War of 1812: What about the North American conflict do you know?

[fitzgibbon]

So.....I'm starting this thread to get a sense of who knows what north and south of the border. What with the bicentennial approaching in 5 years, I'd like to get a sense from those on this board both American and Canuck as to what they know and what mattered from their understanding.

For Canucks, do you know anything about the Canadian Volunteers? And for the Yanks, do you know anything about the New England States' resistance to the War and near secession?

Looking forward to an interesting thread

[Pipirr]

The Canadians won it. And they burned the White House down.

[Giz]

I have a question: I heard that the White House acquired that name after it was whitewashed to hide the fire damage. What on earth was it called before? The House?

[Gurdur]

I have a question: I heard that the White House acquired that name after it was whitewashed to hide the fire damage. What on earth was it called before? The House?


Apparently not true. From Wikipedia:
A legend emerged that during the rebuilding of the structure white paint was applied to mask the burn damage it had suffered, giving the building its namesake hue. This is unfounded as the building had been painted white since its construction in 1798.

[brodski]

The Canadians won it.
Not quite.

[Madalch]

I have a question: I heard that the White House acquired that name after it was whitewashed to hide the fire damage. What on earth was it called before? The House?
The Presidential Palace.

"So when you go to Washington
It's buildings clean and nice
Bring a pack of matches
And we'll burn the White House twice!"
(From "The War of 1812: The Musical")

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not quite.

Gord checks outside very carefully. Nope. Not a single flag flying on my street.

Are you sure? :confused:

[rudar]

I know the Americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies waa waa waa...

Other than that, is that the one that was sorta-kinda precipitated by a spanish man of war doing something off Vancouver Island, and somehow degenerated into a bit of a border skirmish around Quebec/New England, which kinda petered out into stalemate with no change in where the border actually was? I could be way off base and confusing different events, though.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I've read a few books on the War of 1812, but I mostly remember the Pierre Burton's books (objective but somewhat Canadian/British centric).

The Americans were upset that the British in their current fighting with France, was boarding American ships on the high seas and taking anyone the British deemed, well, British to fight for Britain. The term for this was "impressment" and angered the Americans to no end.

There wasn't a lot of support in the US to invade Canada (aka British North America). The 1776 rebellion will still part of the public conscious. A number of states refused to support the invasion (yes it was an invasion by the US and kinda reflects on what's happening now in Iraq support-wise). I kinda remember Kentucky seemed to have provided the bulk of volunteers. I'm not sure why.

Who won? Well, basically it was a tie. Neither country gained or loss land that they had before the invasion. It was costly for both sides and a lot of lives were lost. Mutual ill will that lasted for quite a while afterwards. Nasty battle tactics were used initially by the Americans and then justified by the Canadians.

It should be noted that there was a small group of people in Toronto (Yorke at the time) who very much wanted to join the US. I'm sure a number of French in Quebec (lower Canada) shared those sentiments as well.

It's an interesting piece of history. It is taught in Canadian schools, but seems glossed over in the American system. I've even read some American accounts that claimed Canada invaded the US, especially in regard to the Washington attack.

Charlie (all off the top of my head, may be errors) Monoxide

[brodski]

Gord checks outside very carefully. Nope. Not a single flag flying on my street.

Are you sure? :confused:

Yes. I'm not saying the Americans won. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Gurdur]

.....Who won? Well, basically it was a tie. Neither country gained or loss land that they had before the invasion. It was costly for both sides and a lot of lives were lost.

Not really; the USA destroyed the resistance of a couple of native peoples as a part of that war, and opened up their lands to appropriation and occupation.

[Math Maniac]

All I remember from school (in the US approx. 15 years ago) is that the War of 1812 was, in many ways, the second American revolution and that, with the end of the war, the revolution was more secured afterward.

Something along those lines...(but realize that I could be very wrong)

[brodski]

All I remember from school (in the US approx. 15 years ago) is that the War of 1812 was, in many ways, the second American revolution and that, with the end of the war, the revolution was more secured afterward.

