Burning the White House.

[Hotpoint]

It isn't the same. Toronto isn't the capital of the British Empire.

It was the Capital of the part of the British Empire that had been invaded by a foreign power trying to annex its territory.

Anyway if you start burning cities don't complain just because your enemies retaliation seems to be disproportionate (to you). If you hit below the belt first you're in no position to complain if your opponent tries to make a soprano out of you in response

That is bullying.

Britain was far too busy dealing with Napoleon to be bullying the United States. That was just an excuse for an aggressive, expansionist US policy in North America.

We attacked Canada to put pressure on Britain to stay out of our way. It was the closest British area to send a meassage.

You attacked Canada to attempt to finally drive the remaining British (and Loyalist) forces out of North America and because with the majority of the British military stuck elsewhere you thought you could get away with it.

 

[Zarn]

If you were tied up, what were you doing in Washington in the first place? Sure, you had to deal with the French, but you certainly had enough forces to burn Washington and fight the US. You must have had enough focres before the US went to war.

You have no respect for the United States independence, if you think Britain had the right to do what it did back then.

 

[Hotpoint]

If you were tied up, what were you doing in Washington in the first place? Sure, you had to deal with the French, but you certainly had enough forces to burn Washington and fight the US. You must have had enough focres before the US went to war.

The British force that won the Battle of Bladensburg and went on to Washington DC was 4500 strong at a time when the British Army as a whole had over 250,000 troops under arms (mainly directed at the French).

The British were never in a position to divert more than a tiny percentage of their regular forces to North America. Imagine what would have happened if Napoleon hadn't returned from Elba and the Duke of Wellington had been sent to the US with fifty thousand combat hardened veterans though!

You have no respect for the United States independence, if you think Britain had the right to do what it did back then.

Please allow me to point out again that the War of 1812 was an American invasion of foreign territory. Apparently we had a better appreciation of American Independence than the US did of the Canadians.

Slightly O/T but can I assume you disaprove of American Gunboat diplomacy too? Should the United States apologise to Japan for Commodore Perry and his Black ships?

 

[Evie]

You guys invaded English territory. England retaliated.

Once you start a fight, you have no ground to complain about getting a headpunch (ie, your capital burned down).

England had every right to attack Washington (and America to attack the future Toronto) once the war was joined.

Demanding apologies for it now is just plain imbecilistic arrogance.

 

[Zarn]

You guys invaded English territory. England retaliated.

Once you start a fight, you have no ground to complain about getting a headpunch (ie, your capital burned down).

England had every right to attack Washington (and America to attack the future Toronto) once the war was joined.

Demanding apologies for it now is just plain imbecilistic arrogance.

Watch your language. I'm no imbecile.

We didn't start the fight. Canada was a retaliation.

I never demanded, I just said it was owed. It is Britain's choice, like I said earlier.

 

[DAv2003]

Why is it owed? Did America ever apologise for Hiroshima? Or the Sand Creek Massacare? Or the cultural genocide of the Native Americans during the 19th century? Not as far as I know but the moment that a foreign power shows you what a world of hurt is, then an apology is needed. British troops were fired at when they were under a flag of truce and still kicked arse afterwards. Doesn't that say something?

 

[Zarn]

Why is it owed? Did America ever apologise for Hiroshima? Or the Sand Creek Massacare? Or the cultural genocide of the Native Americans during the 19th century? Not as far as I know but the moment that a foreign power shows you what a world of hurt is, then an apology is needed. British troops were fired at when they were under a flag of truce and still kicked arse afterwards. Doesn't that say something?

Why would we apologize for Hiroshima? There was no other choice. Britain had the choice to go to war with the US, and they had the choice to burn the city.

I'm not sayng the US doesn't owe other apologies. I'm saying Britain does.

Your own nationality doesn't let you see what actually happened.

 

[Hotpoint]

We didn't start the fight. Canada was a retaliation.

If you think that the United States was justified in attacking Britain in 1812 because Britain was interfering in US trade and shipping then presumably you also think that Japan was justified in attacking the United States in 1941 because of the trade embargo America placed on Japan in July of that year?

Or is it different rules for different people?

 

[DAv2003]

Your own nationality doesn't let you see what actually happened.

Three words. Pot. Kettle. Black. And why should we apologise for Washington when America never apologised for Toronto? Also, you invaded British territory, we never had much of a choice but to go to war QED.

 

[Evie]

The United States declared war first.

Yes, they did it over extremely questionable actions (impressment) of England, but the decision to go to war was taken by the United States, not England.

