@ledzzappa it would take longer than that lol its an impossible proposition many stronger armies in the world today . However it would be pointless as the full weight of the Commonwealth would crash down on the invaders.. makes me feel safe knowing we have alot of allies here in Canada :) .. the whole commonwealth the brits especially :) and tbh it doesnt hurt to get on the Americans good side ;) .. were also in pretty tight with China right now haha
"I think both sides were very happy to have that war ended, certainly the Americans were. The Americans were going broke, their New England shipping was a shambles. New England almost seceded from the Union at the Hartford Convention. It was a war that everybody was sick of and it was not the easy thing that some people had pictured at the beginning. America's first Vietnam, yes, good analogy. We had always claimed before Vietnam that we'd never lost a war. Well, it's a question of definition.
Usually if your criterion is whether you obtained your objectives in a war, we lost that one as much as we lost Vietnam. We just came back to our own shores and that was the end of it. Painted differently.
I don't know whether we ever thought we'd win the Vietnam war with the back of our hand. Maybe we didn't even think we were in a war for a long time but in both cases it was a question of getting out with peace and honor.
We thought we'd done all right in Vietnam until '75 when Hanoi (Saigon) fell. We thought we'd pretty well accomplished our mission at that point but we didn't. There's a lot of parallel." - John Eisenhower
"People like to call this the second American Revolution, but I really prefer not to myself. I'd like to call it America's first Vietnam. For the simple reason that the Americans became embroiled in a conflict that brought dissension, that brought a great deal of consternation throughout American cities." - Patrick Wilder
When details of the peace treaty reached the United States, Americans were astounded to discover that it contained no clauses forbidding the seizure by Britain of American sailors, no restrictions on British support for frontier Aboriginals and no restraints on British interference with American commerce on the high seas. These primary causes of the conflict were unresolved. Newspapers were quick to criticize a treaty, that failed to mention the major causes of the conflict.
@eddythebeast666 when ever the Indians killed it was called a massacre but the Americans looted and killed loads of Indians in the name of war. At least the British honoured treaties with the Indians and stop expansion. But going back to the treaty with the Indians we all know that the British were using Indians for raids look at Joseph brant?.
@Emomars102 Yes British were happy to use Natives & did so very effectively.
Thing is they made no secret about it.
Tecumseh had worked for British before.
At the Treaty of Paris 1783 the USA agreed to compensate Loyalist then failed to deliver so rather the start a war over it Britain openly backed Native forces during the Northwest Indian war of 1785–1795.
Many US historians make reference to this but those issues had all been dealt with by the Jay treaty 1794.
@eddythebeast666 There is not enough evidence to support that there were crates of guns supplied to the natives.But it makes sense that the Indians wanted to fight for there land back, some it seems likely that we did supply them. As how else would the natives acquire them guns. The Canadian Militia were well armed for the defence of Canada as seen throughout the campaign of 1812.
@Emomars102 We had treaties going back to the French Indian war & Pontiac war (Before the Amer. Rev.) that obligated Britain to give gifts & trade fairly with Natives. So yes there was trade with Natives but it had nothing to do with hostile intent toward the USA.
In that same speech Madison demands the right for the USA to trade with Napoleon.
Kind of hypocritical isn't it? Stop trading with Natives we want to kill & let us trade with Napoleon.
@Emomars102 Natives to the south offered more agricultural goods for trade so yes there was British interest in the area. Rivers were major trade routs.
But I think its important to understand that all British interests were filtered through the events in Europe. So called American territories gained by the Louisiana Purchase had mainly French inhabitants.
To British eyes that whole region was a French colony fling an American flag of convince.
@Emomars102 Best to use Madison own words from his war speech.
"It is difficult to account for the activity & combinations which have for some time been developing themselves among tribes in constant intercourse with British traders & garrisons without connecting their hostility with that influence."
What he is saying is "Its hard to believe the Natives would hostile about our taking their land if they were not being encouraged by the British"
@Emomars102 Some US historians make reference to Harrison's reports from Prophitstown of crates of British guns but the reports don't make sense with what we know about the situation.
Why would there be a stock pile of guns in Native hands when there was a shortage of them to supply militia in Canada?
Why wouldn't they have been distributed among the Natives who did battle just the night before?
If there were extra why not take them with Tecumseh who was recruiting to the south?
Jackson did a good job of defending this line and holding the city respect to him. Stupid of the British troops to forget the ladders!. Eddythebeast666 is right that the natives were fighting for land Britain granted land to the Indians after the revolutionary war for there efforts in helping the crown in America. This is backed up by Joseph brant in the revolutionary war and his son who lead the Indians against America in 1812.
America won because of the battle of Plattsburgh (lake Champlain) and Baltimore. It changed the way the treaty was written. Originally the British were going to keep the land they took (Uti possidetis). Canadians think the U.S wanted to keep Canada once (and if) they took it, which is Bull shit. A week after the war started, Madison already sent diplomats to negotiate peace. If he wanted to take Canada, why did he want peace so quick? America failed in 1775 and won that war.
@Dglaproductions America did not win. You cannot just look at the military perspective of the war. Regardless of what the reasons were for invading Canada - that WAS your strategic war aim. You needed Canada in order to settle on favourable peace terms. Besides do you really think the US would just give Canada back to Britain? No way. Madison did not send diplomats until mid - 1813, there were a few American diplomats in London but they were operating independently with no -
@Ninja1275 The United States wanted to take Canada until the British listened to them. Do I really think the United States would give Canada back? Yes I do. The Canadians didn't want the United States there. How were they going to control them? The American army was small, in the end they would, and they knew it. Do you think the British would have given American land back to the United States? Now way. They were forced to after those two battles I mentioned.
@Dglaproductions "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent." - Thomas Jefferson 1812.
There is a ton of documented proof. American soldiers wore caps with the motto "Conquer or die". James Monroe demanded the cession of Canada in the original negotiations in 1813.
@Dglaproductions - authorisation. Britain offered peace in 1812 (they offered a return to Status Quo) and the US rejected this. Then in 1813 while Britain was again offering peace on the basis of Status Quo, James Monroe was demanding the cession of Canada to the United States. Only in 1814 when the war in Europe ended and Britain could focus its full attention on America did the US Government drop their demands (including Canada, impressment etc) and simply ask for peace.
@Ninja1275 Why would the United States accept to go Back to the way things were? British supplied natives attacking settlements, mistreatment of U.S Sailors. Why go let it go back to that? Madison sent James Monroe on June 12, 1812 to begin peace talks. The Canadians and British ONLY think the United states wanted to annex and keep Canada. Nonsense. Granted there were officers trying to get the Canadians to join the U.S, just like the tried in 1775. Doesn't make it a war goal.
@Dglaproductions American officials and politicians thought the Canadians would welcome them with open arms - that they would see them as liberators and flock to their banner. Seizing Canada was the only way you could win the war and you failed. Britain conceded nothing to the US in terms of land or Maritime issues such as Impressment and neutrality of the seas. Whereas the US eventually accepted peace and conceded to the British demand to return Native lands.
@Ninja1275 We already covered all that you said. I already Acknowledged the Americans trying to have the Canadains fight with the U.S, but they said no, like they did in 1775. I already Acknowledged government INTEREST in taking Canada, their is no documented PROOF of them ordering its Annexation. The whole argument for the annexation of Canada is Canadian bull crap. Did the Americans not do this in 1775? Did they not fail the Canadian campaign, and still win the war? Yes they did.
@Dglaproductions In 1775 the invasion of Canada was one theatre of the war. You could lose there but still achieve independence. Which you did. In 1812 the invasion of Canada was the only way you could win. You needed to invade and conqeuer Canada in order for Britain to come to terms. When this failed and British reinforcements began arriving en masse there was no way you could win or even lauch offensives - only defend until the delegations in Europe came to a compromise.
@Ninja1275 Canada was a theater of war also... and it wasn't the only way the U.S could win, it was the only place we could attack. Tell me this. HOW can America fight Britain, when they are on the other side of the Atlantic with a bigger, better navy? Explain this to me. The U.S had many impressive naval victories, but still the U.S navy wouldn't have stood a chance crossing the Atlantic. Canada was the only option. The U.S didn't NEED to conquer all of Canada..now you're making things up.
@Ninja1275 Just because taking Canada failed doesn't mean anything. The United States Failed to do this in the revolution, and still won the war. The War of 1812 was a smaller, pointless version of the first war. The whole war could have been prevented with better communication. The argument for annexing Canada for personal gain is Completely invalid. No documented proof. There have been written documents of interest in taking Canada granted, but none saying they would go through with it.
@Dglaproductions All of the reasons America listed as causes of war were caused by American actions. They were encouraging desertion from the Royal Navy - almost 10% of the US merchant fleet were British. Britain could not afford this while in the middle of a world war against Napoleon. If the US had not been supplying a European tyrant in the same mold as Hitler they would not have been denied trade with France. If they hadnt been exterminating the natives they wouldnt have fought back.
@Ninja1275 Impressment and what happened at the Chesapeake is an act of war. No matter how much you want to sugar coat it. British Arms and crates were found by Harrison after a U.S Native battle in 1811. Were did they come from? Did they magically appear? No, they were given to the natives. The British were going to keep the land they took in the war, until after the battle of Baltimore, which put an end to that.
@Dglaproductions Britain was well within their right to trade with the natives. There was no law preventing it and we had been trading with them since before the US even existed. The US traded with the southern native tribes such as the Choctaw, why is it wrong for us to do so? If you hadnt been attacking them and stealing their lands they would not have fought back. We did not arm natives in Florida, where is your proof? Florida was attacked because Spain was weak.
@Ninja1275 (2) You bias is annoying. It wasn't because Spain was weak, It was because of the Natives AND Jackson wanted to drive the British from the City Pensacola (Battle of Pensacola 1814) After winning, he left not because he "failed" (which he didn't), but because he believed Alabama would be a new target. Also before attacking Florida, Jackson had plans to LEAVE after removing the British, and go to New Orleans. He made these plans BEFORE the attack.
@Ninja1275 (3) So you acknowledge the British giving them arms. Whether it was in British right or not, Settlers were getting killed because of it. The problem was solved because of the war. It doesn't matter if it was discussed in the treaty, The Native threat was destroyed, plan and simple. It's not "Bowing" is you apologies. Did king George Bow before Washington because he lost? No. Cornwallis? No. That's not what made the British change their mind, it was the Emancipation Proclamation.
@Dglaproductions American settlers were not being killed because of British arms. They were being killed because they were stealing Native lands.
Are you saying Natives did not have a right to do so?
Right now American guns kill more Canadians then any other Nation on earth.
Is the USA deliberately arming Canadian criminals? Is this a Plot? We Know the US government deliberately armed Mexican drug smugglers. These guns carry the US markings.
Admit it the US is deliberately murdering Canadians.XD
@Eddythebeast666 The Native were in their right to, no doubt about that. Never the less, it was against American Interests and they wanted it to stop.
In regards to Vietnam - 50,000 Casualties and no objectives achieved, with the North eventually taking over the South. Trying to argue anything but a defeat is preposterous.
@Ninja1275 50,000 U.S Casualties to 1,000,000 NV Casualties. North Failed to take the south from the U.S. The war Ended Politically. The North Attacked After The treaty was signed. The U.S Achieved their Goal at the Treaty. The North Attacked Again after it was signed when All U.S troops were Gone. The Goal was to Stop the North Spreading to the South which was achieved on peace treaty. The North simply attacked again when the U.S left. So no, it's not a defeat.