Something along those lines...(but realize that I could be very wrong)

You may have been taught that in school, but it in no way reflects historical reality.

[Math Maniac]

You may have been taught that in school, but it in no way reflects historical reality.

OK. I checked some things. What I've found in my wife's US History textbook (she's a teacher) is that The War of 1812 showed that the US was a viable nation and is sometimes referred to as the second revolution. Wikipedia lists that "War Hawks" billed the war as the second revolution.

Maybe I crossed a couple of things, but saying that what I wrote "in no way reflects historical reality" is somewhat of a hyperbole, to say the least.

[Pipirr]

Not quite.


Allow me to present my (and rudar's, apparently) irrefutable source:

The War of 1812 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbQ7WkNw0ig)

[quixotecoyote]

OK. I checked some things. What I've found in my wife's US History textbook (she's a teacher) is that The War of 1812 showed that the US was a viable nation and is sometimes referred to as the second revolution. Wikipedia lists that "War Hawks" billed the war as the second revolution.

Maybe I crossed a couple of things, but saying that what I wrote "in no way reflects historical reality" is somewhat of a hyperbole, to say the least.


My history texts said much the same as yours, but then and now I think it's more an artifact of history texts justifying American actions than anything really accurate.

[UserGoogol]

Officially the result was "Status quo ante bellum," which certainly sounds like a draw to me, but in that the Americans started the war to begin with (although not without cause) that does make the idea that they lost seem plausible. (If Saddam had been able to keep the Americans out of Iraq, for instance, I think most would have considered it a loss on our part.) On the other hand, the British did drop their blockade of American trade with France, which was a major motive for the war, but that's because Napoleon had been exiled by that point, and thus they really didn't care whether we traded with France.

[brodski]

OK. I checked some things. What I've found in my wife's US History textbook (she's a teacher) is that The War of 1812 showed that the US was a viable nation and is sometimes referred to as the second revolution. Wikipedia lists that "War Hawks" billed the war as the second revolution.

Maybe I crossed a couple of things, but saying that what I wrote "in no way reflects historical reality" is somewhat of a hyperbole, to say the least.

yes, some politicians claimed that the war was the "second revolution", which would imply that if the US failed in its aggression against the British in north America, then the Brittish would be able to reclaim US territory, or otherwise destroy the Union. This is false. I would go as far as to say that it was the the 19th century equivalent of claiming that Iraq was linked to 9/11, good for gaining support for a war, but pretty much a total political fabrication.

All that 182-15 showed was that the Brittish could withstand US aggression whilst fighting a major European war. Unless you can demonstrate Brittish designs on US territory in the early 19th century.

[brodski]

Allow me to present my (and rudar's, apparently) irrefutable source:

The War of 1812 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbQ7WkNw0ig)

Wow, those late 19th century Canadians were pretty cool, managing to travel back 55 years in time just to beat the Americans. Cool ;)

[Math Maniac]

I admit not to know much (if anything, really). I agree with you: some, at the time, may have billed the actions as a second revolution and that is weak, as as been so pointed out here and elsewhere.

As another interpretation at the close of the war (not as justification for aggression), is it not possible to conclude that the US was in a better position with Great Britain with regards to it's newly-won--in a relative sense--independence? Did it not stop or severely slow impressment?

[CptColumbo]

IIRC the regular US army was almost nonexistant, with the War Dept. relying heavily on militia and the Navy. Therefore, most ground operations went very poorly, with few trained soldiers.

[Gurdur]

... Did it not stop or severely slow impressment?

No. What stopped impressment was not the 1812 War, but the ending of the Napoleonic War. One the Brits had won that, they stopped impressment.

