolution alone, Georgia lost about a third of its slaves and South Carolina lost almost 25,000 alone, who mainly left with the British. Yet by 1810 the number had doubled to almost twice as many as they originally had.
ONE FIFTH OF THE POPULATION DURING THE REVOLUTION WERE SLAVES.
@CodArk2 The leaders of the Revolution did own slaves before you put them on a pedestal & hold them up as representational of your nations Ideals you might want to think about it.
You don't have to feel bad at all, hell man I got slave owners in my tree only one of them freed his slaves but you do have to stop defending the bull crap your founding fathers did in the name of personal privilege. NOT LIBERTY.
@CodArk2 Those issues Slavery & Natives dominated most of the USA's existence for the first 100 years.
You can not edit them out.
What good are you talking about from that period & specifically tied to the events of the 1812 war?
Land & Slaves is all I see brought up by the US at Ghent. No sailors rights or even neutral trade rights. Maybe if you had sent a Federalist to negotiate in stead of a War hawk.
@Eddythebeast666 dominated to some, there were other thigns going on. The focus on slavery and the natives to the exclusion of all else in our history belittles it. Thats not all the US was about. I am no expert on this time period, but most of what i see here is just america bashing and opinions being passed off as fact to make the US look bad. This video is not what most americans believe happened anyway
@CodArk2 This is a discussion about the 1812 war not all of US history is on the line unless you want to bring up WW2 again.
If I may suggest you question the larger British motives during the Napoleonic wars you might make some headway but I doubt it. Britain had a really good case but at least there is some lingering controversy there.
@Ninja1275 You're awfully impatient as a historian. Slavery vexed a majority of Americans and there were early efforts to expunge it. Tragically, that early generation wasn't willing to wage war to free the black man. We had our enlightened people, too, as far back as 1688 as Colonials and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society was formed before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Paine was a founding member.
@Planetar17 Impatient? No. But i do get abit vexed when i am called "bias" and "nationalistic" even when all of my evidence comes from American historians and sources.
Im sure you did have your enlightened people. But it wasn't until Britain's Slave Trade Act 1807 that any real measure was introduced in the U.S to limit or stop Slavery.
@Planetar17 See, here is the thing. As a Native slavery was also a part of our society also I've got some English Loyalist slave owning ancestors as well.
I'd love to have nice clean hands to point fingers but I don't.
What I do have is a willingness to be honest about my ancestral faults.
When we made war for land, slaves & wealth that is what we did.
We are not claiming to have been champions of liberty truth & justice.
We are not actually crapping on the US just deflecting the BS you produce
@CodArk2 You're right. It went deep to the very core of their transatlantic compulsion to be rid of the Old World with its tyrannies and social strata and to start a new life in America. That is why America was such a melting pot. Eddy hates that term, but most immigrants had no problem with blending into a common culture over here at first. Sadly, we brought European prejudices with us.
@Planetar17 Yeah, for the most part thats true. Its funny how the brits want to act like we got all our good traits and such from them, but all the bad traits like prejudice just randomly popped up in america and are exclusively american.
@Planetar17 The term melting pot would be fine if upon reaching the new world colonists adopted Native customs, language & beliefs while infusing their own cultures in to that frame work for the betterment of the whole.
In stead the term became "double speak" for English Protestant White supremacy.
That isn't blending & take a look at the reality of immigration policy every wave was treated like slime.
Irish, Chinese even the Japanese interment camps of WW2.
@Eddythebeast666 I never hear Irish, Chinese, or Japanese Americans complain, burn flags, advance Marxism, hate on all English & German white people in spite of the fact a small fraction were actually slave owners. The system worked. Individual prejudices prevailed for seasons, but the system ultimately accepted this influx. It isn't a perfect government, but it works. It survived 236 years. Most white families came after 1865, but all get hated on for the sins of 2 million southern slave owners
Why did it take Rosa Parks' intractability and the assassination of MLK to finally (and most belatedly) implement negroid equality? This apartheid (analogous to the actions of S Africa) occurred right up until the late '60's..
@trouzerpants Because you can't govern the human heart or its prejudices. Nor should you. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 made it illegal to persecute blacks and minorities and religious minorities. After that, it is up to the individuals to work out their differences--and we have, largely. We learned to cooperate with each other. We can't pass laws that require love though. Gov't, stay out of our minds and hearts. That real estate is between a man and his Maker.
@trouzerpants Human nature is human nature. It struggles between yin and yang, good and evil, the old nature and the new, whatever your faith, it is a struggle. We strike a balance and learn to live with each other. 'O wicked man that I am...!' I don't want a wife who is forced by law to love me and I don't want my fellow citizens to be forced by law to experience warmth and affection for each other. For every law regulating 'tolerance', 'sensitivity', there's a loss in personal liberty.
D'ya know that Hendrix would never have made it in the US? To white Americans of that era, he was just a dumb nigga. Contrarily, when he was brought across to London during the swinging '60's, he was treated with the respect he deserved, even worshipped.
It's no wonder he lived and died here...
My point is that it should not have taken race riots and legislation at all, especially in such "enlightened times.."
@trouzerpants What beatnik English journalist decalred it 'enlightened times'? Who are these people who declare eras? They're not elected to declare eras. It is a historian's device. The only thing new is the history you don't know. You use a term like 'white Americans' and dismiss individuals in the tens of millions by lumping them into a demographic. The black man has never lacked for forces of whites that took up his cause.
The Big Smoke during the swinging '60's was the place to be, everyone knows that.
The Black man has had to fight tooth and nail for every bone the white man has ever thrown him, even if that meant fighting the white man's war in Vietnam (most of the draftees where poor, many were Negroes...)
Yo, how's your home-brew? I'm currently quaffing "Spitfire", a bottle-conditioned real ale from the famous Shepherd Neame Brewery. Onto the "Hobgoblin" next. How English ale is the ultimate panacea...
@trouzerpants It got too cold where I stored the beer while priming the bottles. The result is a little flat compared to an ideal batch but even so it has robust flavor that shames most store bought brands. I'm happy with the results. Half the fun is the challenge of getting it right.
I've tried Hobgoblin. Very impressive, sadly my funds limit my access. XD
@trouzerpants Oh we have a few competitively priced micro breweries with a few brands worthy to drink but the worthy ones are done in small quantities & not as often as the better selling swill.
Thus securing a supply of good ale becomes a challenge unless you brew it yourself.
You could never get the stores to bring in a decent supply of Hobgoblin. Not a high enough turn over.