@Dglaproductions Impressment ended before the war began. But the US demanded Britain relinquish all rights to use it, up until 1814, when the war shifted and Britain would not budge on the issue, so it was dropped.
The Natives were not crushed. Tecumseh was dead but Native resistance continued for the next 100 years for Christ's Sake. By the terms of the Treaty you agreed to give the Natives all their lands back, therefore on paper the Natives gained a concession from the US.
@Ninja1275 (2) It doesn't Matter. No one from Congress, nor did president Madison Called for the Annexation of Canada. Comments showing interest in taking it doesn't make it a goal. The Natives were no longer a Major threat because of the war, the confederacy was destroyed, and British protection was dissolved. Impressment Ended in 1814 upon Napoleons defeat. No more reason to fight the war.
@Dglaproductions Repeating lies doesn't make it the truth mate. What is it you think you gained out of the war? Britain considered it a victory. Canada had proven it's loyalty and the British Government had achieved everything they wanted politically. For the majority of the 19th Century the US became an economic satelite of the British Empire.
The U.S are "sort of independent colonies of England - politically free, commercially slaves." - Henry Clay 1820.
@Ninja1275 Proving loyalty to a Government is an achievement? lol. Lol okay so regaining honor is a legit achievement as well for the U.S. "Just because there is no written evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen" ...What? That's just admitting you have no proof. If there is no proof, then their is no Goal to annex Canada. By all means i'll have this account for a while. When ever you find me anything on Congress or Madison Calling for the Annexation of Canada, show me.
@Dglaproductions Yes it is an achievement. Because Canada SHOULD have fallen. It was a David vs. Goliath moment. You should have steamrolled Canada but somehow you never.
I've just posted about 2 pages of proof to you that you disregarded. Henry Clay - Speaker of the House of Representatives, declared that he would not accept peace without the cession of Canada, he went to the Treaty of Ghent and was one of your top politicians. James Monroe's first demand in 1813 was Canada.
@Dglaproductions Just because there is no written evidence of Madison declaring Canada as a goal doesn't mean it didn't happen. Madison issued instructions for William Hull to promote Canada's "liberation." He gave George Matthews authorisation to launch the Patriot War and invade Spanish Florida shortly before the main War of 1812 began. The idea that the US would conquer Canada then simply hand it back goes against everything the US did throughout the rest of the century.
@Ninja1275 (3) British support for the Natives ended, the Confederation ended. impressment ending in 1814, so there was no reason to continue the war. Look anywhere, all will say Britain ended Impressment upon the defeat of Napoleon. The U.S no longer needed to fight to end it. There is No proof for the U.S calling for the Annexation of Canada, The British stop Supporting the Natives, and Impressment (granted indirectly) ended. And if you want to add, Nation honor regained.
@Dglaproductions You're looking at it from a twisted way. Ignoring everything im saying and ignoring the parts of the war where the U.S obviously failed, namely - the politics.
In 1813 James Monroe demanded Canada. He was rebuffed. To win the war you had to take Canada and hold it for ransom at the Peace Conference. You failed. Britain gave you nothing and for the rest of 19th Century you became an economic satellite of the Empire.
@Dglaproductions "In early 1815, Secretary of State James Monroe reviewed the treaty with Britain that would end the War of 1812. The United States Navy was blockaded in port; much of the army had not been paid for nearly a year; the capital had been burned. The treaty offered an unexpected escape from disaster. Yet it incensed Monroe, for the name of Great Britain and its negotiators consistently appeared before those of the United States."
@Ninja1275 (1) I'm not ignoring them. I acknowledge American interests in Canada, but NONE calling for it's annexation. There was NO goal to annex Canada. None. Not taking Canada doesn't mean the U.S lost, because it wasn't a war goal. The Native Confederation was destroyed. Britain no longer supported it. Impressment ended, National honor restored. NV Failed to take SV, and signed a peace treaty. When the U.S left, NV attacked again. Ya the U.S didn't go Back, doesn't matter.
What do you mean Canada wasn't a war goal? Do you think the U.S just declared war for the sake of it with no objectives whatsoever? To win the war you had to seize Canada and use it as leverage to achieve your aims at the Treaty. Read the Treaty of Ghent and tell me what you achieved. Nothing! Britain gave you nothing and you're trying to tell me you won? There is loads of evidence about Canada but you would call them lies.
@Ninja1275 WHERE is the Declaration to annex Canada? Where? Show me? Oh right you can't because the document doesn't exist, because it wasn't a war goal. The U.S didn't Have to take Canada to have it's goal met, it was an Option that didn't work. It didn't matter in the end. I'm not calling them lies at all, were did I say they were lies? Show me.Like with Canada you're just assuming i'm calling them lies. lol and I'm "deluded" I never said there weren't interests, but there was no deceleration.
GB's defeat could indeed serve as a "bargaining chip", just as Madison said. However, there was also the notion that the conquest of Canada could "complete the revolution", making the entire continent American. That was the "best case" scenario; naturally, those pressing for war did not trumpet this because it would appear a dishonourable motive for war-making. It would also alarm the New England states who were unhappy with the war to the point of threatening succession.
The fact that the invasion of Canada continued after the maritime grievances that (allegedly) were the cause were redressed indicates that there were ulterior motives. The notion this was intended merely to redress maritime concerns clearly must be nonsense because those concerns were moot by the time the invasion occurred. While we would expect a certain amount of lag time (this was 1812 after all), how can "maritime concerns" alone have sustained several more years of war?
Fact is that wars, and the war of 1812 in particular, often have more than one "aim." It strains credulity to believe that the only aim of the war was maritime grievances (redressed before the war started), not when significant figures of the American establishment are clamouring for annexation including significant minorities in Canada (UEL's) are also welcoming annexation.
Re 'nam, US priority was to prevent the spread of communism in SE Asia. The Paris Peace accords in '73 were signed because Nixon realised victory could never be achieved, neither through military nor political endeavour, hence the US giving up and pulling out. When Saigon fell in '75 (giving the NVA victory), as the absolute priority was the prevention of communistic spread, why not go back in to remove the NVA? Simple.It was impossible. You lose when you fail in your primary goal.
The ignominious end came in '75 with clamouring hordes swamping the US embassy in a chaotic Saigon (a city suddenly flooded with enemy NVA & VC) in terror to reach the few choppers available for their rescue. Not ONE objective was met. A panicky retreat with international newsreels showing US Navy men pushing Hueys off the decks of carriers into the South China Sea to make room for more is NOT the act of victors! Vietnam VETERENS will confirm this was nowt but sheer US debacle.
A few nationalists continue to delude themselves as to the result of 'Nam however, the current military & political quagmire in Iraq & Afghan since '01 (accurately predicted by ex Def Sec Chaney during the first GW) evinces the statement that one is doomed to repeat a history not learned. 'Nam proves that victory in war (fought by superpowers in the nuclear age) is impossible, an expensive lesson in terms of national wealth & lives, tragically lost to US leadership in the interim.
@Dglaproductions Trying to argue that Vietnam was anything other than a debacle is foolish. It wasn't a clear military defeat granted, but 50,000 casualties and no objectives achieved, with the North simply taking over the South after you left. How is that anything other than a pointless waste of lives and resources? Why didn't the U.S go back when the North violated the Treaty?
I can vividly recall having a beer(s) in Hollywood, LA with two of my mates who I was staying with in Altadena, CA. One said "we didn't lose Vietnam" (I nearly choked on my beer!), immediately corrected by the other who said "yes we did!" The former is a recovering heroin addict, so deluded he thought he'd served in Afghan whilst the latter (who's stayed here with me) is very grounded, ex USN who later told me his mate (man who denied defeat) had never even left the country..
@Ninja1275 (1)I'm glad to see you finally admit that there was no clear military defeat for the U.S, unlike the French at Dien Bien Phu. The War Came to a Conclusion through Negotiation. The Whole reason did not intervene when the North VIOLATED the terms of the 1973 peace treaty is because the war was as we all know unpopular. However the fact remains. Seeing that there were no U.S troops on the Front Lines in Vietnam when the south fell is impossible to say it was a U.S defeat.
@Ninja1275 (2) The U.S was very effective in combating the NVA and Viet Kong Forces. The Failings of the war only come after the vietnamization program which strengthened SV forces to over 1.5 million men which as thought to be sufficient for the south to protect its own territory after U.S forces Crushed Multiple Invasions by NV Forces. It was thought that the south could defend themselves effectively due to their crushing of the 1974 Easter offensive.
@Dglaproductions Thanks for ignoring my 1812 quote but yeah whatever..
As I have said Vietnam was not a Military defeat but it's not the success you make it out to be. Nixon didn't withdraw because all objectives were achieved, he withdrew because there was no possible way to win. He signed the Treaty then got the hell outa' there. 58,000 Casualties, no objectives achieved, and the "Domino Effect" occured all the same - this was a pointless war, you know that, I know that.
@Ninja1275 (3) The goal was to stop the North from taking the South. Which was achieved on peace treaty. It was not until the Communist offensive of 1975 that the south fell.It happened so rapidly that U.S intervention would not be possible with the forces necessary seeing as many units were being demobilized after the signing of the peace treaty between the U.S forces and NV. Were is the defeat for the U.S? Show me.
@Dglaproductions Thanks for ignoring my 1812 quote but yeah whatever..
As I have said Vietnam was not a Military defeat but it's not the success you make it out to be. Nixon didn't withdraw because all objectives were achieved, he withdrew because there was no possible way to win. He signed the Treaty then got the hell outa' there. 58,000 Casualties, no objectives achieved, and the "Domino Effect" occured all the same - this was a pointless war, you know that, I know that.
It was an unwinnable war. The PRIMARY OBJECTIVE (spread of Communism) could NOT be met. It was an unpopular, unsuccessful war. There was a serious drug problem, desertion rates were high & morale low. It was tearing the US apart; riots, flag burning, footage of 58,000+ coffins wrapped in flags returning etc with no end in sight. What did you achieve? Nothing. Signing a peace treaty and pulling out was the only solution. Vietnam wasn't know as "America's nightmare" for nothing..
I'll repeat, a panicky retreat with newsreels showing Hueys shoved off carriers into the sea to make room for more people is NOT the act of victors. US public/political opinion was a major factor. This was televised before the days of censorship. The Tet offensive (military failure) proved to be a huge propaganda/political victory. Returning GI's were called baby killers & spat at. It was as much a political loss as anything. Many wars are -lose public support, you're doomed.
@Dglaproductions "In early 1815, Secretary of State James Monroe reviewed the treaty with Britain that would end the War of 1812. The United States Navy was blockaded in port; much of the army had not been paid for nearly a year; the capital had been burned. The treaty offered an unexpected escape from disaster. Yet it incensed Monroe, for the name of Great Britain and its negotiators consistently appeared before those of the United States." - Big victory.
@Ninja1275 (2) It didn't matter that the U.S gave land back to the natives, the Confederacy fell because of the war. National Honor was restored, as silly as it sounds, It was a war goal. There was no proof to annex Canada, so That goal didn't fail. Impressment ended in 1814 when Napoleon was defeated. It didn't have to be gone over in the treaty. Spain eventually gave Florida to the U.S in 1819. Whether you like it or not, the U.S got what it wanted.