Thus they started the fight, and have no right to any apologies over their capital being attacked and burned. When you declare war on a country, you have to accept the risk that they might be able to hurt you after all.

Now, apologies for IMPRESSMENT would be another issue entirely.

 

[Zarn]

If you think that the United States was justified in attacking Britain in 1812 because Britain was interfering in US trade and shipping then presumably you also think that Japan was justified in attacking the United States in 1941 because of the trade embargo America placed on Japan in July of that year?

Or is it different rules for different people?

Japan was invading other countries. The US was just trading with another nation.

We declared war, because Britain had no respect. Did you expect us just shut up and take it. We had the right. If it weren't for your attitude, there wouldn't have been any war between the US and Britain, during those years.

I'm glad our navy took care of your ships. I love the irony about it.

 

[greekguy]

It's not like the British commited genocide against Americans, they burned down our President's Mansion. It was war and in war buildings get destroyed. An apology would be totally pointless.

 

[Hotpoint]

Japan was invading other countries. The US was just trading with another nation.

You skipped the question. I wasn't asking whether the US was right to put Japan under a Trade Embargo I asked if Japan was right to attack the US for doing so?

(Also please keep in mind that the British interference in US shipping was because France was invading other countries quite a bit at the time and the British and her Allies were trying to stop them)

We declared war, because Britain had no respect. Did you expect us just shut up and take it. We had the right. If it weren't for your attitude, there wouldn't have been any war between the US and Britain, during those years.

Good grief! Hurt feelings are not a good Casus-Belli. And in any case the War-Hawks were only using the Trade and Impressment issues as a smokescreen to hide their true goals of, amongst other things, annexing Canada.

 

[Zarn]

You skipped the question. I wasn't asking whether the US was right to put Japan under a Trade Embargo I asked if Japan was right to attack the US for doing so?

(Also please keep in mind that the British interference in US shipping was because France was invading other countries quite a bit at the time and the British and her Allies were trying to stop them)



Good grief! Hurt feelings are not a good Casus-Belli. And in any case the War-Hawks were only using the Trade and Impressment issues as a smokescreen to hide their true goals of, amongst other things, annexing Canada.

The US stopped relations with France. Britain stopped wanted to stop US relations with France. A Europe under French control seemed like a much better idea than a Europe under monarchies.

Hurt feelings? Being robbed, raped, and the such causes hurt feelings. Are those justified? It's basically what the British did but on a much larger scale. The United States was still seen as unimportant, and our hand was forced to show how important we were.

 

[Evie]

As I said - if you want apologies for the events that LED to the war, fine by me, that might actually be justified.

But apologies for getting your presidential mansion burned in a war that YOU declared?

You will never deserve such a thing, no matter how much it hurts your overprideful nationalism.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Lets make no mistakes here, it was the United States that started the War of 1812 with the intent to annex Canada. The attack on Washington was justified based on the American burning down York. Just because the United States lost a war that they started doesn't mean that they deserve an apology for an action that was merely a retaliation for one that they had already performed. They should get an apology for it at the same time that they apologize for starting the war and burning down the Canadian capital.

 

[Evie]

Capital of UPPER Canada, not Canada, incidentally. If Canada has an unified capital at all at the time, it was Québec (capital of Lower Canada), since Lower Canada had a GG (Governor General) where NS, NB and Upper Canada had Lt-Governors.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yes. You are correct of course.

 

[Hotpoint]

Hurt feelings? Being robbed, raped, and the such causes hurt feelings. Are those justified? It's basically what the British did but on a much larger scale. The United States was still seen as unimportant, and our hand was forced to show how important we were.

Now you're justifying war because of national pride? It's a good job your view on international diplomacy and reasonable causes to declare war on aren't widely held because the world would be even more bloody than it is already.

And you've still avoided answering my question.

 

[privatehudson]

Good grief! Hurt feelings are not a good Casus-Belli. And in any case the War-Hawks were only using the Trade and Impressment issues as a smokescreen to hide their true goals of, amongst other things, annexing Canada.

Just to chime in with an addition to this for a moment with a remark I heard on another site on this matter. Apparently an American poster was saying that the majority of the pro-war "Hawks" in the US government were not from places affected by the trade, i.e. the costal states but from inland states with no stake in the whole trade embargo and impressment issue. Ironically many of the costal state politicians who you would presume would have the most to complain about (after all it would be their ports that would loose out due to the trade issues) were against the war. Unfortunately the site suffered some recent problems so I don't know for sure if the detailed information in his post is still around, but if it is I'll repost it.

Impressment and the British attitude to the USA were probably not the main cause of American entry into the war, but they would have been at the time a good enough reason to go into the war, just not now.