Held all over the country, 100's of different ales, all brewed by lil' micro-breweries you'd never have even heard of, some not to my liking, others, pure nectar.
When I'm in the US, nothing makes me feel further from home than when in some crap bar, all they have on draught is macro-crap (their best is Sam Adams) whilst being bombarded with NASCAR and Basketball. It's those moments I feel at my lowest ebb...
@Eddythebeast666 'Melting pot' was never an official Amendment of the Constitution, to be factual. It was a sentiment, like the words on the Statue of Liberty are a sentiment. Yet regulations and laws were passed to protect immigrants. I don't buy the notion that Hispanics have a birth right to invade my country without going through a legal entry process, anymore than the US had a right to invade Canada. See YT comments on the subject and the militant anti-U.S. revolutionary hatred from them.
@Eddythebeast666 I agree with you on that. And I suspect the Irish and Italian and other immigrants from Europe were encouraged to move west as a means to minimize their influx into Eastern seaboard cities.
@Planetar17 Its the myths that really bother me. Even today life is brutal. Cultures compete & make war, we have to see things as they really were.
If we believe fairly tales of religious freedom, meltingpots, noble founding fathers guided by high ideals in a world so much smaller today then it was then we may not be ready to make the hard choices needed to secure a future.
Brutality & self centered lust for land shaped this land to what it is today.
@Eddythebeast666 It requires a kind of doublethink. On the one hand, you're absolutely correct in your analysis. On the other hand, I want my idealized vision of America to believe in on faith, so to speak. The difference between the two is the challenge of society. We have technology that unites the world, but hatred doesn't go away with lightspeed contact.
Is there nothing in US history that disturbs you? I freely admit that the Empire had some "questionable motives" - can you be so honest and agree that American history is anything but squeaky clean?
@trouzerpants Did I ever say it was squeaky clean? Like a doctor who studies a cancer, he identifies it, and and then cuts it out. That is the objective of our political process. I won't sell out my country's libertarian philosophy because of criminal acts by a succession of its leaders and ignorance of its citizens. The South enslaved and lynched blacks and that is a permanent shame and stigma on our country. Ancient Rome crucified human beings, enslaved all colors. Man does evil to man.
@Planetar17 You have an excellent point & I agree.
We all have our myths & legends. Trust me Native myths are a dime a dozen & look at the British with Author his knights of the round table, Dragon slayers & Robin Hood.
We do need myths they are the guardians of our cultures soul.
We just can't confuse it with history.
Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, the headless Hessian & so many others. They inspire us.
"No taxation without representation" was more a slogan than anything else. They didn't WANT representation in parliament else they'd have been constantly outvoted. The propaganda of the English traitor Paine's works of fiction stirred it up too. The Stamp Act was fair (although clumsily introduced), King George had just spent a fortune on your defence without which you'd have become a French speaking colony. Expansion beyond the Royal Proclamation line was also hugely motivational.
Ironic, the nation King George (at great expense) saved you from was the very same nation Franklyn turned to so shortly after to gift you sovereignty, the same nation you now insultingly label "cheese-eating surrender monkeys..."
@DiscothecaImperialis Maybe he was frightened that the British could retake America and would be in an unquestionable dominant position afterwards...still, Russia had some colonies and trading points in Northwestern America then!
@xHellerxful Hard to judge how a "What if?" would truly play out.
We had all suffered terrible loses in WWI a lot more then the US had actually & we were all democracies as well. Our political leaders would never get elected after WWI if they had hair triggers. So we had all waited as the threat grew.
So now the US likes to boast of its accomplishments during the war. Truth is they were great accomplishments, worthy of every praise but fact is our nations chose to face the threat.
@xHellerxful Blame, no. Envy, yes. The lingering resentment has to do more with how the US promotes its participation now then any reluctance to join a war no one wanted to be in back then.
The main reason there were so many attempts to appease (Hitler which is how he became such a huge threat) is that NONE of us wanted a repeat of WWI. If we had acted earlier at the first sign maybe it would have been different or maybe Hitler wouldn't have turned on the USSR.
@xHellerxful The Military is an excellent means of getting world exposure.You wont exactly be seeing the tourist trap parts of the world though, its better when there isn't a war being fought but even so there are advantages.Don't let the negative stuff about the US get you down. Try to see as competing fans from different sports teams. Yeah some of it is pretty foul & there are few who go too far but truth is the USA is seen as one of the good guys.Not so much when you tried to take over Canada
@xHellerxful It means I was exposed to peoples & cultures that didn't fit in to what I was taught the world was like & it was shocking. I had to completely re-examine who I thought I was, My place in the world & everything I was taught was important.
I was from a small town with 2 TV stations. The Internet didn't exist yet.
Finding my self out in the real world was quite a ride
its amazing how stories of british invincibility stop right after the washington storm and when they start facing US regulars. Its like they hit a brick wall going 70mph
@USMarineRifleman0311 Easier to defend Canada then attack entrenched locations which was part of the problem the US had with the invasion of Canada.
Nor did British invincibility end. Most American historians deliberately omit any mention of British victories after that point as it clashes with illusion that the US fought off invaders instead of the disaster the war truly was for the USA.
The last battle wasn't New Orleans. Nor was that battle as important as implied.
really? The southern flank of the US wasnt worth holding from a British armada?
The Mississippi wasnt worth holding or taking over?
The indians the British were instigating in the south were an irrelevant part of their plan?
New Orleans was the US achilles heel in the first 50yrs of the 19th century. If they took it, they could sail right up the country and land troops to our rear before we could redeploy troops from the eastern seaboard.
@USMarineRifleman0311 No it wasn't important because the war had already ended. The treaty had been signed. After they failed at New Orleans the same British force went on to the Battle of Fort Bowyer on February 12, 1815.
There has never been any proof Britain instigated Native Hostility until after the US declared war & attacked Canada at which point you can hardly complain.
Nor has there been any proof of British intention to conquer the USA.
The taking of Ft Bowyer was not even a worthy footnote in the pages of history. The fort changed hands and the British suffered more re-taking it. The treaty had to be ratified by congress and it had NOT been ratified until after the battle of New Orleans.The victory at New Orleans was devastating for the British and its the only reason they honored the treaty.
Its obvious that if they had won at N.O. they wouldntve
You want proof...3 failed landings on the eastern seaboard.
@USMarineRifleman0311 Only because the US down plays the signifagance of it. The US had spent valuable resources fortifying the location while supposedly fighting for your nations survival.