@Dglaproductions Even the most biased, nationalistic American historians don't attempt to claim victory. They claim it was a stalemate. But they only do this by ignoring certain theatres of the war. The Political aspect - which is where they truly failed, and the Naval aspect - they're fond of remembering the USS Constitution but forget that by wars end the entire eastern seaboard was under blockade and this had crippled the economy. They also asume Britain's aim was conquest.
@Dglaproductions "NV Failed to take SV, and signed a peace treaty. When the U.S left, NV attacked again. Ya the U.S didn't go Back, doesn't matter." - Sure does. It means the war was pointless and you failed.
National Honor? It was the most unpopular war in US history. By 1814 there were Student protests in Baltimore, New England was teetering on secession, after Washington's destruction public support vanished, even the Government was searching for a way out of the war.
@Ninja1275 (2) *Face palm* Vietnam lost almost every battle and didn't take the south. They were forced to sign a peace treaty. How was it a loss? What was the U.S's Goal? Take NV? No. Stop NV from taking SV? yes. What happened? The U.S Stopped NV. How did the U.S lose? You still haven't told me. National Honor, Era of good feelings. There is No Governmental deceleration to take Canada, so it wasn't a war goal, get over it.
@Dglaproductions "Americans have characteristically judged their wars on the basis of their success. The best-known wars – the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II – were all clear-cut successes. Although many people remembered the War of 1812 as a success, it was in a very real sense a failure, and perhaps this is why it attracts so little attention today." - Donald R. Hickey, an American Historian. Is this guy bias?
@Dglaproductions Only after the war ended and the Government spread the news of New Orleans did people begin to think of it as anything other than an embarrassment.
You're talking to a super-patriot who will NEVER listen.
I've spoken to Vietnam VETERENS who will tell you that NONE of their war aims were met. For Dgla to say that the fall of Saigon "didn't matter" is to openly state that the deaths of 58,000+ GI's were in vain.
As for the Vietnam War, of the stated American military and political objectives of the time, a devolution affected by frequent mission creep due to continuous failure in both arenas from the '54 French defeat at Dien Bien Phu until the ignominious end in '75, depicted by the clamouring hordes swamping the US embassy in a chaotic Saigon (a city suddenly flooded with enemy NVA and Viet Cong irregulars) in terror to reach the few choppers available for their rescue..
Not one objective was met. A panicky retreat with international newsreels showing US Navy men pushing Hueys off the decks of American carriers into the South China Sea to make room for more, is not the act of victors. As to the still common assertion that the Vietnamese were indiscriminately carpet bombed into submission, their signing of the peace treaty in Paris resulted in the cessation of the bombing and US armed forces evacuating their country..
..although it was meant to be done in more subdued gradations, the way it happened only emphasizes how the US lost control of the situation. Nixon’s policy of declaring victory and abandoning the field was not victory. It was defeat.
VIETNAM, AN ABSOLUTE, TOTAL AND UTTER, CATASTROPHIC US DEBACLE OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS.
@Dglaproductions When details of the peace treaty reached the United States, Americans were astounded to discover that it contained no clauses forbidding the seizure by Britain of American sailors, no restrictions on British support for frontier Aboriginals and no restraints on British interference with American commerce on the high seas. These primary causes of the conflict were unresolved. Newspapers were quick to criticize a treaty -
@Dglaproductions - that failed to mention the major causes of the conflict. Despite this, the cessation of hostilities was widely welcomed, for "it pleased God to restore peace to this bleeding land." - Pretty concrete proof. But I suppose this is Anti - American lies?
@LiamUe If The Government didn;t call for Canada's Annexation, it wasn;t a war goal. Plane and simple. I'll agree america was a "dick" to the natives, never the less a wins a win.
@Dglaproductions "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."
John Randolf (a Republican) scorned Clay and said it was a case of American aggression. "Agrarian greed not maritime right urges this war."
@Ninja1275 The North only Negotiated with the U.S because they Knew they would Never take the South with the U.S there. They singed it, waited for the U.S to leave, then Attacked. Not our Problem.
@Dglaproductions "They said Canada should be part of the U.S, and it would be easy to take it. NONE of them said the U.S had to take it." - ???
Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, solemnly declared he would never accept a Peace Treaty that did not include the cession of Canada.
To win the war, you had to take Canada and hold it for ransom. When you failed to take Canada, you could no longer win.
@Dglaproductions EVERYBODY knows the US lost in Vietnam, im not insulting you or mocking it, it was a tragedy. But trying to argue that you won is stupid. Why didn't you go back and sort the situation out then if the North simply disregarded the Treaty? Because the war was disaster and you could not win, just like 1812.
@Ninja1275 (1) Explain to me, how the U.S was defeated in Vietnam when #1 Every NV offensive in the south was crushed with ungodly casualties suffered by NV, while U.S Suffered little. The U.S utterly destroyed the NV army, NV's Army was almost literally non existent. #2 The U.S was highly effective in its search and destroy operations to root out the NV. #3 The war came to an end between all partied involved. The North Agreed to not attack the south. SV didn't fall until 2 years after peace.
@Dglaproductions You can win all the battles in the world and still lose the war. Victory goes to those who achieve their objectives. Just like 1812 - Britain got everything they wanted out of a war they never wanted. In Vietnam you tried to stop the Domino Effect in South East Asia and were dragged into a long, protracted, guerilla war that you could not win. You left. And what you attempted to stop simply happened anyway, a pointless war were you gained nothing - like 1812.
@Ninja1275 (1) The U.S Forces stopped the Domino effect while they were there. Wars that end in peace can only be judge by the war it self because often times peace treaty give little to either side. All that can be said about the Vietnam war is that while politically unpopular, it was highly successively militarily. The only reason NV was willing to negotiate was because they knew as long as the U.S was there, they could not take SV. So were is the defeat?
@Dglaproductions "Wars that end in peace can only be judge by the war itself."
In that case you did not "crush" the Natives as you agreed to return all of their lands to their position as they were in 1811. Article IX Treaty of Ghent.
The NV would not have defeated the U.S, but the U.S could not have defeated the NV. It became a situation in which one side had to break. The US broke first. Why didn't the US Government intervene again when the North invaded?
@Dglaproductions It was never proven Britain was responsible for Native hostility. In fact the accusation was absurd. In Madison's war speech he only implied a connection.
There were no Indian wars or wild west in Canada. All that you suffered were problems you created for yourselves by your greed & aggression.
Britain wanted the US to stop attacking Canada.
We lived in peace & security you had a 100 years of war. Attacking Natives, Mexicans & a Civil war.
@Dglaproductions A Congressman named Josiah Quincy described the invasion of Canada as - "a cruel, wanton, senseless and wicked attack upon an unoffending people, bound to us by ties of blood and good neighbourhood undertaken by young politicians with their pin feathers yet unshed to whom reason justice and pity were nothing and revenge everything."
@Ninja1275 In none of those quotes called for the Annexation of Canada. They said Canada should be part of the U.S, and it would be easy to take it. NONE of them said the U.S had to take it. None of them Called for Annexation of Canada. Impressment Continued until the defeat of Napoleon in 1814. No need to End Impressment, Natives Crushed = U.S Victory. Madison Never Called for Canada's Annexation.
@Dglaproductions Also there was never any proof Britain aided the natives. Even Madison's war speech only ever implied a connection, not concrete evidence.
Also Britain never wanted their colonies back. Profitable trade with the US was a perfectly acceptable relationship for them. War was averted in the American Civil War because Lincoln bowed down to British pressure and apoligized for the Trent Affair.
@Dglaproductions The idea that America only ever wanted Canada as a bargaining chip emerged toward the end of the 19th Century. Created by one American historian and repeated by all who came after him. It is a theory, nothing more. And generally falls apart under scrutiny.
There were other fronts to this war too you know. The US also attempted to seize control of Florida, then Spanish Florida, through the Patriot War 1812 - 14, which also ended in failure.
@Ninja1275 As for Florida, The British were supplying natives in Florida to attack the U.S in Georgia. While the U.S did Florida, the U.S negotiated for it in 1819 with the Spanish. The British didn't enter the Civil war because Lincoln promised to end Slavery. Britain wouldn't help a slave owning Nation of the CSA."Bowed down" is a little ridiculous.
"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.
"The book also echoes a key message trumpeted by the fed Conservative gov 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 & Chateauguay in Lower Canada) set the stage for the creation of a unified & independent Canada a half-century later."
Of course the US wanted to annex Canada, to say otherwise is a load of American bollox. There is so much evidence to support this that anyone who seriously doubts it has been lobotomised.
Even your most eminent historians now agree with this, wanna argue with them, too?
You failed, just like in 1775 (only won the rev through the intervention of the Euro powers (particularly France) forcing the war onto a global stage) thus, drawing parallels with 1812 bears no testament whatsoever.
"The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious & political principles, & accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union." - John Quincy Adams,1803
"I know your feelings on the present state of the world and hope they will be cheered by the successful course of our war and the addition of Canada to our confederacy. The infamous intrigues of Great Britain to destroy our government (of which Henry's is but one sample) and with the Indians to tomahawk our women and children, prove that the cession of Canada, their fulcrum for these Machiavellian levers, must be a sine qua non at a treaty of peace.":- Jefferson to Gen Kosciusko
"sine qua non" is Latin for "an essential element or condition."
The "bargaining chip" theory is risible, first suggested by one US historian decades ago then blindly followed by the rest. Why? 'Cause it gives you a right to claim some kinda spurious "victory." In reality, it was nothing other than US opportunism, attempting to usurp land you've ALWAYS coveted whilst GB was busy with Boney in Europe.
1812 (for the US) was about as successful as your Vietnamese debacle.
Of course British arms were found! We'd been trading with natives since way back.Re the Leopard attacking the Chesapeake, Broke ignored the search warrant, instead, just played for time. He was takin' the piss, of course the Leopard opened fire! Deserters WERE found; it was the RN's RIGHT to recover deserters, many of whom the US ENCOURAGED to desert, hence the continued impressment during our blockade of France. You wanna trade with a despot like Boney, you're gonna feel the heat.
If 1807 was an act of war, why wasn't war declared immediately? Why wait 'til 1812? I'll tell ya why. Boney was at the height of power in 1812. US thought GB couldn't defend her sovereign land whilst fighting Boney, even thought we'd lose. Well mate, just like Mussolini backing Hitler, Madison also backed the wrong horse. Not to mention other than UEL's, British Loyalists fuckin' hated the new US republic, that's why they left & you thought they were gonna support you?! Get real!
@Dglaproductions Read Trouzerpants' comments. Everything he has said is accurate.
War nearly sparked off in the Civil War because of the Trent Affair. Britain demanded that the two Confederate Diplomats be released. Lincoln issued a formal apology and released them. Sounds like bowing down to me.
@Dglaproductions At the Treaty of Ghent you gained nothing. Not even the issues you went to war over were addressed by the Treaty. Read Article IX. The one consistent British demand was that you give the Natives their lands back. You conceded to this demand. That is an admission of failure. You achieved nothing and by the Treaty had to concede land. Being the lying bastards they were this was never carried out but the fact remains.
@Ninja1275 (4) The British originally wanted a native Buffer zone. That failed. The British Wanted part of Maine after they took it. Also Failed, that's because of the Battle of Baltimore and Plattsburgh. Which, once again, denied the British Uti possidetis. Seeing that the war was going no were The British, like the U.S, just wanted peace. Impressment continued, but dramatically decreased. The treaty gave neither side nothing, but better trade. But the U.S gained much more because of the war.
