ratgirl34
bogosghost1
ratgirl34
In the war of 1812 the U.S. declared war on Britain, not the other way around. The U.S. invaded British territory making the U.S. the aggressors. And Canada, as in the settlements, had nothing to do with anything the British did to piss off the U.S. yet it was Canada that was attacked. Which I suppose makes sense, if you can't reach the heart of Britian then slap its hand.
But if you are learning in school that Britian started that war, then you are reading an edited history buddy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada#War_of_1812
Quote:
After the cessation of hostilities at the end of the American Revolution, animosity and suspicion continued between the United States and the United Kingdom,[110] erupting in 1812 when
the Americans declared war on the British.
Hmmm... the US declared war (as in brought on the war of 1812) but that's not exactly the whole story... There's a reason they did it, it wasn't on a whim or to just gain territory in Canada. At the treaty of Paris in 1783, the Northwest Territory was ceded to the Americans so that they would be able to expand westward.
But strange, it seems that the British retained a presence there and had forts in the region where they should not have according to the Treaty. They also armed the Native Americans who were hostile towards American Expansion (Tecumseh much?) and meddled in areas where they shouldn't have been, up to 1815 after the war. Also, there were several Indian raids on American settlers in the frontier, who happened to have British guns, and who were backed by the British. The British were not innocent leading up to the war of 1812.
Quote:
According to that same page, at best we should be calling it a draw. You got your independence, got pissy because of the way the British ran their navy which resulted in Americans being forced to serve in it, attacked Canada, and were repelled.
Quote:
Neither side of the war can claim total victory.
Sure the overall result is that there was no change in territory based on lines drawn before the war, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you won or that the British were the aggressors. And country yet or not, we were still Canada, and we did contribute quite a bit more than you give us credit for in that war.
At best the war of 1812 was a draw, at worst the British/Canadians won more of the time. While America did pull off some remarkable battles (Sacking and burning of York, Battle of Baltimore, Battle of New Orleans - even though this was fought after the war lol), I would say that the British/Canadians performed overall better in terms of battles in the Northwest territories, battles in the US, and, of course, the burning of the white house (although, to be fair, that was the British who were responsible, as well as their huge naval blockade and bombardments assisting Canadians throughout the war ) A problem for the US was their horrrrrrrible generals that they sent. Seriously, they were incompetent, untested, and arrogant for the most part.
The name of the game with the war of 1812 was a delay in communication.
2 days before the US declared war, the British decided to repeal the Orders in Council, which would have stopped forcing neutrals (such as America) to only trade with them in the war against France. However, because of the Atlantic, news didn't reach this side in time and the war had already broken out, putting an end to a diplomatic dispute. Also, I believe the British stopped the impressment of US sailors as well! But tragically, the war had already started.
Also, several Americans may think of the war of 1812 as a win for them (even though it wasn't) because of the battle of New Orleans,which brought Andrew Jackson to prominence. The British got owned there. But, again, that delay of communication. The Treaty of Ghent had been signed less than a month before the battle I believe, so technically the war was already over, but again the Atlantic.
Anyways, the borders went back to being a draw, but there's something I should note that played to America's favor (not necessarily because of the war of 1812). It was after the war ended where the British stopped meddling with the frontier, and largely due to Tecumseh's loss, the war opened up the US to expand westward, where before it had been severely hindered from that. So yeah, the war of 1812, interesting to talk about, borders went back to the status quo, and it was a war that could have been prevented had communication traveled quicker. America did gain its objectives, but not from the war itself, a lot of that was from the end of the Napoleonic conflicts. After the war of 1812, the US was free to trade, sailors were not impressed, and their sovereignty wasn't impinged upon as it had been. They were free to globally send their navy places, such as with the Barbary pirates in the Tripolitan Conflict, and most importantly they could expand west with the Native Problem being out of the picture.