You can "Black Knight" the event all you want you have no proof of British intentions of US conquest so your claims of disaster would other wise befall are baseless.
I could say if the US took Canada you would have murdered every woman & child. Hyper propaganda with out proof.
There is little wonder as to why there is no significance to this war...The British according to you came over the Atlantic for nothing. The British have come up with many coping arguments to the Revolution itself. Their argument even for that war is that they never had the intention of defeating anyone, hence the small numbers of troops deployed to the colonies.
So we need to remember this war because it did oh so much to stop US expansion.
1:19 - spot the historical blooper!
sorry, i couldn´t resist it.
greymalkinfilms 1 week ago
@greymalkinfilms What blooper?
Xoffalis 1 week ago
Social engineering scares the hell out of me. People who want to 'fix' other people tend to oppress them, 'soft tyranny' them into prescribed behavior patterns. Nanny state laws end up with Islamic radicals spitting on British Army parades and a neutered government unable to kick the bastards out of Britain.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17
Huh? Is that directed at me or is it some kinda quasi-allegorical message..?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Sounds like a vote of support. We ended slavery first & there was no gun to our heads to do it.
When we had the power that's how we used it.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants It is a cultural hairshirt you Brits put on back in the '60s. I meant to say you don't have to feel bad anymore about your Empire history. If you're offended, you're taking it the wrong way. Nevermind. Bad word imagery. In America, to bend over backwards is to be so accomodating you harm yourself to appease another.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17 I thought so. Thanks for the support, I know undercutting a cherished cultural myth can be painful & truth is we are not being very gentlemanly about it but the high moral ground can be lonely.
You have my respect.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
I spent July 4th with one of my mates from Saugus MA (near Boston) back in '10, been to the very site of the Boston "Massacre" & got pissed up on bottles of Heineken down where the Tea was dumped. His family also had friends round, one of whom was a particularly obnoxious, fat, ugly, carpet-munching harpy lemon who attempted to "dance" with me re July 4th. She was the only one, everyone else was politeness personified. Boy did she pick on the wrong man. I knew more than all of 'em put together..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Britain absoloutely raped the yanks in this war.
TheLiberalKnight 3 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight Not really. Americans didn't win this war, but didn't lose either. All the brits here arguing britain won this war are just as jingoistic and nationalistic as the americans they criticize. Neither side won this war.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 You are expressing an opinion with nothing to support it.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 Same with most of the brits and canadians on these videos, expressing opinions with little to support it, but doesn't lessen the opinion though. As for neither side winning the war, thats less an opinion, just depends on which bias you buy into
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 No, victory stalemate or loss depends entirely where the goalposts are placed.
Pulling back the war objectives & saying you never intended to conquer Canada when that was needed at the very least to be used as leverage to achieve US minimal political goals is flagrant revisionist history.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Nah not really. We've given you all the evidence you want. You just refuse to accept it and call everybody bias.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 You only give biiased, one sided history, then pretend americans are the only ones that do such. And you and eddy do it in every single fucking video on this. You are both trolling. You play up american atrocities while ignoring british ones and act like we are the most evil nation on earth. That require strong bias.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CodArk2 "It is absurd to suppose we will not succeed. We have Canada as much under our command as Great Britain has the ocean and the way to conquer her on the ocean is to drive her from the land. I am not for stopping at Quebec or anywhere else, but I would take the whole continent from her and ask her no favours. I wish never to see peace until we do. God has given us the power and the means. We are to blame if we do not use them. The conquest of Canada is in your power." HenryClay
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@CodArk2 I only give biased, one sided history? Look at the source I have just posted. I posted this earlier today and you completely ignored it. It's from Henry Clay, one of the U.S's top politicians of the time. Here's another:
"Shortly after the war got underway the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Henry Clay, solemnly pledged that he would never consent to any treaty of peace that did not include the cession of Canada."
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@CodArk2 "It is absurd to suppose we will not succeed. We have Canada as much under our command as Great Britain has the ocean and the way to conquer her on the ocean is to drive her from the land. I am not for stopping at Quebec or anywhere else, but I would take the whole continent from her and ask her no favours. I wish never to see peace until we do. God has given us the power and the means. We are to blame if we do not use them. The conquest of Canada is in your power." -HenryClay
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 What's that then? I bet you conveniently wont even respond to this...
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 No, the yanks LOST. They thought, 'we'll attack Britain now they're busy fighting the biggest military force in the world, Napoleon. We'll steal Canada and win.' They LOST. And isn't it strange how the yanks hastily singed a peace treaty as soon as they realised Napoleon was screwed? Is that the stench of cowardice?
TheLiberalKnight 2 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight No, it was a draw, not a loss. Most historians agree with that assessment. The only ones that don't are the nationalistic canadians and british that insist england must win everything. You conveniently forget that britain was basically raiding US shipping and taking sailors off our ships. That was the cause of the war, not hunger for land. We were negotiating for peace from the start.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Ha, an American accusing British and Canadian historians of nationalism... what a joke. I'd bet that in American schools, they don't teach you that the US army kidnapped hundreds of Canadians and forced them to fight for the union in the civil war. I'd bet they don't teach you that the Americans colonized Hawaii and other countries. The Americans are notorious for their biased historians and academics.
TheLiberalKnight 2 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight Yes because only americans can be nationalistic, riiiight. You'd bet what they teach in US schools? I went to US schools. The civil war thing was called crimping, and we were taught about it. We were also taught that hawaii was an independent kingdom we basically took over (as well as Philippines and puerto rico in spanish american war). People in other countries think americans are more ignorant than we actually are in most cases.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 I never claimed that 'only americans can be nationalistic'. Every time I visit America, I am outstanded at their lack of knowledge on the topic of the war of independence. They still say that it was because 'George III levied taxes on us and we did not have democracy'. Such ignorance IS widespread, and foreigners find it offensive.
TheLiberalKnight 2 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight Actually the initial cause of the american rebellion against british rule *was* because of taxation. "No taxation without representation" was one of the main causes of the war. As for democracy, we had a democratic government at the time. Most americans do find the idea of monarchy undemocratic, but many know britain had a parliament at the time. George III was insane though
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Thanks for that; you have vindicated my point about Americans being historically illiterate.
TheLiberalKnight 2 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight Alright smart ass, what WAS the reason americans rebelled against britain for? In schools we are taught the primary reasons were taxation without representation and acts by the british govt. that we had no say in. The boston massacre, intolerable acts, and lexington and concord were what happened right before war broke out. if those werent the reasons americans fought, what were?