@Ninja1275 (5)The Treaty of Ghent gave neither side anything. Everything went almost back to how everything was before. The U.S held a very small piece of Canada in the Maine region, but that's irrelevant I guess. The U.S was the only side gain major Profit. Granted not discussed in the treaty, but was an effect of the war none the less. Native Coalition fell, Impressment decreased, Better trade opened with Canada. Britain defended a land the U.S wasn't going to keep. Sounds like a U.S victory.
@Dglaproductions The Patriot War was entirely separate from Jackson's invasion and occupation of Pensacola, idiot. The US seized Baton Rouge from Spain in 1810 and Mobile in 1813. There was an active policy in Georgia (backed by the Goverment) to seize Spanish Florida, it was undefended due to the war in Europe, and was home to numerous runaway slaves. 2 books have been written on the subject by American historians: "Rampant Rebels: Florida Fiasco" and "The other war of 1812".
@Ninja1275 (1) "Idiot"...really? Are you really that angry. We are having a talk, don't have a tantrum child. There were raids in Florida, which destroyed Seminole threat to Georgia. It was Arming the natives that pissed the U.S off. It doesn't matter if it was legal Like I already said, It was a U.S obstacle that was overcome thanks to the war. Yes, Britain giving natives weapons is Britain's fault. You even acknowledged they did.
@Dglaproductions Sorry but the fact you're refusing to admit defeat in Vietnam tells me exactly the kind of person you are.
Dont post silly conjecture, tell me facts agreed on by historians. The Patriot War which took place alongside the War of 1812 was a failed attempt to annex Spanish territory. There was no provocation by the Spanish or by Seminole Natives. You invaded and ended up losing a guerilla war with Spanish Loyalists and Seminoles.
@Ninja1275 (1) What kind of person I am? the One who pays attention tot he facts? The U.S repulsed ever communist offensive in SV. The U.S counter operations were successively in eliminating the Viet kong. The U.S never lost a major battle to the North Vietnamese. The U.S signed a peace treaty with the north before withdrawing U.S troops. The peace treaty said that all hostilities would stop, and everything would go back to the way it was before. 2 years latter, the North attacked again.
@Ninja1275 (2) So were is the defeat? The U.S simply didn't get involved when the north attacked a second time. They broke the treaty, that doesn't mean we lost. Back to 1812. Impressment ended when Napoleon was defeated in 1814. There was no more reason to fight Britain after such. Why go over it, when it was over? Granted Impressment started again after the war of 1812 ended, but British attacks on U.S ships ere decreased dramatically.
@Dglaproductions The Native threat was your problem, not ours. Did Madison offer any proof about British aid to Natives? No. He speculated. Read his war speech.
It was entirely within our right to trade with natives. There was no law against it. Just like you traded with the Southern tribes such as the Choctaw. It was the US expanding into Native territory that pissed the Natives off and yet because they fought back you blamed the British?
@Dglaproductions Read Article IX of the Treaty of Ghent. The first demand that Britain made and the only one they refused to budge on was on behalf of the Natives. You accepted that demand. You agreed to give the Natives the land back that you had taken. That's a clear admission of failure. You went into the war with clear aims and failed in them all. Britain gave you nothing.
@Dglaproductions Everything on the table, apart from the Native issue, was negotiable. The territory Britain wanted was never a priority and in fact the land they wanted in Maine they gained in 1842. Besides how can you use the fact we never gained territory as a cause of victory? You started the war, we were defenders, none of your territory should have been occupied. We gave that land up to secure a better deal for the Natives. Did Vietnam take your land when they beat you?
@Dglaproductions Even the most prominent American historians don't say it was a victory. They carefully alter the events and create the illusion of a stalemate. You call me bias yet can accept no other view other than your own, and quite frankly you're retarded if you think this was a victory.
@Ninja1275 (2) The British wanted the land they took in the north, but didn't. Failure. Doesn't matter that the U.S attacked, it was still a failure. Giving land back to the natives is not an admission of failure. It was not a goal to destroy, but stop British support. Which the war did. Vietnam Didn't beat the U.S. The U.S made a peace treaty with NV 2 years before they attacked SV again. The treaty was meant to have NV stop attacking SV. Which they agreed to. They attacked again when U.S left.
@Dglaproductions LOL! The one and only British objective in this war was to defend Canada! Do you really think we had time to bother with an insignificant flee that is the US when we were busy fighting Napoleon Bonaparte? We defended Canada, and managed to invade US territory. This was such a humiliating US defeat, and you had to sign a peace treaty in 1815 because you knew we were finished with Napoleon and would thereby focus all of our superior resources against you. Coward and liar.
Any idea why there are so many sore 200 year old American losers? Some even feel they met their war aims during their Vietnam debacle.. {face-palm}
Americans - there are a few with a working brain yet the intelligent, informed variety are absolutely SWAMPED by the majority who are decidedly imbecilic. It's just so sad...
"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.
"The book also echoes a key message trumpeted by the fed Conservative gov 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 & Chateauguay in Lower Canada) set the stage for the creation of a unified & independent Canada a half-century later."
So too says the late, most acclaimed and award winning historian Jon Latimer (what he didn't know about this conflict isn't worth knowing) and every other historian worth his salt.
Even many US historians have now swallowed their pride and admitted what we ALL KNOW, the War of 1812 was a FAILED US ATTEMPT AT CANADIAN ANNEXATION.
Look folks, it was an embarrassing American defeat yet, to quote Napoleon:-
"He who in war has made no mistakes has not made war very long."
"This 'bargaining chip theory' is just that, nothing but a theory. The myth that there was never any intent to annex Canada is less then 80 years old, proposed by one US historian then later repeated by all who came after. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, analogous to a bank robber claiming he only wanted a loan." -
Eliot Cohen "is one of the FEW teachers in the American academy to treat military history as a SERIOUS FIELD." - wiki
Proof that most US "historians" treat military history as something to be skewed and distorted to justify US ego. That is sad and pathetic.
You want REAL history? Then you have to study in GB. Just the same as if you want accurate period drama, it absolutely HAS to be made by British production companies (Merchant Ivory etc) as all Hollywood does is fuck it up.
@trouzerpants I wouldn't say all Americans are like this, but it seems that all Americans who boast about their own military record (which is piss poor) are completely insane, or else completely idiotic.
Agreed. If I had a penny for every American idiot who's proclaimed they'd "saved us TWICE" during the WW's, I could retire today, wealthy enough to simply live off the interest alone. The fact is that Americans (without their hands being held) cannot punch their way out from a wet paper bag yet they boast, they brag, they're full of hot-air, hyperbole & hubris, even though they are merely a nation of immigrant usurpers. Their jingoistic attitude disgusts me.
@Dglaproductions This was YOUR WAR, not our's. Impressment was rescinded before the war began. We offered you peace in 1812 and 1813 and each time you refused and demanded the cession of Canada. Only when Napoleon abdicated and large British armies were mobilizing to raid the US did the US delegation at Ghent drop their demands and ask for peace. These are known facts. Look up the politics of the war. The only demand that we really wanted was a fair deal for the Natives -
@Ninja1275 (4) The British wanted land also. The British demanded the cession of large areas, plus turning most of the Midwest into a neutral zone for the natives. This outraged the public, and made the U.S want to fight on. Don't Pretend that the British weren't interested. Even the Great Duke of Wellington said it was despicable of Britain to try and take land from the U.S. Britain and little to gain, and much to lose from prolonged war with the U.S.
@Dglaproductions - and this is what we got. Britain offered it as a Sine Qua Non, meaning in order for negotiations to take place you had to accept this demand. What else is this but an admission of failure?
You went into the war with demands and Britain agreed to NONE of them - you instead had to accept one of OUR demands. We were defenders. We brought the war to a close and gave you nothing. This entire war was obviously a strategic British victory.
@Ninja1275 (5) Regions in Western Florida stayed with he United States after it was taken. The U.S finally got it from Spain in 1819. The U.S was simply the only country to benefit from the war. U.S complaints didn't come up in Ghent because the issues were already solved at Napoleons defeat. Native raids were not mentioned because they were already crushed. All reasons for America fighting the war were solved. Show me documents of the U.S Government calling for the annexation of Canada.
@Dglaproductions Look up the Politics of the war and don't just focus on the battles. One of the first demands that James Monroe made in 1813 was the cession of Canada. Impressment ended before the war began but the US delegation demanded that Britain completely relinquish their right to use it in the future. By 1814 Britain would not budge therefore the US dropped it as a demand. Wellington never said that. He said he could not offer to dramatically change the situation unless he had -
@Dglaproductions - complete control of the Great Lakes. By the terms of the Treaty you agreed to return Native lands to their position as they were in 1811 (Article IX). This was a major concession on your behalf but you simply lied and never carried it out. Like I said the land we occupied was never a priority, it fell into our hands as a result of the war. While Britain was demanding a neutral Indian state and land in Maine the U.S was STILL demanding the cession of Canada.
@Dglaproductions "The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union." - John Quincy Adams 1811.
@Dglaproductions "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent." - Thomas Jefferson 1812.
@Dglaproductions One of the few voices of reason and restraint was John Randolf of Virginia, who left the Republican party to form a peace party called Quids. He opposed war and argued its real purpose was "a scuffle and a scramble for plunder." It was, he said, nothing but a cover for land grab. "One word like a whip-poor-will cried one monotonous tone: Canada, Canada, Canada."
@Dglaproductions "It was amusing to hear the Americans talk of the ease with which they can possess themselves of the British provinces. No man of either party seems to imagine there would be any difficulty in effecting the project, that is, capturing British North America." - Unknown Spy from Nova Scotia.
can you imagine any country sailing to england and trying to take it off the brits?
they would last about 20 minutes.
ledzzappa 1 week ago
@ledzzappa it would take longer than that lol its an impossible proposition many stronger armies in the world today . However it would be pointless as the full weight of the Commonwealth would crash down on the invaders.. makes me feel safe knowing we have alot of allies here in Canada :) .. the whole commonwealth the brits especially :) and tbh it doesnt hurt to get on the Americans good side ;) .. were also in pretty tight with China right now haha
egbduf 1 week ago
@ledzzappa
Argentina wouldn't even last a second.
"Ah, hello Argentina. Meet my battleship, My ally France, NATO, USA, UN, Commonwealth...and you have what friends again?"
RyanBrooksby 1 week ago
@ledzzappa germany did it and nearly destroyed it
gordonloveslatinas 5 days ago
@gordonloveslatinas yes it amazes me, even with all that might they still could'nt do it.
ledzzappa 5 days ago
Epic
RonPaul2012vote123 1 week ago
It's just like watching a movie
SuperAngelblaze 1 week ago
"I think both sides were very happy to have that war ended, certainly the Americans were. The Americans were going broke, their New England shipping was a shambles. New England almost seceded from the Union at the Hartford Convention. It was a war that everybody was sick of and it was not the easy thing that some people had pictured at the beginning. America's first Vietnam, yes, good analogy. We had always claimed before Vietnam that we'd never lost a war. Well, it's a question of definition.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Usually if your criterion is whether you obtained your objectives in a war, we lost that one as much as we lost Vietnam. We just came back to our own shores and that was the end of it. Painted differently.
