War of 1812

[The Ram]

anyone know anything about this? or is it just as infamous as I thought?

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Click Here

Oh, and contrary to popular belief Canadians did not burn down the Presidents house it was British troops.

 

[Ozz]

Click Here

Oh, and contrary to popular belief Canadians did not burn down the Presidents house it was British troops.

Canadians were British troops,

Oh,yer source is horse**** revisionism. A couple of select quotes.

" It wanted to pass on a message to the world at large, "Britain is not a country to mess around with", and it had specific strategic interests in North America, e.g. as a source of naval supplies. Such a message was sent in passing when Britain burned down the White House"

They burnt the white house cause Americans burnt Yorke. You burn our
cities and we'll burn ours.

'Many Canadians believe the War of 1812 was an American defeat. From their point of view, the American invasions of 1813 and 1814 were repulsed. However, from the American point of view, the war was a successful defense of American rights, culminating in the victory at New Orleans. Because New Orleans was successfully defended, American expansion into the Southwest was possible"

From the American point of view Custer's Last stand was a victory too.
If the Americans never attacked New Orleans would have never been
threatened right?

 

[Gelion]

It was a war of Napoleonic France and her allies against Russia . Moscow was burned down but 600000 strong French army perished and it was the beginning of the downfall of Napoleon.
I'd love to know about this war in America though .

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Well, to be honest I didn't read the article that carefully. I'm suprised to see such a bias. Usually wikipedia has objective articles that rely mainly on facts.

 

[Hotpoint]

Canadians were British troops,

As far as I know all the British Troops that fought at Bladensburg, and who later burned selected buildings in Washington DC, were Regulars from Europe and I'm not aware of any Canadian militia amongst them which I think is what Riesstiu IV was saying.

It has however been a number of years since I read anything on the War so I may be mistaken. If you've got sources saying otherwise Ozz please supply them.

Oh,yer source is horse**** revisionism. A couple of select quotes.

Now that I will have to agree with. As it doesn't explain why the British were preventing US Trade with Europe (we were at war with France and trying to break the "Continental System") and also fails to mention that the impressed "American" Sailors seized off US ships were usually British and particularly British deserters.

Another point not raised in the text is that the annexation of Canada was a stated war-aim of the American government.

They burnt the white house cause Americans burnt Yorke. You burn our
cities and we'll burn ours.

There's another reason why the British Army was so destructive in Washington DC. When they rode in under a White Flag to negotiate the cities surrender they were fired upon killing the horse of the British commander Major General Robert Ross.

Shooting at troops who are under a flag of truce tends to result in them being more than a little bit annoyed and vengeful. That behaviour just wasn't the done thing in late 18th / early 19th Century warfare.

'Many Canadians believe the War of 1812 was an American defeat. From their point of view, the American invasions of 1813 and 1814 were repulsed. However, from the American point of view, the war was a successful defense of American rights, culminating in the victory at New Orleans. Because New Orleans was successfully defended, American expansion into the Southwest was possible"

The war was started by the United States with the aim of the invasion and annexation of foreign territory so it wasn't exactly defensive from that standpoint. Meanwhile the defeat of the (badly outnumbered) British at the Battle of New Orleans occured after the war had officially ended and it cannot therefore be considered as relevant to discussions of victory.

One indicator of the winner might be to consider who asked for a settlement first, this was the United States which requested peace negotiations as early as 1813. Another indicator might be the losses suffered and even according to wikipedia itself the United States lost over twice as many men during the fighting.

 

[Vrylakas]

Canadians were British troops,

No, there was definitely a distinction between Canadian militia and British regulars. No Canadians were involved with the burning of Washington.

Oh,yer source is horse**** revisionism. A couple of select quotes.

It was a bit wishy-washy, but not all that bad. I think it missed a few important points, but overall, as a summary it wasn't bad. I know Canadians tend to exaggerate some aspects of the war - it was far more important to them than the other parties - but I agree with his description of the conclusions both the Americans and British drew from the war; namely that the two sides would never defeat each other so cooperation was the only practical option left.

" It wanted to pass on a message to the world at large, "Britain is not a country to mess around with", and it had specific strategic interests in North America, e.g. as a source of naval supplies. Such a message was sent in passing when Britain burned down the White House"

They burnt the white house cause Americans burnt Yorke. You burn our
cities and we'll burn ours.

Actually the British retaliation for the burning of York was an expedition into western New York whereby they marched down what is today Route 5 (hugging Lake Erie) and burned all the towns in their path. Lewiston, Buffalo, Blockrock, the town that would become Blasdell later, etc. If you walk the older cemetaries in the towns along Route 5 nowadays you can see the tombstones of families who died of starvation or exposure in the 1813-14 winter. These events, the burning of York, Newark, Buffalo and other towns on the Niagara frontier was a major tragedy for both sides and achieved nothing for anyone.