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
John Locke's writings, basically telling the governed that, if they've got the power and force, they can throw off their chains and govern themselves. The same attitude can be found in the Occupy Wall Street mobs, only they lack power and force and will fail to throw off their imaginary chains. The clergy bought into the ideal, too, using liberty scriptures, 'no divine right of kings', etc, because Christ was King. If we colonized another planet, Earth would face the same hippie rebellions.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17 I know of Locke, but I do not think that was the reason americans rebelled against the british. I mean its abit of a stretch for m to accept that americans were just sitting around, then all of a sudden said "shit, we have more men and guns than the brits, lets govern ourselves!". There were actions that led to us becoming independent besides philosophy, lockes ideas influenced the crafting of our government though.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Seriously, can you not accept that there were ulterior motives in any form?
In regards to the Revolution, it wasn't poor, oppressed peasants calling for independence. It was a small group of the richest men in the country, a number of them smugglers, who were being hurt by Britain's actions. George Washington became the richest man in the country through Indian Land Speculation, the Royal Proclamtion 1763 put a stop to that.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Britain was also working to abolish slavery, it was outlawed in England and Wales in 1772. This obviously alarmed the very wealthy Slave Owners of the South, men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The French - Canadians were given religious and political freedom through the Quebec Act 1774 - this pissed off the staunchly protestant Americans. At the start of the war the ones wanting independence were a minority, and even at their height they were still only a third.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 Those might have been contributing factors, but for the most part it was stuff happening in the colonies. Slavery was not that common at that time actually, most were not rich enough to own slaves (this was true in the civil war as well). The reason america rebelled was because of taxes and the harsh (to the colonists) british response to protests against said taxes.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 "Slavery was not that common at that time actually" - 25% of the American population were Slaves mate.
Love how yet again you have ignored my quote from Henry Clay that practically declares Canada as the prize to be gained in the War of 1812.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 Nah, that is too high a number, i would think 10 percent,at the most, but 1/4th? nope. I cant find anything saying 25 percent of people in the colonies were slaves, and im pretty sure thats too high a number. Some in the US pushed for annexing canada, but that does not make it a cause of the war
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 There were 2.5 Million Colonists at the time of Revolution. Between 400,000 - 500,000 were black slaves.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 actually at the time of the revolution, the US population was 2,792,325 . the slave population was 58,277. Thats about 2 percent.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 No. Over 30,000 alone joined Britain during the Revolution.
"One fifth of the total population was enslaved [1776], about 500,000 African American men, women and children."
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CodArk2 No. Over 30,000 alone joined Britain during the Revolution.
"One fifth of the total population was enslaved [1776], about 500,000 African American men, women and children."
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Dude even ignoring all the evidence to the contrary you had to capture Canada to use as leverage to get what ever crap you claim to have been after.
You failed. Big time. Instead Britain captured a good bit of US territory & used that as leverage to force the US to return lands to Natives. (Article IX)
You lost.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 In capturing canada, yes, we failed. That was not our only objective though. Britain held small amounts of maine and what became minnesota. The US held some land that became canada near detroit as well. The US did not lose the war, militarily it was a stalemate. looking at it from a canada centric biased view we lost, but most believe it was a draw
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 How in Gods name can you call it a military stalemate when Britain had the power to bombard & raid your coastal cities?
You were trapped & powerless to strike back. The only success you had in the final years of the war was when our forces botched our attacks.
You could only hide in your holes & take it.
We had all the initiatives.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 Britain could attack the US, but attacking it and calling that victory are different things. Every time Britain tried invading the US (which you also tried multiple times) you were repulsed. Neither side decisively defeated the other militarily, The US was actually doing rather well in the last year of the war.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 That is exactly why I call British actions raids not invasions. It is US historians hyping British motives that call it invasions. No where is there any historical data that Britain had military plans of permanently occupying the USA & you need to have that. You need to have historical proof that Britain wanted control of the USA before you can say it was something the British failed to do.
They were raids & you lost the war.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 much as canadian historians hype american motives. both sides do this. the brits did plan to occupy US territory, like new york. This was defeated at the battle of lake champlain. There were invasions, not just raids. No one lost this war, except the natives. The US failed at one thing, capturing canada, we got everything else though
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2
Is it pride that denies your ability to accept the US did not gain what it wanted from this war? Mate, Eddy and Ninja have both repeatedly told you that at the peace treaty, the US threw ALL of it's demands from the table whereas GB insisted upon Article IX (US return post 1811 usurped native land which it reneged on.) Even your most eminent historians now accept that although the war may not have initially been motivated by annexation, it sure was as it dragged on.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants The US did not gain land. We pretty much gained everything else we sought. The US didnt throw all demands off the table, the brits had some demands they did not get. Why there is a refusal to accept the war as a draw and not a loss is beyond me, most historians accept this.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CANADA WON WAR OF 1812 US HISTORIAN ADMITS
"In a relatively rare admission for an American scholar, a leading US historian who authored a provocative new tome about North American military conflicts states bluntly that Canada won the War of 1812.Johns Hopkins University professor E Cohen, a senior adviser to former US secretary of state C Rice, writes in his just-published book Conquered Into Liberty that, “ultimately, Canada and Canadians won the War of 1812.”
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
“If the conquest of Canada had not been an American objective when the war began, it surely had become such shortly after it opened,” Cohen argues in the book. “Not only did the colony remain intact: It had acquired heroes, British and French, and a narrative of plucky defence against foreign invasion, that helped carry it to nationhood.” - Eliot Cohen, eminent US historian.
Care to argue with your most eminent historian? He admits that it was a US defeat.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
I do find it slightly amusing that certain Americans desperately need to feel some kinda "positive" from this American debacle whereas the British (by and large) are more than cognisant the only really important theatre of this conflict was in Europe, that all that happened in N America (where GB was HORRIBLY OUTNUMBERED) was of next to no concern at all...
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Its not hype if the facts support the claim. We have supplied quotes showing US motive & intent.
Where the hell are yours? Don't give me historians opinions from 120 years after the fact. Give me quotes of people who shaped policy in the day. That's history.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 The idea the war was all about canada and the US invading canada and if the US had not been greedy and expansionist/imperialist the war wouldn't have started is hype. The war did not start because of canada, it started because of impressment and trade restrictions, canada was just the battlefield
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2
Madison had to "legitimise" his war somehow, just like Bush did with his BS "weapons of mass destruction."