[brodski]

As another interpretation at the close of the war (not as justification for aggression), is it not possible to conclude that the US was in a better position with Great Britain with regards to it's newly-won--in a relative sense--independence? I don't really see how. Long before 1812 Brittan had given up any designs on reclaiming the lost American colonies- the loss had been a major embarrassment for the Crown (despite the tidy profit the House of Hanover made on the whole affair), and nobody wanted to go through that again.


Did it not stop or severely slow impressment?

No, what stopped impressment was the fact that Napoleon lost, and so there was no need for the RN to impress any men, let alone those that claimed foreign citizenship. Impressment of those claiming US citizenship continued right up until 1815.

[Math Maniac]

From Wikipedia, (I hate to be a Wikipedia monger...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812, under Consequences) "Never again would the U.S. think that it could always beat Great Britain nor did Great Britain ever again fail to treat the U.S. as a national power in its own right." I guess, then, that the "second revolution" idea is an overstatement or exaggeration. What can be said, however (according to the quote above at least), is that The War of 1812 put to rest ideas of the US being a fly-by-night nation in the eyes of Great Britain.

[brodski]

From Wikipedia, (I hate to be a Wikipedia monger...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812, under Consequences) "Never again would the U.S. think that it could always beat Great Britain nor did Great Britain ever again fail to treat the U.S. as a national power in its own right." I guess, then, that the "second revolution" idea is an overstatement or exaggeration. What can be said, however (according to the quote above at least), is that The War of 1812 put to rest ideas of the US being a fly-by-night nation in the eyes of Great Britain.

Well, if they say it on wikipedia...

sorry for being facetious. The point is, in what way did this alleged new found respect present itself? What is the evidence that this was a consequence of the 1812-15 war?
I don't doubt that it is a popular and widely held opinion that the wiki quote is true, I have however yet to see any evidence for this opinion having any basis in fact.

[Math Maniac]

Well, if they say it on wikipedia...

sorry for being facetious.

Like I said before, my recollection is sparse and am relying on easily obtainable information (I know the limitations with Wikipedia and never allowed my students use it as a reliable source in and of itself, but it's a place to start, at least). Points well taken.

**Retreats to pre-discussion position...I don't know jack!**

[Pipirr]

Wow, those late 19th century Canadians were pretty cool, managing to travel back 55 years in time just to beat the Americans. Cool ;)

They were a talented bunch :D

The song does give an indication of how the war is remembered, at least in Canada today. Even if it was a time before Confederation, even though it was British soldiers in the field, a lot of Canadians today look back and see Canadians fighting that war.

Americans, on the other hand, remember that it was the British that burned the White House. Which is technically correct.

The British, however, don't really remember this conflict at all. That's speaking from personal experience, having had the benefit of an English education. I first heard about the war of 1812 from watching an episode of The West Wing.

[brodski]

The British, however, don't really remember this conflict at all.

Thats pretty much true, lets face it, in 1812 we had bigger fish to fry.

[geni]

The British, however, don't really remember this conflict at all. That's speaking from personal experience, having had the benefit of an English education. I first heard about the war of 1812 from watching an episode of The West Wing.


Well to start with britian doesn't normaly go for dates in nameing wars since that doesn't narrow it down much. Aside from the normal war with frace there was an internal near civil war with the Luddites going on as well. The American War of 1812 really wasn't that big a conflict in british terms.

[Fitter]

Laura Secord, it was all about the chocolate.

[fitzgibbon]

OK, now that I've managed to get players on both sides of the equation to trot out national canards (U.S.=> 2nd War of Independence, Canuck=>burned the Whitehouse) how about a little reflection?

What do the Yanks know about the near-break-up of your country over the War? And what do the Canucks know about the Canadian Volunteers and in particular, their leader?

[brodski]

Well to start with britian doesn't normaly go for dates in nameing wars since that doesn't narrow it down much. Aside from the normal war with frace there was an internal near civil war with the Luddites going on as well. The American War of 1812 really wasn't that big a conflict in british terms.

You would be hard pushed to classify the Luddite rebellions as a civil war.