The British burning of the White House and etc. was more along the lines of a raid, with a decidedly political message somewhat akin to what the article stated - although the intended audience was the Americans, not so much the rest of the world. They never intended to hold Washington.

BTW, the burning of Newark wasn't just an American crime; there were a few hundred Canadian volunteers in the American force who insisted in burning Newark down, sometimes directing which houses to burn. In at least one case a Canadian volunteer was actually from Newark, and was carefully burning his former neighbors' houses down.

'Many Canadians believe the War of 1812 was an American defeat. From their point of view, the American invasions of 1813 and 1814 were repulsed. However, from the American point of view, the war was a successful defense of American rights, culminating in the victory at New Orleans. Because New Orleans was successfully defended, American expansion into the Southwest was possible"

From the American point of view Custer's Last stand was a victory too.
If the Americans never attacked New Orleans would have never been
threatened right?

??? Americans consider Custer's defeat a defeat, and Custer a head-strong idiot who got himself and his men killed through foolish military adventures. I've never heard that event referred to as a victory in my years in the U.S.

And as for the Battle of New Orleans, the Americans never attacked it; it was the British attacking the city. In essence a basic motive for the war for both sides (the Americans and the British) had to do with the unresolved Western territories issues. Both had vague claims to the Ohio Valley lands and London did not recognize the 1803 Louisiana Purchase by which the U.S. had bought vast tracts of Western land from Napoleon - including the city of New Orleans - because of issues with Spain (the Peninsular War). While the British were not willing to invest enough military resources to take the lands they did harrass American shipping on the Great Lakes and arm and train various Indian groups to raid American settlements, c. 1800-1815. This is the underlying root of the British attempt to seize New Orleans in 1815; controlling that city could put a huge brake on American economic activity up and down the Mississippi, and thereby possibly forestall American westward expansion. Not attacking New Orlean meant Britain would be easily pushed out of the west because the Americans more or less effectively controlled the rest of the crucial waterway routes that led from the Atlantic to the interior, eventually to New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. The authors of the article are correct that the severe British defeat at New Orleans forced London to concede that the Mississippi, and by proxy the West, was American from now on.

The battle itself is amazing. The British attempted a sea assault on the city with c. 12,000 men (against c. 4000 Americans) but fumbled with the landings and missed a few crucial strategic opportunities. At battle's end there were 2000 British dead and 71 American, and the city had successfully repulsed the British. The British general Pakenham himself was among the dead,

My take on the war was that it was one of the most useless and ill-concieved wars of modern times, but it did bear some promising fruit. The British and the Americans had both deluded themselves into believing they could easily defeat the other side (both having forgotten critical lessons from the 1775-1783 war), and felt compelled to do so as neither was completely willing to enact the settlements reached at the end of the American Revolution. Each side scored victories and suffered defeats in the war, which is shown in the final peace treaty which more or less left everything as it was. The Americans finally gave up on the dream of a single country stretching from the Rio to the Arctic and finally dumped their horrible militia system, the British stopped harrassing American ships on the high seas and the British authorities in the Canadas stopped supplying the Indians of the West with arms and training and also were careful not to posture the British military presence in the Canadas as threatening/offensive. as a result of the lessons learned from this war, Washington and London reached several very sane agreements throughout the 19th century about their mutual borders, fishing rights, police cooperation and etc.

 

[Mr Black]

Watch the History Channel next Monday!!!

 

[Hotpoint]

The battle itself is amazing. The British attempted a sea assault on the city with c. 12,000 men (against c. 4000 Americans) but fumbled with the landings and missed a few crucial strategic opportunities. At battle's end there were 2000 British dead and 71 American, and the city had successfully repulsed the British. The British general Pakenham himself was among the dead,

Your numbers are somewhat off. At the battle itself there were 6000 British Regulars plus a 1000 militia under Pakenham versus around 6000 entrenched troops under Jackson.

Oh yes it was 2000 dead and wounded not just dead

 

[SKILORD]

The most important part about the war of 1812 diudn't happen until after that war was over, in the battle of New Orleans. The burning of Washington and of some nameless Cnadian city (Montreol?) are interestign side notes but nothing in that war really made much difference except for New Orleans.

 

[Hotpoint]

The most important part about the war of 1812 diudn't happen until after that war was over, in the battle of New Orleans. The burning of Washington and of some nameless Cnadian city (Montreol?) are interestign side notes but nothing in that war really made much difference except for New Orleans.