Besides, d'ya really wanna place your confidence in a man who not only ran away, leaving his wife behind to fend for herself (pure cowardice), not to mention altering his memoirs/records/documents in an effort to spare him from an ugly legacy of mendacity, dishonesty, cowardice and embarrassment?
BTW - Whaddya think of the most eminent US historian E Cohen's comments?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 We have built our case on a solid foundation of historical facts & in so doing totally destroyed the "official" US version of events.
You fanatical closed minded defense of US honor when the simple historical truth contradicts it is just pathetic.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 You only use facts that are on your side, while ignoring conflicting evidence. You say it started so the US could invade canada, when most sources say it started for other reasons. The official US version is different than this video, but still holds it was a draw. You fanatical closed minded smearing of US honor when the simple historical truth contradicts often it is just as pathetic.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 I do no such thing.
If the US states that had the majority of sailors who were impressed had voted for the war there would be no argument but that's not what happened. The vast majority of those taken were from anti war Federalist states.
If there was a shred of evidence British were encouraging Native hostility... well I don't care, that was still greed for land ether way.
But Trade issues when Napoleon treated you no better.
Proves my point doesn't it?
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 The Federalist opposition to the war completely undermines your Nations case for the war.
It was they who suffered the injuries & their burden to lead the call for war.
With out them we are forced to look at the motives of those who did call for war & it wasn't Impressment or British slights to American honor.
The only thing US negotiators refused to give ground on was SLAVES. Compensation for SLAVES freed by the British.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 Yes, because the US was the only nation to practice slavery. No one else did. right. And of course, to you the war was all about conquest and slavery, even though, you know, it wasnt. But anything to make america look evil and monstrous
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 I don't have to do anything aside for point out the facts. I didn't call it evil. That is your mind filling in the blanks because that is what it actually was. That's why we don't do that any more. You know as we look closer it looks bad for the USA.
Your negotiators even gave ground on land issues with article IX all the fucking human turds your nation sent to make peace cared about was fucking SLAVES.
Most are smart enough to know politicians lie why do you defend these guys?
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 Because you focus on slavery and natives as pretty much the only things the US has done. something that eclipses anything good our nation has done at all. I find slavery evil, but the US was not the only or biggest practicer of it. There were other negotiations besides slaves. At the time slavery was legal in canada and the british empire, so on slavery you have no high ground.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Slavery was not legal in Canada at the time of the War of 1812, Simcoe had stamped it out. It had also been outlawed in England and Wales in 1774 and the Slave Trade as a whole was abolished in 1807.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 Slavery in what now comprises Canada existed into the 1830s, when slavery was officially abolished. The slave trade was abolished across the British Empire in 1833. The act of 1807 abolished the slave trade in the *British Empire* (not worldwide), but not slavery itself.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 "John Graves Simcoe, first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, was responsible for ending slavery in Upper Canada long before it was abolished in the British Empire as a whole – by 1810 there were no slaves in Upper Canada."
By 1833 Slavery had already gradually been phased out. Hence the passing of the Abolition Act 1833.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 In upper canada, but there was lower canada and newfoundland too. Slavery in the US was also gradually vanishing, especially in the north. The only reason the south clung to it was because of agriculture (which canada did not have the climate for like the southern US did).Slavery was not a widespread practice in the US either, with only the wealthiest owning slaves.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CodArk2 Not widespread? 20 - 25% of the population was enslaved and no measure was taken to stop or limit it until Britain's Slave Trade Act 1807.
"One fifth of the total population was enslaved [1776], about 500,000 African American men, women and children."
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 All of which is beside the point.
The only reason Slavery is a issue is because it was a major motivating factor of Madison & the War Hawks.
When England and Wales ended it in 1774 Slave owners in the colonies Rebelled seeing it as a threat & sided with France.
When France ended it during their Rev. the US broke with them Quasi War.
When Napoleon brought it back, hello 1812 war.
You couldn't even end it in your own country with out a Civil war.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 The american revolution did not start because of slavery. Full stop. It started in massachusetts, slavery was more in the south. Saying the US only got into wars because of slavery is wrong. The only war the US got into where slavery played a major role in the cause was the civil war. And slavery was not the main or only cause there either
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 I'm mostly just messing with you now, Hard to take you seriously.
Of your founding fathers Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington & Madison owned slaves.
My Loyalist slave owing ancestor freed his slaves to fight as free men for the King.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 I've been sparring with this dude on other channels. He offers nothing but conjecture then calls you Anti-American when you present him with detailed evidence.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 I wonder if this guy is a Glen Beck fan?
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 I dont have cable TV.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 Jeez Glenn Beck. Man what a character. Love his rants, for all the wrong reasons though. That guy chats utter bollocks but his sheer stupidity cracks me up haha.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 He certainly gave Jon Stewart lots of material.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666
Yummmm - the "Old Empire" (Marston's) is goin' down the 'atch pretty damn smoothly - even gotta lil' map on the front of the bottle depicting it's geographic route from GB to the Raj...
HUZZAH
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
It's weird how the Americans viewed Tecumseh as the prime "Enemy of the State" yet, after they'd desecrated his body (wasn't he skinned?), they then erect statues of him in some kinda sick deference.
Perhaps the only good injun [sic] is a dead one...
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 And? most people did not own slaves. Acting like america was all about slavery is false. There were onyl about 60 thousand slaves in the US at independence, almost 3 million freemen. America was not built on slavery nor was it widely practiced. I refuse to feel guilt for something I have not had any part in, nor my ancestors (who were not slaveowners).
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 25% of the population. 500,000 Slaves! Not 60,000. Between 30 - 40,000 alone joined the British during the Revolution. How much evidence have I presented you with and yet you still refuse to accept any other view except your own?
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 He is going to change the subject to WW2 with in the next 3 posts.
Wanna bet?
He does it every time we knock him down this far. Or he goes to a different 1812 video & repeats the same crap as if he wasn't proven wrong already.
I'd almost think he was a troll bot he is so predictable.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 If anyone is a troll its you. I see you on every single war of 1812 video going on about how evil the US is and how it was all greed the war started for. When anyone contests this they are a stupid american to be condescending to. You basically troll these videos and attack anyone without an anti-american viewpoint. Disagreement is fine, but you meet the troll criteria more than I do.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Just doing my part to correct a historical wrong.
Do you want to silence a Native with a just cause?
Want to shut up the uppity Injun?
Do ya Yankee?