[Foolmewunz]

OK, now that I've managed to get players on both sides of the equation to trot out national canards (U.S.=> 2nd War of Independence, Canuck=>burned the Whitehouse) how about a little reflection?

What do the Yanks know about the near-break-up of your country over the War? And what do the Canucks know about the Canadian Volunteers and in particular, their leader?

That's the second mention of the Candian Volunteers using caps. Is there or was there such a unit? I know the war from both sides as I am an American raised in the US school system and lived in Canada for a decade, so I've heard both sides of the tale. I've never heard of any unit referred to as the C.V., though? Are you alluding to Crysler's Farm?

[geni]

You would be hard pushed to classify the Luddite rebellions as a civil war.

The number of troops involved was fairly impressive.

[fitzgibbon]

That's the second mention of the Candian Volunteers using caps. Is there or was there such a unit? I know the war from both sides as I am an American raised in the US school system and lived in Canada for a decade, so I've heard both sides of the tale. I've never heard of any unit referred to as the C.V., though? Are you alluding to Crysler's Farm?

Google it if you must but as a Yank, you get a gimme. T'is something most Canucks haven't a clue about. Actually quite interesting IMHO.

[Fitter]

Google it if you must but as a Yank, you get a gimme. T'is something most Canucks haven't a clue about. Actually quite interesting IMHO.
As a Newfoundlander I was taught almost no Canadian history. Grade 9 was the only year we did "Canadian" history and even that was very Newfoundland centered.

[fitzgibbon]

As a Newfoundlander I was taught almost no Canadian history. Grade 9 was the only year we did "Canadian" history and even that was very Newfoundland centered.
Shame that. However, Canadian history has been presented as about as interesting as oatmeal and doubtless would've been presented to you as such. Much worthy of investigation vis a vis the War of 1812

[Fitter]

Shame that.

Not really. As far as we knew you guys all got together and spent 82 years waiting to take on our debt.:D

[Foolmewunz]

Google it if you must but as a Yank, you get a gimme. T'is something most Canucks haven't a clue about. Actually quite interesting IMHO.

Ahhh! Thanks. Wrong Joseph! I was thinking of Morrison, 'cuz somewhere in my addled memory I associated Canadian Volunteers and "Joseph". I was thinking of a Canadian unit which is why I couldn't find any references in the Canadian history sites I was a-googling.

Joseph Wilcocks. Actually a member of the legislature, but evidently a pain in the butt, even then, and already a foe of Brock.

I can see why the Americans know little about him, though.
Firstly, because American history nearly ignores the fact that the real War of 1812 was fought mostly along the border in the west. All we learn about in history class is the sacking of Washington, "...and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air...", and of course that Jean Lafitte (Yul Brynner) saved Old Hickory (Charlton Heston) by supplying him with munitions when we "fought the bloody British in the town of New Or-Leeeaaans".
Secondly, because Wilcocks is a bit of a difficult character to romanticize. A bit of a rogue, and rather self-serving, it's hard to tell if he was genuinely pro-USAian or was just continuing his long disputes with Brock.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, is that he really didn't achieve anything by his act of treason/heroism (depending on who writes the story).

By the way, the "near breakup" of the USA over the war is a bit of hyperbole. There were heated discussions but heated discussions were common in the US Congress of the time, and there were murmurings that New England's economic links to England might have that effect, but these were pretty well balanced by the southern states' fear of Britain regaining hegemony and thus their preference for France.

The War of 1812 should be termed "The War of American Expansion". Madison was one of the worst presidents to come out of the "founding fathers". Jefferson is the most cited because of his infamous quote about taking over Canada being merely a matter of marching a few days, but this was James Madison's war. His vision included taking over all of BNA and Spanish Florida. His results? Nil! (Well, he assured a a more united Canada, so that's an achievement, I guess!)