I don't know whether we ever thought we'd win the Vietnam war with the back of our hand. Maybe we didn't even think we were in a war for a long time but in both cases it was a question of getting out with peace and honor.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
We thought we'd done all right in Vietnam until '75 when Hanoi (Saigon) fell. We thought we'd pretty well accomplished our mission at that point but we didn't. There's a lot of parallel." - John Eisenhower
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
"People like to call this the second American Revolution, but I really prefer not to myself. I'd like to call it America's first Vietnam. For the simple reason that the Americans became embroiled in a conflict that brought dissension, that brought a great deal of consternation throughout American cities." - Patrick Wilder
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants
I view the American Revolution as the First American Civil War
LiamUe 2 weeks ago
@LiamUe
Yes, it was a conflict involving Patriots fighting Loyalists, all brethren, mostly with British ancestry, definitely akin to a civil war.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
"Dglaproductions", educated in the good old-fashioned, tried and tested American way, via the school of MYTH.
{Sings}
"When will they ever learn? When will they e----ver learn."
trouzerpants 3 weeks ago
Despite this the cessation of hostilities was widely welcomed, for "it pleased God to restore peace to this bleeding land." - Some victory.
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
When details of the peace treaty reached the United States, Americans were astounded to discover that it contained no clauses forbidding the seizure by Britain of American sailors, no restrictions on British support for frontier Aboriginals and no restraints on British interference with American commerce on the high seas. These primary causes of the conflict were unresolved. Newspapers were quick to criticize a treaty, that failed to mention the major causes of the conflict.
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
@eddythebeast666 when ever the Indians killed it was called a massacre but the Americans looted and killed loads of Indians in the name of war. At least the British honoured treaties with the Indians and stop expansion. But going back to the treaty with the Indians we all know that the British were using Indians for raids look at Joseph brant?.
Emomars102 4 weeks ago
@Emomars102 Yes British were happy to use Natives & did so very effectively.
Thing is they made no secret about it.
Tecumseh had worked for British before.
At the Treaty of Paris 1783 the USA agreed to compensate Loyalist then failed to deliver so rather the start a war over it Britain openly backed Native forces during the Northwest Indian war of 1785–1795.
Many US historians make reference to this but those issues had all been dealt with by the Jay treaty 1794.
Eddythebeast666 4 weeks ago
@eddythebeast666 There is not enough evidence to support that there were crates of guns supplied to the natives.But it makes sense that the Indians wanted to fight for there land back, some it seems likely that we did supply them. As how else would the natives acquire them guns. The Canadian Militia were well armed for the defence of Canada as seen throughout the campaign of 1812.
Emomars102 4 weeks ago
@Emomars102 We had treaties going back to the French Indian war & Pontiac war (Before the Amer. Rev.) that obligated Britain to give gifts & trade fairly with Natives. So yes there was trade with Natives but it had nothing to do with hostile intent toward the USA.
In that same speech Madison demands the right for the USA to trade with Napoleon.
Kind of hypocritical isn't it? Stop trading with Natives we want to kill & let us trade with Napoleon.
Eddythebeast666 4 weeks ago
@eddythebeast666 I understand what you mean but the British wanted to maintain control in the mississippi region?. I'm British by the way.
Emomars102 4 weeks ago
@Emomars102 Natives to the south offered more agricultural goods for trade so yes there was British interest in the area. Rivers were major trade routs.
But I think its important to understand that all British interests were filtered through the events in Europe. So called American territories gained by the Louisiana Purchase had mainly French inhabitants.
To British eyes that whole region was a French colony fling an American flag of convince.
Eddythebeast666 4 weeks ago
The dispute was over American expansion in the Detroit area so the natives were attacking it from Canada supplied by the British.
Emomars102 4 weeks ago
@Emomars102 Best to use Madison own words from his war speech.
"It is difficult to account for the activity & combinations which have for some time been developing themselves among tribes in constant intercourse with British traders & garrisons without connecting their hostility with that influence."
What he is saying is "Its hard to believe the Natives would hostile about our taking their land if they were not being encouraged by the British"
& doesn't bother offering any proof.
Eddythebeast666 4 weeks ago
@Emomars102 Some US historians make reference to Harrison's reports from Prophitstown of crates of British guns but the reports don't make sense with what we know about the situation.
Why would there be a stock pile of guns in Native hands when there was a shortage of them to supply militia in Canada?
Why wouldn't they have been distributed among the Natives who did battle just the night before?
If there were extra why not take them with Tecumseh who was recruiting to the south?
Eddythebeast666 4 weeks ago
@Emomars102 There is evidence Harrison falsified his reports for political gain.
Eddythebeast666 4 weeks ago
Jackson did a good job of defending this line and holding the city respect to him. Stupid of the British troops to forget the ladders!. Eddythebeast666 is right that the natives were fighting for land Britain granted land to the Indians after the revolutionary war for there efforts in helping the crown in America. This is backed up by Joseph brant in the revolutionary war and his son who lead the Indians against America in 1812.
Emomars102 4 weeks ago
Hi Guys! I see you have been busy defending our Nations honor from American revisionism. Bravo! LOL
Eddythebeast666 4 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 Trying our best. Holding the line 'till reinforcements arrive!
Ninja1275 4 weeks ago
America won because of the battle of Plattsburgh (lake Champlain) and Baltimore. It changed the way the treaty was written. Originally the British were going to keep the land they took (Uti possidetis). Canadians think the U.S wanted to keep Canada once (and if) they took it, which is Bull shit. A week after the war started, Madison already sent diplomats to negotiate peace. If he wanted to take Canada, why did he want peace so quick? America failed in 1775 and won that war.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions America did not win. You cannot just look at the military perspective of the war. Regardless of what the reasons were for invading Canada - that WAS your strategic war aim. You needed Canada in order to settle on favourable peace terms. Besides do you really think the US would just give Canada back to Britain? No way. Madison did not send diplomats until mid - 1813, there were a few American diplomats in London but they were operating independently with no -
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 The United States wanted to take Canada until the British listened to them. Do I really think the United States would give Canada back? Yes I do. The Canadians didn't want the United States there. How were they going to control them? The American army was small, in the end they would, and they knew it. Do you think the British would have given American land back to the United States? Now way. They were forced to after those two battles I mentioned.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent." - Thomas Jefferson 1812.
There is a ton of documented proof. American soldiers wore caps with the motto "Conquer or die". James Monroe demanded the cession of Canada in the original negotiations in 1813.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions - authorisation. Britain offered peace in 1812 (they offered a return to Status Quo) and the US rejected this. Then in 1813 while Britain was again offering peace on the basis of Status Quo, James Monroe was demanding the cession of Canada to the United States. Only in 1814 when the war in Europe ended and Britain could focus its full attention on America did the US Government drop their demands (including Canada, impressment etc) and simply ask for peace.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Why would the United States accept to go Back to the way things were? British supplied natives attacking settlements, mistreatment of U.S Sailors. Why go let it go back to that? Madison sent James Monroe on June 12, 1812 to begin peace talks. The Canadians and British ONLY think the United states wanted to annex and keep Canada. Nonsense. Granted there were officers trying to get the Canadians to join the U.S, just like the tried in 1775. Doesn't make it a war goal.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions American officials and politicians thought the Canadians would welcome them with open arms - that they would see them as liberators and flock to their banner. Seizing Canada was the only way you could win the war and you failed. Britain conceded nothing to the US in terms of land or Maritime issues such as Impressment and neutrality of the seas. Whereas the US eventually accepted peace and conceded to the British demand to return Native lands.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 We already covered all that you said. I already Acknowledged the Americans trying to have the Canadains fight with the U.S, but they said no, like they did in 1775. I already Acknowledged government INTEREST in taking Canada, their is no documented PROOF of them ordering its Annexation. The whole argument for the annexation of Canada is Canadian bull crap. Did the Americans not do this in 1775? Did they not fail the Canadian campaign, and still win the war? Yes they did.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions In 1775 the invasion of Canada was one theatre of the war. You could lose there but still achieve independence. Which you did. In 1812 the invasion of Canada was the only way you could win. You needed to invade and conqeuer Canada in order for Britain to come to terms. When this failed and British reinforcements began arriving en masse there was no way you could win or even lauch offensives - only defend until the delegations in Europe came to a compromise.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Canada was a theater of war also... and it wasn't the only way the U.S could win, it was the only place we could attack. Tell me this. HOW can America fight Britain, when they are on the other side of the Atlantic with a bigger, better navy? Explain this to me. The U.S had many impressive naval victories, but still the U.S navy wouldn't have stood a chance crossing the Atlantic. Canada was the only option. The U.S didn't NEED to conquer all of Canada..now you're making things up.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions You didn't have to fight Britain that was the entire point of attacking while Napoleon had reached his peak of power.
Eddythebeast666 4 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 Just because taking Canada failed doesn't mean anything. The United States Failed to do this in the revolution, and still won the war. The War of 1812 was a smaller, pointless version of the first war. The whole war could have been prevented with better communication. The argument for annexing Canada for personal gain is Completely invalid. No documented proof. There have been written documents of interest in taking Canada granted, but none saying they would go through with it.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions All of the reasons America listed as causes of war were caused by American actions. They were encouraging desertion from the Royal Navy - almost 10% of the US merchant fleet were British. Britain could not afford this while in the middle of a world war against Napoleon. If the US had not been supplying a European tyrant in the same mold as Hitler they would not have been denied trade with France. If they hadnt been exterminating the natives they wouldnt have fought back.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 Impressment and what happened at the Chesapeake is an act of war. No matter how much you want to sugar coat it. British Arms and crates were found by Harrison after a U.S Native battle in 1811. Were did they come from? Did they magically appear? No, they were given to the natives. The British were going to keep the land they took in the war, until after the battle of Baltimore, which put an end to that.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions Britain was well within their right to trade with the natives. There was no law preventing it and we had been trading with them since before the US even existed. The US traded with the southern native tribes such as the Choctaw, why is it wrong for us to do so? If you hadnt been attacking them and stealing their lands they would not have fought back. We did not arm natives in Florida, where is your proof? Florida was attacked because Spain was weak.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 (2) You bias is annoying. It wasn't because Spain was weak, It was because of the Natives AND Jackson wanted to drive the British from the City Pensacola (Battle of Pensacola 1814) After winning, he left not because he "failed" (which he didn't), but because he believed Alabama would be a new target. Also before attacking Florida, Jackson had plans to LEAVE after removing the British, and go to New Orleans. He made these plans BEFORE the attack.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 (3) So you acknowledge the British giving them arms. Whether it was in British right or not, Settlers were getting killed because of it. The problem was solved because of the war. It doesn't matter if it was discussed in the treaty, The Native threat was destroyed, plan and simple. It's not "Bowing" is you apologies. Did king George Bow before Washington because he lost? No. Cornwallis? No. That's not what made the British change their mind, it was the Emancipation Proclamation.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions American settlers were not being killed because of British arms. They were being killed because they were stealing Native lands.
Are you saying Natives did not have a right to do so?
Right now American guns kill more Canadians then any other Nation on earth.
Is the USA deliberately arming Canadian criminals? Is this a Plot? We Know the US government deliberately armed Mexican drug smugglers. These guns carry the US markings.