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 What happened 200 years ago is not something I feel responsibility for. Hating the US and no other nation is not a just cause. The US was far from the only nation to kill or mistreat natives, nor were we the worst about it either. I mean natives are the majority in canada and are dominant in society right? right? Oh....yeah..they aren't. wonder why....must be americas fault somehow.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 You should not be defending US myths about the 1812 war. The more you do that the worse your nation looks.
I've been fighting local BS towards Natives, if the British want to spin a fantasy about how things were & call it history I'll fight them as well but generally they know better.
I'm here now because some of your idiots are damn well asking for it.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 Depends on the myth. Some myths I wont defend, others are others myths about the US they are defending and are upset to see proven wrong. This doesnt really focus on the natives, it actually glosses over it too much, US history tends to cover it much better
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2
Heh man, we (the Brits) are big enough to admit our foul play (Opium Wars are a "fine" example), why can't you man up and just admit that this was not a just war?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants I never said it was a just war. I said the US did not lose it. There is a difference.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2
Many eminent historians (including an ever increasing number of American ones) disagree with you...
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Most contend it was a draw, not a british victory. The only ones seeming to say britain won are british or canadians
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CANADA WON WAR OF 1812 US HISTORIAN ADMITS
"In a relatively rare admission for an American scholar, a leading US historian who authored a provocative new tome about North American military conflicts states bluntly that Canada won the War of 1812.Johns Hopkins University professor E Cohen, a senior adviser to former US secretary of state C Rice, writes in his just-published book Conquered Into Liberty that, “ultimately, Canada and Canadians won the War of 1812.”
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
“If the conquest of Canada had not been an American objective when the war began, it surely had become such shortly after it opened,” Cohen argues in the book. “Not only did the colony remain intact: It had acquired heroes, British and French, and a narrative of plucky defence against foreign invasion, that helped carry it to nationhood.” - Eliot Cohen, eminent US historian.
He disagrees with you, as do other eminent (American) historians..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
The book also echoes a key message trumpeted by the fed Conservative government in recent weeks as it unveiled ambitious plans to commemorate the bicentennial of the War of 1812 over the next 3 years: that the successful fight by British, English, French-Canadian & First Nations allies to resist would-be American conquerors (battles such as Queenston Heights and Chateauguay) set the stage for the creation of a unified and independent Canada a half-century later.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
A penny for your thoughts?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Every nation has lost wars. It's no disgrace.
"He who in war has made no mistakes has not made war very long." - Napoleon
Crashin' now, fella.
Laters...
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 No, it was not 25 percent of the population. Otherwise we would have had to conduct a massive genocide against blacks in the US. The first US census had 60,000 slaves in the US. Even in the 1860 census there were 1,775,515 slaves. Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S. (1970) . I live in the south, which has more blacks than other parts of the US, and even here it never was that high.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Well then you're obviously misinformed. Just go on Google and find out. Im sure it will back me up.
During the Revolution alone, Georgia lost about a third of its slaves and South Carolina lost almost 25,000 alone, who mainly left with the British. Yet by 1810 the number had doubled to almost twice as many as they originally had.
ONE FIFTH OF THE POPULATION DURING THE REVOLUTION WERE SLAVES.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 He gets his info from Conservapedia.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 ive actually never heard of conservapedia, but whatever.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 The leaders of the Revolution did own slaves before you put them on a pedestal & hold them up as representational of your nations Ideals you might want to think about it.
You don't have to feel bad at all, hell man I got slave owners in my tree only one of them freed his slaves but you do have to stop defending the bull crap your founding fathers did in the name of personal privilege. NOT LIBERTY.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275
I believe our $350,000 slave compensation speaks volumes...
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Sure says a lot about our generosity at the time.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 Those issues Slavery & Natives dominated most of the USA's existence for the first 100 years.
You can not edit them out.
What good are you talking about from that period & specifically tied to the events of the 1812 war?
Land & Slaves is all I see brought up by the US at Ghent. No sailors rights or even neutral trade rights. Maybe if you had sent a Federalist to negotiate in stead of a War hawk.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 dominated to some, there were other thigns going on. The focus on slavery and the natives to the exclusion of all else in our history belittles it. Thats not all the US was about. I am no expert on this time period, but most of what i see here is just america bashing and opinions being passed off as fact to make the US look bad. This video is not what most americans believe happened anyway
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 This is a discussion about the 1812 war not all of US history is on the line unless you want to bring up WW2 again.
If I may suggest you question the larger British motives during the Napoleonic wars you might make some headway but I doubt it. Britain had a really good case but at least there is some lingering controversy there.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 You're awfully impatient as a historian. Slavery vexed a majority of Americans and there were early efforts to expunge it. Tragically, that early generation wasn't willing to wage war to free the black man. We had our enlightened people, too, as far back as 1688 as Colonials and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society was formed before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Paine was a founding member.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17
Perhaps Ninja's vexation is exacerbated by the innumerable Americans who's historical "knowledge" is firmly based in mythology rather than fact...
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17 Impatient? No. But i do get abit vexed when i am called "bias" and "nationalistic" even when all of my evidence comes from American historians and sources.
Im sure you did have your enlightened people. But it wasn't until Britain's Slave Trade Act 1807 that any real measure was introduced in the U.S to limit or stop Slavery.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17 See, here is the thing. As a Native slavery was also a part of our society also I've got some English Loyalist slave owning ancestors as well.
I'd love to have nice clean hands to point fingers but I don't.
What I do have is a willingness to be honest about my ancestral faults.
When we made war for land, slaves & wealth that is what we did.
We are not claiming to have been champions of liberty truth & justice.
We are not actually crapping on the US just deflecting the BS you produce
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@CodArk2 You're right. It went deep to the very core of their transatlantic compulsion to be rid of the Old World with its tyrannies and social strata and to start a new life in America. That is why America was such a melting pot. Eddy hates that term, but most immigrants had no problem with blending into a common culture over here at first. Sadly, we brought European prejudices with us.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17 Yeah, for the most part thats true. Its funny how the brits want to act like we got all our good traits and such from them, but all the bad traits like prejudice just randomly popped up in america and are exclusively american.
CodArk2 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17 The term melting pot would be fine if upon reaching the new world colonists adopted Native customs, language & beliefs while infusing their own cultures in to that frame work for the betterment of the whole.
In stead the term became "double speak" for English Protestant White supremacy.
That isn't blending & take a look at the reality of immigration policy every wave was treated like slime.
Irish, Chinese even the Japanese interment camps of WW2.