[fitzgibbon]

Not really. As far as we knew you guys all got together and spent 82 years waiting to take on our debt.:D

Mebbe. But Danny Millions may not be able to stop you from becoming........A HAVE Province!!!!!!!!! Bwahahahahahaha!!!!:D

[fitzgibbon]

Ahhh! Thanks. Wrong Joseph! I was thinking of Morrison, 'cuz somewhere in my addled memory I associated Canadian Volunteers and "Joseph". I was thinking of a Canadian unit which is why I couldn't find any references in the Canadian history sites I was a-googling.

Joseph Wilcocks. Actually a member of the legislature, but evidently a pain in the butt, even then, and already a foe of Brock.

True though Brock did pull some flattery and got Willcocks to negotiate-in the Six Nations First Nations into action on the British/Canadian/anybody-but-the-long-knives side. Though I must confess to some doubt that he was actually the one who did the negotiating but rather his sidekick Markle.

I can see why the Americans know little about him, though.
Firstly, because American history nearly ignores the fact that the real War of 1812 was fought mostly along the border in the west. All we learn about in history class is the sacking of Washington, "...and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air...", and of course that Jean Lafitte (Yul Brynner) saved Old Hickory (Charlton Heston) by supplying him with munitions when we "fought the bloody British in the town of New Or-Leeeaaans".

True enough. Though the War did prove categorically that the Minuteman model of volunteer military wasn't realistic and it wasn't until "Fuss 'n Feathers" Scott whipped volunteers into a machine that acquitted itself well between Chippewa and Lundy's Lane. Of course, there's much forgettable in the U.S. loss of Detroit and Michilimackinaw to inferior forces.

Secondly, because Wilcocks is a bit of a difficult character to romanticize. A bit of a rogue, and rather self-serving, it's hard to tell if he was genuinely pro-USAian or was just continuing his long disputes with Brock.

True. The biographi.ca biography's the closest I've found to likely fair. He certainly wasn't what you could call admirable. Just wanting to be on the winning side, whomsoever that might be.

Thirdly, and perhaps most important, is that he really didn't achieve anything by his act of treason/heroism (depending on who writes the story).

Actually, the burning of the U.S. side of the Niagara from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie can be directly laid at his feet for the burning of Niagara-on-the-Lake (aka Newark) and indirectly, Washington itself and the aforementioned "rocket's red glare". I'd say that achieved something if not exactly what was intended.

By the way, the "near breakup" of the USA over the war is a bit of hyperbole. There were heated discussions but heated discussions were common in the US Congress of the time, and there were murmurings that New England's economic links to England might have that effect, but these were pretty well balanced by the southern states' fear of Britain regaining hegemony and thus their preference for France.

Actually only a bit of hyperbole. The rest of the U.S. has the New England States to thank for keeping Upper and Lower Canada fed throughout most of the War. That and an unofficial truce that allowed British troops from New Brunswick to be marched into the Niagara theatre says to me there's more to that than admitted. And I'm not sure that I buy fear by the southern of Britain as it was to Britain that the Confederate States turned for assistance a half-century later. And often overlooked is the fact that Nappy was impressing your sailors too. They just pretended they'd stop so as to make the Brits look bad.

The War of 1812 should be termed "The War of American Expansion". Madison was one of the worst presidents to come out of the "founding fathers". Jefferson is the most cited because of his infamous quote about taking over Canada being merely a matter of marching a few days, but this was James Madison's war. His vision included taking over all of BNA and Spanish Florida. His results? Nil! (Well, he assured a a more united Canada, so that's an achievement, I guess!)

And for that, we really should erect a statue to him. Had cooler heads prevailed, Canada would've fallen into the U.S. just the same way as Texas did. By attacking, the States created exactly what they didn't want.

[brodski]

The number of troops involved was fairly impressive.

True, but not unsurprising given the absence of a police force, but it is still a stretch to call it a civil war.

[Big Les]

Was resentment over impressment a big aspect of the American War then? I was under the impression that in general it affected only a small proportion of the population (i.e. trained seamen).