Admit it the US is deliberately murdering Canadians.XD
Eddythebeast666 4 weeks ago
@Eddythebeast666 The Native were in their right to, no doubt about that. Never the less, it was against American Interests and they wanted it to stop.
Dglaproductions 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Need any more?
In regards to Vietnam - 50,000 Casualties and no objectives achieved, with the North eventually taking over the South. Trying to argue anything but a defeat is preposterous.
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 50,000 U.S Casualties to 1,000,000 NV Casualties. North Failed to take the south from the U.S. The war Ended Politically. The North Attacked After The treaty was signed. The U.S Achieved their Goal at the Treaty. The North Attacked Again after it was signed when All U.S troops were Gone. The Goal was to Stop the North Spreading to the South which was achieved on peace treaty. The North simply attacked again when the U.S left. So no, it's not a defeat.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Impressment ended before the war began. But the US demanded Britain relinquish all rights to use it, up until 1814, when the war shifted and Britain would not budge on the issue, so it was dropped.
The Natives were not crushed. Tecumseh was dead but Native resistance continued for the next 100 years for Christ's Sake. By the terms of the Treaty you agreed to give the Natives all their lands back, therefore on paper the Natives gained a concession from the US.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (2) It doesn't Matter. No one from Congress, nor did president Madison Called for the Annexation of Canada. Comments showing interest in taking it doesn't make it a goal. The Natives were no longer a Major threat because of the war, the confederacy was destroyed, and British protection was dissolved. Impressment Ended in 1814 upon Napoleons defeat. No more reason to fight the war.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Repeating lies doesn't make it the truth mate. What is it you think you gained out of the war? Britain considered it a victory. Canada had proven it's loyalty and the British Government had achieved everything they wanted politically. For the majority of the 19th Century the US became an economic satelite of the British Empire.
The U.S are "sort of independent colonies of England - politically free, commercially slaves." - Henry Clay 1820.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 Proving loyalty to a Government is an achievement? lol. Lol okay so regaining honor is a legit achievement as well for the U.S. "Just because there is no written evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen" ...What? That's just admitting you have no proof. If there is no proof, then their is no Goal to annex Canada. By all means i'll have this account for a while. When ever you find me anything on Congress or Madison Calling for the Annexation of Canada, show me.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Yes it is an achievement. Because Canada SHOULD have fallen. It was a David vs. Goliath moment. You should have steamrolled Canada but somehow you never.
I've just posted about 2 pages of proof to you that you disregarded. Henry Clay - Speaker of the House of Representatives, declared that he would not accept peace without the cession of Canada, he went to the Treaty of Ghent and was one of your top politicians. James Monroe's first demand in 1813 was Canada.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Just because there is no written evidence of Madison declaring Canada as a goal doesn't mean it didn't happen. Madison issued instructions for William Hull to promote Canada's "liberation." He gave George Matthews authorisation to launch the Patriot War and invade Spanish Florida shortly before the main War of 1812 began. The idea that the US would conquer Canada then simply hand it back goes against everything the US did throughout the rest of the century.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (3) British support for the Natives ended, the Confederation ended. impressment ending in 1814, so there was no reason to continue the war. Look anywhere, all will say Britain ended Impressment upon the defeat of Napoleon. The U.S no longer needed to fight to end it. There is No proof for the U.S calling for the Annexation of Canada, The British stop Supporting the Natives, and Impressment (granted indirectly) ended. And if you want to add, Nation honor regained.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions You're looking at it from a twisted way. Ignoring everything im saying and ignoring the parts of the war where the U.S obviously failed, namely - the politics.
In 1813 James Monroe demanded Canada. He was rebuffed. To win the war you had to take Canada and hold it for ransom at the Peace Conference. You failed. Britain gave you nothing and for the rest of 19th Century you became an economic satellite of the Empire.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions "In early 1815, Secretary of State James Monroe reviewed the treaty with Britain that would end the War of 1812. The United States Navy was blockaded in port; much of the army had not been paid for nearly a year; the capital had been burned. The treaty offered an unexpected escape from disaster. Yet it incensed Monroe, for the name of Great Britain and its negotiators consistently appeared before those of the United States."
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (1) I'm not ignoring them. I acknowledge American interests in Canada, but NONE calling for it's annexation. There was NO goal to annex Canada. None. Not taking Canada doesn't mean the U.S lost, because it wasn't a war goal. The Native Confederation was destroyed. Britain no longer supported it. Impressment ended, National honor restored. NV Failed to take SV, and signed a peace treaty. When the U.S left, NV attacked again. Ya the U.S didn't go Back, doesn't matter.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions You're deluded, I can see that now.
What do you mean Canada wasn't a war goal? Do you think the U.S just declared war for the sake of it with no objectives whatsoever? To win the war you had to seize Canada and use it as leverage to achieve your aims at the Treaty. Read the Treaty of Ghent and tell me what you achieved. Nothing! Britain gave you nothing and you're trying to tell me you won? There is loads of evidence about Canada but you would call them lies.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 WHERE is the Declaration to annex Canada? Where? Show me? Oh right you can't because the document doesn't exist, because it wasn't a war goal. The U.S didn't Have to take Canada to have it's goal met, it was an Option that didn't work. It didn't matter in the end. I'm not calling them lies at all, were did I say they were lies? Show me.Like with Canada you're just assuming i'm calling them lies. lol and I'm "deluded" I never said there weren't interests, but there was no deceleration.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dgla
GB's defeat could indeed serve as a "bargaining chip", just as Madison said. However, there was also the notion that the conquest of Canada could "complete the revolution", making the entire continent American. That was the "best case" scenario; naturally, those pressing for war did not trumpet this because it would appear a dishonourable motive for war-making. It would also alarm the New England states who were unhappy with the war to the point of threatening succession.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
The fact that the invasion of Canada continued after the maritime grievances that (allegedly) were the cause were redressed indicates that there were ulterior motives. The notion this was intended merely to redress maritime concerns clearly must be nonsense because those concerns were moot by the time the invasion occurred. While we would expect a certain amount of lag time (this was 1812 after all), how can "maritime concerns" alone have sustained several more years of war?
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Fact is that wars, and the war of 1812 in particular, often have more than one "aim." It strains credulity to believe that the only aim of the war was maritime grievances (redressed before the war started), not when significant figures of the American establishment are clamouring for annexation including significant minorities in Canada (UEL's) are also welcoming annexation.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Re 'nam, US priority was to prevent the spread of communism in SE Asia. The Paris Peace accords in '73 were signed because Nixon realised victory could never be achieved, neither through military nor political endeavour, hence the US giving up and pulling out. When Saigon fell in '75 (giving the NVA victory), as the absolute priority was the prevention of communistic spread, why not go back in to remove the NVA? Simple.It was impossible. You lose when you fail in your primary goal.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
The ignominious end came in '75 with clamouring hordes swamping the US embassy in a chaotic Saigon (a city suddenly flooded with enemy NVA & VC) in terror to reach the few choppers available for their rescue. Not ONE objective was met. A panicky retreat with international newsreels showing US Navy men pushing Hueys off the decks of carriers into the South China Sea to make room for more is NOT the act of victors! Vietnam VETERENS will confirm this was nowt but sheer US debacle.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
A few nationalists continue to delude themselves as to the result of 'Nam however, the current military & political quagmire in Iraq & Afghan since '01 (accurately predicted by ex Def Sec Chaney during the first GW) evinces the statement that one is doomed to repeat a history not learned. 'Nam proves that victory in war (fought by superpowers in the nuclear age) is impossible, an expensive lesson in terms of national wealth & lives, tragically lost to US leadership in the interim.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Trying to argue that Vietnam was anything other than a debacle is foolish. It wasn't a clear military defeat granted, but 50,000 casualties and no objectives achieved, with the North simply taking over the South after you left. How is that anything other than a pointless waste of lives and resources? Why didn't the U.S go back when the North violated the Treaty?
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja
I can vividly recall having a beer(s) in Hollywood, LA with two of my mates who I was staying with in Altadena, CA. One said "we didn't lose Vietnam" (I nearly choked on my beer!), immediately corrected by the other who said "yes we did!" The former is a recovering heroin addict, so deluded he thought he'd served in Afghan whilst the latter (who's stayed here with me) is very grounded, ex USN who later told me his mate (man who denied defeat) had never even left the country..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@trouzerpants Haha no way! Takes all kinds I suppose.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275
Some mothers do 'ave 'em..!
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (1)I'm glad to see you finally admit that there was no clear military defeat for the U.S, unlike the French at Dien Bien Phu. The War Came to a Conclusion through Negotiation. The Whole reason did not intervene when the North VIOLATED the terms of the 1973 peace treaty is because the war was as we all know unpopular. However the fact remains. Seeing that there were no U.S troops on the Front Lines in Vietnam when the south fell is impossible to say it was a U.S defeat.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (2) The U.S was very effective in combating the NVA and Viet Kong Forces. The Failings of the war only come after the vietnamization program which strengthened SV forces to over 1.5 million men which as thought to be sufficient for the south to protect its own territory after U.S forces Crushed Multiple Invasions by NV Forces. It was thought that the south could defend themselves effectively due to their crushing of the 1974 Easter offensive.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Thanks for ignoring my 1812 quote but yeah whatever..
As I have said Vietnam was not a Military defeat but it's not the success you make it out to be. Nixon didn't withdraw because all objectives were achieved, he withdrew because there was no possible way to win. He signed the Treaty then got the hell outa' there. 58,000 Casualties, no objectives achieved, and the "Domino Effect" occured all the same - this was a pointless war, you know that, I know that.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (3) The goal was to stop the North from taking the South. Which was achieved on peace treaty. It was not until the Communist offensive of 1975 that the south fell.It happened so rapidly that U.S intervention would not be possible with the forces necessary seeing as many units were being demobilized after the signing of the peace treaty between the U.S forces and NV. Were is the defeat for the U.S? Show me.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dglaproductions Thanks for ignoring my 1812 quote but yeah whatever..
As I have said Vietnam was not a Military defeat but it's not the success you make it out to be. Nixon didn't withdraw because all objectives were achieved, he withdrew because there was no possible way to win. He signed the Treaty then got the hell outa' there. 58,000 Casualties, no objectives achieved, and the "Domino Effect" occured all the same - this was a pointless war, you know that, I know that.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
It was an unwinnable war. The PRIMARY OBJECTIVE (spread of Communism) could NOT be met. It was an unpopular, unsuccessful war. There was a serious drug problem, desertion rates were high & morale low. It was tearing the US apart; riots, flag burning, footage of 58,000+ coffins wrapped in flags returning etc with no end in sight. What did you achieve? Nothing. Signing a peace treaty and pulling out was the only solution. Vietnam wasn't know as "America's nightmare" for nothing..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'll repeat, a panicky retreat with newsreels showing Hueys shoved off carriers into the sea to make room for more people is NOT the act of victors. US public/political opinion was a major factor. This was televised before the days of censorship. The Tet offensive (military failure) proved to be a huge propaganda/political victory. Returning GI's were called baby killers & spat at. It was as much a political loss as anything. Many wars are -lose public support, you're doomed.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions You sir, are my hero
TheImperialistStates 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dglaproductions "In early 1815, Secretary of State James Monroe reviewed the treaty with Britain that would end the War of 1812. The United States Navy was blockaded in port; much of the army had not been paid for nearly a year; the capital had been burned. The treaty offered an unexpected escape from disaster. Yet it incensed Monroe, for the name of Great Britain and its negotiators consistently appeared before those of the United States." - Big victory.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago 9
@Dglaproductions
Nova Scotia has been an American republican's wet dream since 1774.