"Melting pot" is a feel good myth
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 I never hear Irish, Chinese, or Japanese Americans complain, burn flags, advance Marxism, hate on all English & German white people in spite of the fact a small fraction were actually slave owners. The system worked. Individual prejudices prevailed for seasons, but the system ultimately accepted this influx. It isn't a perfect government, but it works. It survived 236 years. Most white families came after 1865, but all get hated on for the sins of 2 million southern slave owners
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17
Why did it take Rosa Parks' intractability and the assassination of MLK to finally (and most belatedly) implement negroid equality? This apartheid (analogous to the actions of S Africa) occurred right up until the late '60's..
Why?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Because you can't govern the human heart or its prejudices. Nor should you. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 made it illegal to persecute blacks and minorities and religious minorities. After that, it is up to the individuals to work out their differences--and we have, largely. We learned to cooperate with each other. We can't pass laws that require love though. Gov't, stay out of our minds and hearts. That real estate is between a man and his Maker.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17
You shouldn't need to legislate for fraternity, egalitarianism and common decency...
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Human nature is human nature. It struggles between yin and yang, good and evil, the old nature and the new, whatever your faith, it is a struggle. We strike a balance and learn to live with each other. 'O wicked man that I am...!' I don't want a wife who is forced by law to love me and I don't want my fellow citizens to be forced by law to experience warmth and affection for each other. For every law regulating 'tolerance', 'sensitivity', there's a loss in personal liberty.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17
D'ya know that Hendrix would never have made it in the US? To white Americans of that era, he was just a dumb nigga. Contrarily, when he was brought across to London during the swinging '60's, he was treated with the respect he deserved, even worshipped.
It's no wonder he lived and died here...
My point is that it should not have taken race riots and legislation at all, especially in such "enlightened times.."
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants What beatnik English journalist decalred it 'enlightened times'? Who are these people who declare eras? They're not elected to declare eras. It is a historian's device. The only thing new is the history you don't know. You use a term like 'white Americans' and dismiss individuals in the tens of millions by lumping them into a demographic. The black man has never lacked for forces of whites that took up his cause.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17
The Big Smoke during the swinging '60's was the place to be, everyone knows that.
The Black man has had to fight tooth and nail for every bone the white man has ever thrown him, even if that meant fighting the white man's war in Vietnam (most of the draftees where poor, many were Negroes...)
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
*were
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17 I thought this was a history discussion?
Are you telling me you don't know the manner in which the US greeted waves of Immigration of those nationalities?
How about modern day Hispanic protests in Arizona?
We are getting side tracked. I don't care. If Natives had a better Immigration policy we wouldn't be having this conversation.
My point is don't use the phrase "Melting pot" for Anglo Christian white supremacist policy.
Its an offensive lie.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666
Yo, how's your home-brew? I'm currently quaffing "Spitfire", a bottle-conditioned real ale from the famous Shepherd Neame Brewery. Onto the "Hobgoblin" next. How English ale is the ultimate panacea...
LOL
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants It got too cold where I stored the beer while priming the bottles. The result is a little flat compared to an ideal batch but even so it has robust flavor that shames most store bought brands. I'm happy with the results. Half the fun is the challenge of getting it right.
I've tried Hobgoblin. Very impressive, sadly my funds limit my access. XD
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666
You brew your own beer? What's wrong with just goin' down the local supermarket and buying your faves off the shelf?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Unless of course, all they sell is Labatts, Bud and other generic, macro-brewed piss of that ilk..!
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Oh we have a few competitively priced micro breweries with a few brands worthy to drink but the worthy ones are done in small quantities & not as often as the better selling swill.
Thus securing a supply of good ale becomes a challenge unless you brew it yourself.
You could never get the stores to bring in a decent supply of Hobgoblin. Not a high enough turn over.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666
You'd love British beer festivals...
Held all over the country, 100's of different ales, all brewed by lil' micro-breweries you'd never have even heard of, some not to my liking, others, pure nectar.
When I'm in the US, nothing makes me feel further from home than when in some crap bar, all they have on draught is macro-crap (their best is Sam Adams) whilst being bombarded with NASCAR and Basketball. It's those moments I feel at my lowest ebb...
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 'Melting pot' was never an official Amendment of the Constitution, to be factual. It was a sentiment, like the words on the Statue of Liberty are a sentiment. Yet regulations and laws were passed to protect immigrants. I don't buy the notion that Hispanics have a birth right to invade my country without going through a legal entry process, anymore than the US had a right to invade Canada. See YT comments on the subject and the militant anti-U.S. revolutionary hatred from them.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17 Again this is a side track. I don't care. What happened to Natives is proof that an open arms policy is stupid. Suicidal.
My point was please don't use the term. Its a lie. A sugar coating myth in stark contrast to the reality.
The US waves of immigration allowed by your government where all permitted to settle in lands actively being stolen from Natives.
Your government did this by denying Natives rights of citizenship until the 1920's & then at the expense of Native rights.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 I agree with you on that. And I suspect the Irish and Italian and other immigrants from Europe were encouraged to move west as a means to minimize their influx into Eastern seaboard cities.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17 Its the myths that really bother me. Even today life is brutal. Cultures compete & make war, we have to see things as they really were.
If we believe fairly tales of religious freedom, meltingpots, noble founding fathers guided by high ideals in a world so much smaller today then it was then we may not be ready to make the hard choices needed to secure a future.
Brutality & self centered lust for land shaped this land to what it is today.
There are still many hungry eyes looking here
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 It requires a kind of doublethink. On the one hand, you're absolutely correct in your analysis. On the other hand, I want my idealized vision of America to believe in on faith, so to speak. The difference between the two is the challenge of society. We have technology that unites the world, but hatred doesn't go away with lightspeed contact.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17
Is there nothing in US history that disturbs you? I freely admit that the Empire had some "questionable motives" - can you be so honest and agree that American history is anything but squeaky clean?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Did I ever say it was squeaky clean? Like a doctor who studies a cancer, he identifies it, and and then cuts it out. That is the objective of our political process. I won't sell out my country's libertarian philosophy because of criminal acts by a succession of its leaders and ignorance of its citizens. The South enslaved and lynched blacks and that is a permanent shame and stigma on our country. Ancient Rome crucified human beings, enslaved all colors. Man does evil to man.
Planetar17 2 weeks ago
@Planetar17 You have an excellent point & I agree.
We all have our myths & legends. Trust me Native myths are a dime a dozen & look at the British with Author his knights of the round table, Dragon slayers & Robin Hood.
We do need myths they are the guardians of our cultures soul.
We just can't confuse it with history.
Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, the headless Hessian & so many others. They inspire us.