[fitzgibbon]

Was resentment over impressment a big aspect of the American War then? I was under the impression that in general it affected only a small proportion of the population (i.e. trained seamen).

Well, I'll leave it to the Yanks on the board to answer that as I was kinda hoping to use this thread to sound out who knows what about their own country's involvement in the War.

[Foolmewunz]

Well, I'll leave it to the Yanks on the board to answer that as I was kinda hoping to use this thread to sound out who knows what about their own country's involvement in the War.

While impressment and the naval blockades were a legitimate causa bella both popularly and diplomatically, they were the secondary cause of the war. The real cause, as I mentioned earlier was American expansionist desires. The land in the "west" (the upper Mississippi valley) could only be obtained by taking it from the native population and/or British. The British, in turn, formed an alliance of sorts with the American Natives, notably Tecumseh.

Spain was allied with England against France, and France no longer had any territory the Americans desired, so the feeling of the "War Hawks", i.e. Clay and Calhoun, was that Napoleon's might would keep them both occupied in Europe and that the overwhelming numbers in favor of the USA would mean an easy victory. (The southern Senators wanted war with Spain so that they could take Western Florida - the area along the Gulf Coast the included what is now the southern parts of Alabama and Mississippi.

[fitzgibbon]

No. What stopped impressment was not the 1812 War, but the ending of the Napoleonic War. One the Brits had won that, they stopped impressment.

Actually, no. Impressment by Britain was officially stopped before the start of the War but communication being what it was at the time, word didn't get to Washington in time to head-off the conflict. The Napoleonic War was still going strong at the time

[Charlie Monoxide]

Jefferson is the most cited because of his infamous quote about taking over Canada being merely a matter of marching a few days, but this was James Madison's war....Are you sure Jefferson didn't use the term "slam dunk"?

Charlie (Arrogant Worm) Monoxide

[fitzgibbon]

Are you sure Jefferson didn't use the term "slam dunk"?

Charlie (Arrogant Worm) Monoxide

What? That term applied to a game invented by a Canadian? Can't say for sure but Canada's really big

[Gurdur]

Actually, no. Impressment by Britain was officially stopped before the start of the War but communication being what it was at the time, word didn't get to Washington in time to head-off the conflict. The Napoleonic War was still going strong at the time


My mistake.

[Foolmewunz]

Are you sure Jefferson didn't use the term "slam dunk"?

Charlie (Arrogant Worm) Monoxide

No, but there's a little known photo of Madison on the border wearing a fringed jacket and carrying a musket. He's standing by Fort Detroit with a sign that says, "Mission Accomplished".

[fuelair]

All I remember from school (in the US approx. 15 years ago) is that the War of 1812 was, in many ways, the second American revolution and that, with the end of the war, the revolution was more secured afterward.

Something along those lines...(but realize that I could be very wrong)
Most of what I was taught (and my concentration was ancient and medieval history when I was in jr. high/HS) had to do with "mess"ing with the British and some stuff in New Orleans (In 1814 we took a little trip, along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. We took a little bacon and we took a little beans, and we caught the funny Btitish in a town called New Orleans!)

[Loss Leader]

So.....I'm starting this thread to get a sense of who knows what north and south of the border. What with the bicentennial approaching in 5 years, I'd like to get a sense from those on this board both American and Canuck as to what they know and what mattered from their understanding.

For Canucks, do you know anything about the Canadian Volunteers? And for the Yanks, do you know anything about the New England States' resistance to the War and near secession?

Looking forward to an interesting thread



I know that we weren't satisfied with kicking British ass just once during the Revolution so we got a navy together and kicked their ass all over again.

And we may not be done yet. There's no telling which nation we'll invade next. Certainly, neither necessity nor, for that matter, common sense has anything to do with it.

[Loss Leader]

All that 182-15 showed was that the Brittish could withstand US aggression whilst fighting a major European war. Unless you can demonstrate Brittish designs on US territory in the early 19th century.