But, again, I can see how Canadians today would say that they won the war. However, gaining territory and holding territory was not an objective of either side (The US invaded Canada primarily because of impressment and the British inspiring native raids, not for the sake of invading Canada).
This is true, the British were being dicks, and they were in the process of stopping that when then war broke out and well.. Atlantic. But that doesn't make the U.S. any less the aggressors. Not that I blame them for striking out at the only viable target, what else could they do to get Britians attention?
The Northwest Territory is rather far away from U.S. borders for that time, and since it is presently a part of Canada I can't see the U.S. giving it to us. Alaska didn't become a part of the U.S. until 1867, and I can't find anything online that suggests the NWT has ever been a part of the U.S. Which is what I expected so I guess it's possible I'm biased in my search... Pretty sure that NWT was never a part of the U.S.
I'm not a huge history buff, but I remember enough from school to know what wars we won and what we lost. And Canada generally does pretty well for a bunch of peacekeepers, so it pisses me off when people brush off our successes like we're little kids who don't know what the ******** we're doing. If we had the equipment the U.S. does, we'd kick a** even if we are outnumbered, the difference is that we don't put our entire national identity on our military, we have other priorities. It annoys the ******** out of me.
We were the first to declare war, not the first to attack. Being a sneaky b*****d and not officially declaring any of your attacks doesn't preclude you from being responsible for them. Unless you think pearl Harbor, 9/11, D-Day (and yes, that one was
by us), doesn't truly signal the start of the war?
The British sought to cut off the U.S.'s trade, which eventually brought the "American economy to near bankruptcy, forcing it to rely on loans for the rest of the war. American foreign trade was reduced to a trickle. The parlous American economy was thrown into chaos with prices soaring and unexpected shortages causing hardship in New England which was considering secession." American ships were routinely attacked, especially those going to France, and the
Chesapeake affair was seen as the final straw, although it was common for Britain to attacks U.S. ships at the time (primarily to recruit, or essentially enslave U.S. sailors into their military). Finally, they armed and trained the natives, as well as encouraged attacks against the U.S., sometimes even embedding their troops within the units (albeit poorly disguised). It was even stated in their
negotiations that they wanted an Indian buffer state between the U.S. and Canada, to put the group at American borders. This was of course refused, in large part because the buffer state would have been in U.S. land. Finally, the negotiations demanded U.S. land, which virtually conceded that this was among the British's goals all the time, which of course were refused (yet the Americans made no such demands).
The British had planned three invasions. One force burned Washington but failed to capture Baltimore, and sailed away when its commander was killed. In northern New York State, 10,000 British veterans were marching south until a decisive defeat at the Battle of Plattsburgh forced them back to Canada. The third large invasion force that was sent to New Orleans was also soundly defeated, even thought it wasn't until long after the war. While America had failed to capture areas of Southern Canada, they had stopped the attacks into their country, and essentially dissolved the raiding forces that were going into the U.S. It was
common for the British to work with the Indians, and it more or less showed that they had been working close with the Native Americans for much of time, to be able to launch such coordinated attacks. It's sad the Native Americans got the short end of the stick though, they just joined up with the wrong side.
To hopefully put this into perspective, Canada couldn't have won the war because they didn't exist as a country at the time nor did they have a military. The British military did the bulk of the fighting, assisted by the natives. Secondly, Britain failed to achieve their ultimate objectives and fled the country after several defeats, after which they made a peace agreement in Belgium after all three of their key invasion forces were routed. Thirdly, Britain had been demanding the whole time more territory and access to trade routes (in addition to cutting the Americans off from this), to which the Americans refused. While we could say the Americans lost nothing, it was because of the fact the British were trying to destroy and take us over, and we resisted yet again, that it was considered a victory for the Americans. To win a defensive war, all you have to do is not lose. Failing to be taken over is kind of the victory. If you don't consider that to be a victory for whatever reason, that's fine and all, but the idea that Canada somehow won or that America was the aggressor kind of makes no sense.
100
100
200