Eddythebeast666 2 weeks ago
@Cod
"No taxation without representation" was more a slogan than anything else. They didn't WANT representation in parliament else they'd have been constantly outvoted. The propaganda of the English traitor Paine's works of fiction stirred it up too. The Stamp Act was fair (although clumsily introduced), King George had just spent a fortune on your defence without which you'd have become a French speaking colony. Expansion beyond the Royal Proclamation line was also hugely motivational.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Ironic, the nation King George (at great expense) saved you from was the very same nation Franklyn turned to so shortly after to gift you sovereignty, the same nation you now insultingly label "cheese-eating surrender monkeys..."
A penny for your thoughts..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
*Franklin
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
so is it the Czar of Russia who put a stop to this war?
what was his motivations he has in mind? what did he fear? what did he believe if the war drags on?
DiscothecaImperialis 1 month ago
@DiscothecaImperialis Maybe he was frightened that the British could retake America and would be in an unquestionable dominant position afterwards...still, Russia had some colonies and trading points in Northwestern America then!
Jagertal 3 weeks ago
blah blah..ill say it once and ill say it again..dont fuck wit the N.O., home sweet home
guerillafilmproduct 1 month ago
Our pathetic army last till today
planewire2153 2 months ago
" Sure the oil helps but the Middle east had lots of that & still turned in to a crap hole thanks to the US."
I dont know what i would call the Saddam led Iraq.
Choblik 3 months ago
@Choblik Saddam was an American pawn for most of his time in power
Eddythebeast666 3 months ago
I'm pretty sure Andrew Jackson didn't have a black voice
cj62392 3 months ago
Really a pleasure to watch.
planetrockford 3 months ago
@planetrockford Sure if you are bigoted jingoistic American it would warm your cockles.
Anyone with a respect for history would cringe. If you a Native such as my self (Mi'kmaq) its all I can do not to throw up.
Eddythebeast666 3 months ago
our national anthem is a British drinking song? Huh. interesting.
ImExtremelyB0red 4 months ago
@xHellerxful Hard to judge how a "What if?" would truly play out.
We had all suffered terrible loses in WWI a lot more then the US had actually & we were all democracies as well. Our political leaders would never get elected after WWI if they had hair triggers. So we had all waited as the threat grew.
So now the US likes to boast of its accomplishments during the war. Truth is they were great accomplishments, worthy of every praise but fact is our nations chose to face the threat.
Eddythebeast666 4 months ago
@xHellerxful Blame, no. Envy, yes. The lingering resentment has to do more with how the US promotes its participation now then any reluctance to join a war no one wanted to be in back then.
The main reason there were so many attempts to appease (Hitler which is how he became such a huge threat) is that NONE of us wanted a repeat of WWI. If we had acted earlier at the first sign maybe it would have been different or maybe Hitler wouldn't have turned on the USSR.
Eddythebeast666 4 months ago
@xHellerxful The Military is an excellent means of getting world exposure.You wont exactly be seeing the tourist trap parts of the world though, its better when there isn't a war being fought but even so there are advantages.Don't let the negative stuff about the US get you down. Try to see as competing fans from different sports teams. Yeah some of it is pretty foul & there are few who go too far but truth is the USA is seen as one of the good guys.Not so much when you tried to take over Canada
Eddythebeast666 4 months ago
@xHellerxful It means I was exposed to peoples & cultures that didn't fit in to what I was taught the world was like & it was shocking. I had to completely re-examine who I thought I was, My place in the world & everything I was taught was important.
I was from a small town with 2 TV stations. The Internet didn't exist yet.
Finding my self out in the real world was quite a ride
Eddythebeast666 4 months ago
its amazing how stories of british invincibility stop right after the washington storm and when they start facing US regulars. Its like they hit a brick wall going 70mph
USMarineRifleman0311 4 months ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 Easier to defend Canada then attack entrenched locations which was part of the problem the US had with the invasion of Canada.
Nor did British invincibility end. Most American historians deliberately omit any mention of British victories after that point as it clashes with illusion that the US fought off invaders instead of the disaster the war truly was for the USA.
The last battle wasn't New Orleans. Nor was that battle as important as implied.
Eddythebeast666 4 months ago
@Eddythebeast666
really? The southern flank of the US wasnt worth holding from a British armada?
The Mississippi wasnt worth holding or taking over?
The indians the British were instigating in the south were an irrelevant part of their plan?
New Orleans was the US achilles heel in the first 50yrs of the 19th century. If they took it, they could sail right up the country and land troops to our rear before we could redeploy troops from the eastern seaboard.
how stupid are you
USMarineRifleman0311 4 months ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 No it wasn't important because the war had already ended. The treaty had been signed. After they failed at New Orleans the same British force went on to the Battle of Fort Bowyer on February 12, 1815.
There has never been any proof Britain instigated Native Hostility until after the US declared war & attacked Canada at which point you can hardly complain.
Nor has there been any proof of British intention to conquer the USA.
If you know of such proof please give reference.
Eddythebeast666 4 months ago
@Eddythebeast666
The taking of Ft Bowyer was not even a worthy footnote in the pages of history. The fort changed hands and the British suffered more re-taking it. The treaty had to be ratified by congress and it had NOT been ratified until after the battle of New Orleans.The victory at New Orleans was devastating for the British and its the only reason they honored the treaty.
Its obvious that if they had won at N.O. they wouldntve
You want proof...3 failed landings on the eastern seaboard.
USMarineRifleman0311 4 months ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 Only because the US down plays the signifagance of it. The US had spent valuable resources fortifying the location while supposedly fighting for your nations survival.
You can "Black Knight" the event all you want you have no proof of British intentions of US conquest so your claims of disaster would other wise befall are baseless.
I could say if the US took Canada you would have murdered every woman & child. Hyper propaganda with out proof.
Eddythebeast666 4 months ago
@Eddythebeast666
There is little wonder as to why there is no significance to this war...The British according to you came over the Atlantic for nothing. The British have come up with many coping arguments to the Revolution itself. Their argument even for that war is that they never had the intention of defeating anyone, hence the small numbers of troops deployed to the colonies.
So we need to remember this war because it did oh so much to stop US expansion.
USMarineRifleman0311 4 months ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 The British came to defend Canada if you have proof of any other intentions please give reference so I can adjust my views.
American historians have never produced such before. Britain's objectives have always focused upon Napoleon in Europe.
You are making an emotionally based Propaganda argument not an unbiased factual assessment of history.
Eddythebeast666 4 months ago