LiamUe 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (2) It didn't matter that the U.S gave land back to the natives, the Confederacy fell because of the war. National Honor was restored, as silly as it sounds, It was a war goal. There was no proof to annex Canada, so That goal didn't fail. Impressment ended in 1814 when Napoleon was defeated. It didn't have to be gone over in the treaty. Spain eventually gave Florida to the U.S in 1819. Whether you like it or not, the U.S got what it wanted.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Even the most biased, nationalistic American historians don't attempt to claim victory. They claim it was a stalemate. But they only do this by ignoring certain theatres of the war. The Political aspect - which is where they truly failed, and the Naval aspect - they're fond of remembering the USS Constitution but forget that by wars end the entire eastern seaboard was under blockade and this had crippled the economy. They also asume Britain's aim was conquest.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275
Which it certainly was not.
LiamUe 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions "NV Failed to take SV, and signed a peace treaty. When the U.S left, NV attacked again. Ya the U.S didn't go Back, doesn't matter." - Sure does. It means the war was pointless and you failed.
National Honor? It was the most unpopular war in US history. By 1814 there were Student protests in Baltimore, New England was teetering on secession, after Washington's destruction public support vanished, even the Government was searching for a way out of the war.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (2) *Face palm* Vietnam lost almost every battle and didn't take the south. They were forced to sign a peace treaty. How was it a loss? What was the U.S's Goal? Take NV? No. Stop NV from taking SV? yes. What happened? The U.S Stopped NV. How did the U.S lose? You still haven't told me. National Honor, Era of good feelings. There is No Governmental deceleration to take Canada, so it wasn't a war goal, get over it.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dglaproductions "Americans have characteristically judged their wars on the basis of their success. The best-known wars – the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II – were all clear-cut successes. Although many people remembered the War of 1812 as a success, it was in a very real sense a failure, and perhaps this is why it attracts so little attention today." - Donald R. Hickey, an American Historian. Is this guy bias?
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Only after the war ended and the Government spread the news of New Orleans did people begin to think of it as anything other than an embarrassment.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275
You're talking to a super-patriot who will NEVER listen.
I've spoken to Vietnam VETERENS who will tell you that NONE of their war aims were met. For Dgla to say that the fall of Saigon "didn't matter" is to openly state that the deaths of 58,000+ GI's were in vain.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
As for the Vietnam War, of the stated American military and political objectives of the time, a devolution affected by frequent mission creep due to continuous failure in both arenas from the '54 French defeat at Dien Bien Phu until the ignominious end in '75, depicted by the clamouring hordes swamping the US embassy in a chaotic Saigon (a city suddenly flooded with enemy NVA and Viet Cong irregulars) in terror to reach the few choppers available for their rescue..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
Not one objective was met. A panicky retreat with international newsreels showing US Navy men pushing Hueys off the decks of American carriers into the South China Sea to make room for more, is not the act of victors. As to the still common assertion that the Vietnamese were indiscriminately carpet bombed into submission, their signing of the peace treaty in Paris resulted in the cessation of the bombing and US armed forces evacuating their country..
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
..although it was meant to be done in more subdued gradations, the way it happened only emphasizes how the US lost control of the situation. Nixon’s policy of declaring victory and abandoning the field was not victory. It was defeat.
VIETNAM, AN ABSOLUTE, TOTAL AND UTTER, CATASTROPHIC US DEBACLE OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS.
PERIOD.
trouzerpants 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dglaproductions When details of the peace treaty reached the United States, Americans were astounded to discover that it contained no clauses forbidding the seizure by Britain of American sailors, no restrictions on British support for frontier Aboriginals and no restraints on British interference with American commerce on the high seas. These primary causes of the conflict were unresolved. Newspapers were quick to criticize a treaty -
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dglaproductions - that failed to mention the major causes of the conflict. Despite this, the cessation of hostilities was widely welcomed, for "it pleased God to restore peace to this bleeding land." - Pretty concrete proof. But I suppose this is Anti - American lies?
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago 5
@Dglaproductions
there's proof all over the place that american invaded Canada with intent to annex.
and the Natives got no land from the dirty Washingtonian government.
all this War did was demonstrate what a dick America is to other country's when they're down.
LiamUe 2 weeks ago
@LiamUe If The Government didn;t call for Canada's Annexation, it wasn;t a war goal. Plane and simple. I'll agree america was a "dick" to the natives, never the less a wins a win.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions "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."
John Randolf (a Republican) scorned Clay and said it was a case of American aggression. "Agrarian greed not maritime right urges this war."
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 The North only Negotiated with the U.S because they Knew they would Never take the South with the U.S there. They singed it, waited for the U.S to leave, then Attacked. Not our Problem.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions "They said Canada should be part of the U.S, and it would be easy to take it. NONE of them said the U.S had to take it." - ???
Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, solemnly declared he would never accept a Peace Treaty that did not include the cession of Canada.
To win the war, you had to take Canada and hold it for ransom. When you failed to take Canada, you could no longer win.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions EVERYBODY knows the US lost in Vietnam, im not insulting you or mocking it, it was a tragedy. But trying to argue that you won is stupid. Why didn't you go back and sort the situation out then if the North simply disregarded the Treaty? Because the war was disaster and you could not win, just like 1812.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (1) Explain to me, how the U.S was defeated in Vietnam when #1 Every NV offensive in the south was crushed with ungodly casualties suffered by NV, while U.S Suffered little. The U.S utterly destroyed the NV army, NV's Army was almost literally non existent. #2 The U.S was highly effective in its search and destroy operations to root out the NV. #3 The war came to an end between all partied involved. The North Agreed to not attack the south. SV didn't fall until 2 years after peace.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions You can win all the battles in the world and still lose the war. Victory goes to those who achieve their objectives. Just like 1812 - Britain got everything they wanted out of a war they never wanted. In Vietnam you tried to stop the Domino Effect in South East Asia and were dragged into a long, protracted, guerilla war that you could not win. You left. And what you attempted to stop simply happened anyway, a pointless war were you gained nothing - like 1812.
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (1) The U.S Forces stopped the Domino effect while they were there. Wars that end in peace can only be judge by the war it self because often times peace treaty give little to either side. All that can be said about the Vietnam war is that while politically unpopular, it was highly successively militarily. The only reason NV was willing to negotiate was because they knew as long as the U.S was there, they could not take SV. So were is the defeat?
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions "Wars that end in peace can only be judge by the war itself."
In that case you did not "crush" the Natives as you agreed to return all of their lands to their position as they were in 1811. Article IX Treaty of Ghent.
The NV would not have defeated the U.S, but the U.S could not have defeated the NV. It became a situation in which one side had to break. The US broke first. Why didn't the US Government intervene again when the North invaded?
Ninja1275 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions It was never proven Britain was responsible for Native hostility. In fact the accusation was absurd. In Madison's war speech he only implied a connection.
There were no Indian wars or wild west in Canada. All that you suffered were problems you created for yourselves by your greed & aggression.
Britain wanted the US to stop attacking Canada.
We lived in peace & security you had a 100 years of war. Attacking Natives, Mexicans & a Civil war.
A nation of murders with out honor.
Eddythebeast666 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions A Congressman named Josiah Quincy described the invasion of Canada as - "a cruel, wanton, senseless and wicked attack upon an unoffending people, bound to us by ties of blood and good neighbourhood undertaken by young politicians with their pin feathers yet unshed to whom reason justice and pity were nothing and revenge everything."
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions How much more evidence do you want?
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 In none of those quotes called for the Annexation of Canada. They said Canada should be part of the U.S, and it would be easy to take it. NONE of them said the U.S had to take it. None of them Called for Annexation of Canada. Impressment Continued until the defeat of Napoleon in 1814. No need to End Impressment, Natives Crushed = U.S Victory. Madison Never Called for Canada's Annexation.
Dglaproductions 2 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Also there was never any proof Britain aided the natives. Even Madison's war speech only ever implied a connection, not concrete evidence.
Also Britain never wanted their colonies back. Profitable trade with the US was a perfectly acceptable relationship for them. War was averted in the American Civil War because Lincoln bowed down to British pressure and apoligized for the Trent Affair.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions The idea that America only ever wanted Canada as a bargaining chip emerged toward the end of the 19th Century. Created by one American historian and repeated by all who came after him. It is a theory, nothing more. And generally falls apart under scrutiny.
There were other fronts to this war too you know. The US also attempted to seize control of Florida, then Spanish Florida, through the Patriot War 1812 - 14, which also ended in failure.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 As for Florida, The British were supplying natives in Florida to attack the U.S in Georgia. While the U.S did Florida, the U.S negotiated for it in 1819 with the Spanish. The British didn't enter the Civil war because Lincoln promised to end Slavery. Britain wouldn't help a slave owning Nation of the CSA."Bowed down" is a little ridiculous.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dgla
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.”
TBC
trouzerpants 1 month 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.
trouzerpants 1 month ago
"The book also echoes a key message trumpeted by the fed Conservative gov 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 & Chateauguay in Lower Canada) set the stage for the creation of a unified & independent Canada a half-century later."
trouzerpants 1 month ago
Of course the US wanted to annex Canada, to say otherwise is a load of American bollox. There is so much evidence to support this that anyone who seriously doubts it has been lobotomised.
Even your most eminent historians now agree with this, wanna argue with them, too?
You failed, just like in 1775 (only won the rev through the intervention of the Euro powers (particularly France) forcing the war onto a global stage) thus, drawing parallels with 1812 bears no testament whatsoever.
trouzerpants 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious & political principles, & accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union." - John Quincy Adams,1803
trouzerpants 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I know your feelings on the present state of the world and hope they will be cheered by the successful course of our war and the addition of Canada to our confederacy. The infamous intrigues of Great Britain to destroy our government (of which Henry's is but one sample) and with the Indians to tomahawk our women and children, prove that the cession of Canada, their fulcrum for these Machiavellian levers, must be a sine qua non at a treaty of peace.":- Jefferson to Gen Kosciusko
trouzerpants 1 month ago
"sine qua non" is Latin for "an essential element or condition."
The "bargaining chip" theory is risible, first suggested by one US historian decades ago then blindly followed by the rest. Why? 'Cause it gives you a right to claim some kinda spurious "victory." In reality, it was nothing other than US opportunism, attempting to usurp land you've ALWAYS coveted whilst GB was busy with Boney in Europe.
1812 (for the US) was about as successful as your Vietnamese debacle.
End of.
trouzerpants 1 month ago
Of course British arms were found! We'd been trading with natives since way back.Re the Leopard attacking the Chesapeake, Broke ignored the search warrant, instead, just played for time. He was takin' the piss, of course the Leopard opened fire! Deserters WERE found; it was the RN's RIGHT to recover deserters, many of whom the US ENCOURAGED to desert, hence the continued impressment during our blockade of France. You wanna trade with a despot like Boney, you're gonna feel the heat.
trouzerpants 1 month ago
If 1807 was an act of war, why wasn't war declared immediately? Why wait 'til 1812? I'll tell ya why. Boney was at the height of power in 1812. US thought GB couldn't defend her sovereign land whilst fighting Boney, even thought we'd lose. Well mate, just like Mussolini backing Hitler, Madison also backed the wrong horse. Not to mention other than UEL's, British Loyalists fuckin' hated the new US republic, that's why they left & you thought they were gonna support you?! Get real!
trouzerpants 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions Read Trouzerpants' comments. Everything he has said is accurate.