The fact that Canada remained independent from the USA was unimportant?

 

[SKILORD]

;look around embaressed:

maybe that was a little important too, oh yeah.

 

[The Ram]

Contrary to popular believes ( which you all believe) here's the real reason why the British burned Washington: at http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/background/facts_1.html

Why the British burned Washington: Most Canadians and Americans think that the British burned Washington in 1814 in retaliation for the burning of the provincial parliament buildings at York (Toronto) in April 1813. This is not true. In January 1814, after the Americans had burned Niagara-on-the-Lake and the British had devastated the American side of the Niagara, the British commander-in-chief, Sir George Prevost, issued a proclamation stating that Britain would refrain from such acts in the future if the United States would do the same. All was well until May 1814 when, in an unauthorised action, an American force burnt two small Canadian villages on the north shore of Lake Erie. It was this act that caused Prevost to ask the British admiral commanding the North American fleet to retaliate in kind against the Atlantic coast of the United States and the result was the destruction of public buildings in Washington.

IMO, the British could have won at New Orleans if they had a better commanding general, but then the Americans could have won in most of the battles in the Canadas that they lost if they had better commanding generals.

 

[The Ram]

And Custer's last stand was not a last stand. New archeological and forensic evidance points out that, when the dismounted cavalry square of the 7th cavalry was broken, the cavalry ran for their lives instead of "hold till last" like the legend said.

General John Jacob Brown won more pitched battle against the British than any other American General in both the American Revolution and the War of 1812, including George Washington, Nathaniel Green, and Light Horse "Harry" Lee. He is largely forgotten in America today. Pretty sad huh

 

[The Ram]

mistake mistake: he was Major General Jacob Brown, not John Brown

IMO the battle of Chrysler's farm was really wierd how 8000 American regular infantry and cavalry was defeated in a pitch battle against 2 regiments of British regular infantry, total to 800 men, who were not even entrenched and had no artillery support.

How exactly did the Americans manage to loose that battle

 

[privatehudson]

The americans probably spent half of the battle shooting at eachother

 

[pawpaw]

wasn't a "stand up" battle, the british & indian allies ambushed the rear of the u.s. force, which while trying to turn around got totally confused and ended up retreating. only like 150 people were killed.

 

[Bugfatty300]

'Many Canadians believe the War of 1812 was an American defeat. From their point of view, the American invasions of 1813 and 1814 were repulsed. However, from the American point of view, the war was a successful defense of American rights, culminating in the victory at New Orleans. Because New Orleans was successfully defended, American expansion into the Southwest was possible"

From the American point of view Custer's Last stand was a victory too.
If the Americans never attacked New Orleans would have never been
threatened right?

How is that statement bias? It simply says why the Canadians believe they won and why the Americans belive they won. Is not true?

But do explain how Americans think the Battle of Little Bighorn was a victory? I would love to know how the annihilation of half a cavalry regiment along with its commander anything but a defeat. Believe you assume too much.

And Custer's last stand was not a last stand. New archeological and forensic evidance points out that, when the dismounted cavalry square of the 7th cavalry was broken, the cavalry ran for their lives instead of "hold till last" like the legend said.

The 80 survivors of the 210 who lived to make it to "last stand" hill had already been shot to shreds and used up most of their ammunition. The rest fought for 1.5 hours against 2,000 braves until there were about 30 guys left (Most believe Custer was killed early in the battle) and only then when completely out of ammunition and being swarmed by 2,000 extremely pissed-off Souix warriors did the last few make a run for it and were chased down and killed.

You also left out that the Sioux not only out numbered them by thousands the Sioux were also armed with modern 15-shot repeating winchester lever-rifles compared to the single shot rifles used by the Cavalry.

I think its a miracle they lasted as long as they did, with out any cover, being out gunned and out numbered the way they were.

 

[The Ram]

It was Custer's own fault that he divided his cavalry into three companies in face of a march larger enemy. Don't forget not a single cavalry from the company that Custer led in person survived the "last stand" and yes the Indians had modern weapons thanks to American traders. But the cavalry was not using single shot rifles. Not even the Infantry was using them. From the start of the Civil War the cavalry was issued the Spenser's Repeating rifle and the Infantry was issued the Henry repeating rifle by 1864.

 

[The Ram]

PawPaw. There was one ambush at Chrysler's farm and that was a skirmish at the beginning of the battle where the Indians and Canadian militia tried to hold off the attacking Americans. They failed due to the sheer number of Americans attacking. The rest of the battle was 3 frontal attacks by the Americans that failed.

http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/events/chryslerfarm.html