War nearly sparked off in the Civil War because of the Trent Affair. Britain demanded that the two Confederate Diplomats be released. Lincoln issued a formal apology and released them. Sounds like bowing down to me.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions At the Treaty of Ghent you gained nothing. Not even the issues you went to war over were addressed by the Treaty. Read Article IX. The one consistent British demand was that you give the Natives their lands back. You conceded to this demand. That is an admission of failure. You achieved nothing and by the Treaty had to concede land. Being the lying bastards they were this was never carried out but the fact remains.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 (4) The British originally wanted a native Buffer zone. That failed. The British Wanted part of Maine after they took it. Also Failed, that's because of the Battle of Baltimore and Plattsburgh. Which, once again, denied the British Uti possidetis. Seeing that the war was going no were The British, like the U.S, just wanted peace. Impressment continued, but dramatically decreased. The treaty gave neither side nothing, but better trade. But the U.S gained much more because of the war.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 (5)The Treaty of Ghent gave neither side anything. Everything went almost back to how everything was before. The U.S held a very small piece of Canada in the Maine region, but that's irrelevant I guess. The U.S was the only side gain major Profit. Granted not discussed in the treaty, but was an effect of the war none the less. Native Coalition fell, Impressment decreased, Better trade opened with Canada. Britain defended a land the U.S wasn't going to keep. Sounds like a U.S victory.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions The Patriot War was entirely separate from Jackson's invasion and occupation of Pensacola, idiot. The US seized Baton Rouge from Spain in 1810 and Mobile in 1813. There was an active policy in Georgia (backed by the Goverment) to seize Spanish Florida, it was undefended due to the war in Europe, and was home to numerous runaway slaves. 2 books have been written on the subject by American historians: "Rampant Rebels: Florida Fiasco" and "The other war of 1812".
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 (1) "Idiot"...really? Are you really that angry. We are having a talk, don't have a tantrum child. There were raids in Florida, which destroyed Seminole threat to Georgia. It was Arming the natives that pissed the U.S off. It doesn't matter if it was legal Like I already said, It was a U.S obstacle that was overcome thanks to the war. Yes, Britain giving natives weapons is Britain's fault. You even acknowledged they did.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions Sorry but the fact you're refusing to admit defeat in Vietnam tells me exactly the kind of person you are.
Dont post silly conjecture, tell me facts agreed on by historians. The Patriot War which took place alongside the War of 1812 was a failed attempt to annex Spanish territory. There was no provocation by the Spanish or by Seminole Natives. You invaded and ended up losing a guerilla war with Spanish Loyalists and Seminoles.
Ninja1275 4 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (1) What kind of person I am? the One who pays attention tot he facts? The U.S repulsed ever communist offensive in SV. The U.S counter operations were successively in eliminating the Viet kong. The U.S never lost a major battle to the North Vietnamese. The U.S signed a peace treaty with the north before withdrawing U.S troops. The peace treaty said that all hostilities would stop, and everything would go back to the way it was before. 2 years latter, the North attacked again.
Dglaproductions 3 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (2) So were is the defeat? The U.S simply didn't get involved when the north attacked a second time. They broke the treaty, that doesn't mean we lost. Back to 1812. Impressment ended when Napoleon was defeated in 1814. There was no more reason to fight Britain after such. Why go over it, when it was over? Granted Impressment started again after the war of 1812 ended, but British attacks on U.S ships ere decreased dramatically.
Dglaproductions 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions The Native threat was your problem, not ours. Did Madison offer any proof about British aid to Natives? No. He speculated. Read his war speech.
It was entirely within our right to trade with natives. There was no law against it. Just like you traded with the Southern tribes such as the Choctaw. It was the US expanding into Native territory that pissed the Natives off and yet because they fought back you blamed the British?
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions Read Article IX of the Treaty of Ghent. The first demand that Britain made and the only one they refused to budge on was on behalf of the Natives. You accepted that demand. You agreed to give the Natives the land back that you had taken. That's a clear admission of failure. You went into the war with clear aims and failed in them all. Britain gave you nothing.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions Everything on the table, apart from the Native issue, was negotiable. The territory Britain wanted was never a priority and in fact the land they wanted in Maine they gained in 1842. Besides how can you use the fact we never gained territory as a cause of victory? You started the war, we were defenders, none of your territory should have been occupied. We gave that land up to secure a better deal for the Natives. Did Vietnam take your land when they beat you?
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions Even the most prominent American historians don't say it was a victory. They carefully alter the events and create the illusion of a stalemate. You call me bias yet can accept no other view other than your own, and quite frankly you're retarded if you think this was a victory.
Ninja1275 1 month ago
@Ninja1275 (2) The British wanted the land they took in the north, but didn't. Failure. Doesn't matter that the U.S attacked, it was still a failure. Giving land back to the natives is not an admission of failure. It was not a goal to destroy, but stop British support. Which the war did. Vietnam Didn't beat the U.S. The U.S made a peace treaty with NV 2 years before they attacked SV again. The treaty was meant to have NV stop attacking SV. Which they agreed to. They attacked again when U.S left.
Dglaproductions 1 month ago
@Dglaproductions LOL! The one and only British objective in this war was to defend Canada! Do you really think we had time to bother with an insignificant flee that is the US when we were busy fighting Napoleon Bonaparte? We defended Canada, and managed to invade US territory. This was such a humiliating US defeat, and you had to sign a peace treaty in 1815 because you knew we were finished with Napoleon and would thereby focus all of our superior resources against you. Coward and liar.
TheLiberalKnight 1 month ago
@TheLiberalKnight
Any idea why there are so many sore 200 year old American losers? Some even feel they met their war aims during their Vietnam debacle.. {face-palm}
Americans - there are a few with a working brain yet the intelligent, informed variety are absolutely SWAMPED by the majority who are decidedly imbecilic. It's just so sad...
trouzerpants 1 month ago
The following are REPOSTS for the benefit of those blind Americans, too obtuse (or prideful) to accept the TRUTH.
trouzerpants 1 month 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 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“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.
trouzerpants 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The book also echoes a key message trumpeted by the fed Conservative gov 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 & Chateauguay in Lower Canada) set the stage for the creation of a unified & independent Canada a half-century later."
trouzerpants 1 month ago
So too says the late, most acclaimed and award winning historian Jon Latimer (what he didn't know about this conflict isn't worth knowing) and every other historian worth his salt.
Even many US historians have now swallowed their pride and admitted what we ALL KNOW, the War of 1812 was a FAILED US ATTEMPT AT CANADIAN ANNEXATION.
Look folks, it was an embarrassing American defeat yet, to quote Napoleon:-
"He who in war has made no mistakes has not made war very long."
trouzerpants 1 month ago
"This 'bargaining chip theory' is just that, nothing but a theory. The myth that there was never any intent to annex Canada is less then 80 years old, proposed by one US historian then later repeated by all who came after. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, analogous to a bank robber claiming he only wanted a loan." -
EddytheBEAST666
Once again, a fine analogy, Eddy.
trouzerpants 1 month ago
Eliot Cohen "is one of the FEW teachers in the American academy to treat military history as a SERIOUS FIELD." - wiki
Proof that most US "historians" treat military history as something to be skewed and distorted to justify US ego. That is sad and pathetic.
You want REAL history? Then you have to study in GB. Just the same as if you want accurate period drama, it absolutely HAS to be made by British production companies (Merchant Ivory etc) as all Hollywood does is fuck it up.
trouzerpants 4 weeks ago
@trouzerpants I wouldn't say all Americans are like this, but it seems that all Americans who boast about their own military record (which is piss poor) are completely insane, or else completely idiotic.
TheLiberalKnight 4 weeks ago
@TheLiberalKnight
Agreed. If I had a penny for every American idiot who's proclaimed they'd "saved us TWICE" during the WW's, I could retire today, wealthy enough to simply live off the interest alone. The fact is that Americans (without their hands being held) cannot punch their way out from a wet paper bag yet they boast, they brag, they're full of hot-air, hyperbole & hubris, even though they are merely a nation of immigrant usurpers. Their jingoistic attitude disgusts me.
trouzerpants 4 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions This was YOUR WAR, not our's. Impressment was rescinded before the war began. We offered you peace in 1812 and 1813 and each time you refused and demanded the cession of Canada. Only when Napoleon abdicated and large British armies were mobilizing to raid the US did the US delegation at Ghent drop their demands and ask for peace. These are known facts. Look up the politics of the war. The only demand that we really wanted was a fair deal for the Natives -
Ninja1275 4 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (4) The British wanted land also. The British demanded the cession of large areas, plus turning most of the Midwest into a neutral zone for the natives. This outraged the public, and made the U.S want to fight on. Don't Pretend that the British weren't interested. Even the Great Duke of Wellington said it was despicable of Britain to try and take land from the U.S. Britain and little to gain, and much to lose from prolonged war with the U.S.
Dglaproductions 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions - and this is what we got. Britain offered it as a Sine Qua Non, meaning in order for negotiations to take place you had to accept this demand. What else is this but an admission of failure?
You went into the war with demands and Britain agreed to NONE of them - you instead had to accept one of OUR demands. We were defenders. We brought the war to a close and gave you nothing. This entire war was obviously a strategic British victory.
Ninja1275 4 weeks ago
@Ninja1275 (5) Regions in Western Florida stayed with he United States after it was taken. The U.S finally got it from Spain in 1819. The U.S was simply the only country to benefit from the war. U.S complaints didn't come up in Ghent because the issues were already solved at Napoleons defeat. Native raids were not mentioned because they were already crushed. All reasons for America fighting the war were solved. Show me documents of the U.S Government calling for the annexation of Canada.
Dglaproductions 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions Look up the Politics of the war and don't just focus on the battles. One of the first demands that James Monroe made in 1813 was the cession of Canada. Impressment ended before the war began but the US delegation demanded that Britain completely relinquish their right to use it in the future. By 1814 Britain would not budge therefore the US dropped it as a demand. Wellington never said that. He said he could not offer to dramatically change the situation unless he had -
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions - complete control of the Great Lakes. By the terms of the Treaty you agreed to return Native lands to their position as they were in 1811 (Article IX). This was a major concession on your behalf but you simply lied and never carried it out. Like I said the land we occupied was never a priority, it fell into our hands as a result of the war. While Britain was demanding a neutral Indian state and land in Maine the U.S was STILL demanding the cession of Canada.
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions "The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union." - John Quincy Adams 1811.
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions "The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent." - Thomas Jefferson 1812.
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions One of the few voices of reason and restraint was John Randolf of Virginia, who left the Republican party to form a peace party called Quids. He opposed war and argued its real purpose was "a scuffle and a scramble for plunder." It was, he said, nothing but a cover for land grab. "One word like a whip-poor-will cried one monotonous tone: Canada, Canada, Canada."
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago
@Dglaproductions "It was amusing to hear the Americans talk of the ease with which they can possess themselves of the British provinces. No man of either party seems to imagine there would be any difficulty in effecting the project, that is, capturing British North America." - Unknown Spy from Nova Scotia.
Ninja1275 3 weeks ago