I can demonstrate that the British had utter contempt for US sovereignty before the war and quite a different opinion after.

It was, for example, only thirty years later that the British made it their mission to disrupt the African slave trade throughout the entire world ... except America. American ships were allowed to continue unmolested.

[fitzgibbon]

I know that we weren't satisfied with kicking British ass just once during the Revolution so we got a navy together and kicked their ass all over again.

Pity the "mere matter of marching" (which by all rights it should've been) turned into such a fiasco. Better brush up on the non-Baltimore, non-Put-In-Bay aspects of the War. Enlighten yourself about Detroit and Michilimackinac and Stoney Creek.

[Loss Leader]

Pity the "mere matter of marching" (which by all rights it should've been) turned into such a fiasco. Better brush up on the non-Baltimore, non-Put-In-Bay aspects of the War. Enlighten yourself about Detroit and Michilimackinac and Stoney Creek.



Brush yourself up on this: It's called the United States of America, not the United Soccer Club Bad Teeth Beer Drunk Inbred Scone Eating Nancy Boys of America. Call me crazy, but that sounds to me like we etched one in the W column.

[Madalch]

Brush yourself up on this: It's called the United States of America, not the United Soccer Club Bad Teeth Beer Drunk Inbred Scone Eating Nancy Boys of America. Call me crazy, but that sounds to me like we etched one in the W column.
By that logic, you also won the Vietnam war, since Vietnam didn't annex any parts of the USA.

Canada's still here, and not part of the USA. You lost.

[Loss Leader]

By that logic, you also won the Vietnam war, since Vietnam didn't annex any parts of the USA.

Canada's still here, and not part of the USA. You lost.


In all seriousness, it does bother me when people claim that we lost the War of 1812 to Canada. It's true that we failed in our goals in Canada but those goals were certainly not empire building. Our desire was never to annex Canada and the fact that we did not does not mean we "lost."

The American belief at the time was that everyone hated being an English colony exactly as much as we did. It was thus with some amazement that we looked across the falls to discover that Canadians were not rebelling against the British. When hostilities started up again, we had the brilliant idea of exporting a little American-style democracy to the great white north.

Our plan was to fight the British in Canada in order to show the Canadians just how easy and fun it would be to win their independence. They would then take up arms against the Limeys and knock them all into the Arctic Sea or whatever the Atlantic becomes north of Maine.

It came as an absolute shock to us that not everyone on earth wanted exactly the same things we did. Canadians failed to join the US fight. In fact, they kind of helped the British fight us (in their own adorable way).

But Canada did not "defeat" us and they did not repel a US "invasion."

Sadly, the lessons of the Canadian experience continue to be lost on us as we keep invading countries on the theory that somehow the people in Vietnam and Iraq really want to be American and only need us to shoot a few hundred thousand of them to show them the way.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Can we jointly move on to the Fenian Raids now?

[fitzgibbon]

Brush yourself up on this: It's called the United States of America, not the United Soccer Club Bad Teeth Beer Drunk Inbred Scone Eating Nancy Boys of America. Call me crazy, but that sounds to me like we etched one in the W column.

Uh.....and that is relevant how? Did the U.S. Warhawks not initiate the War? Did you miss UserGoogol's point about Status quo ante bellum? Can you possibly explain how it is that an industrialised country with 10 times the population of a mostly agrarian neighbour somehow failed to overwhelm said neighbour in the first 2 years of a 3-year war? Are you actually familiar with anything other than Baltimore, New Orleans and single-ship battles?

[fitzgibbon]

In all seriousness, it does bother me when people claim that we lost the War of 1812 to Canada. It's true that we failed in our goals in Canada but those goals were certainly not empire building. Our desire was never to annex Canada and the fact that we did not does not mean we "lost."

That being the case, why continue to pursue the War once word had arrived a few weeks after the War's start that impressment (the professed reason for hostilities) was being abandoned?

The American belief at the time was that everyone hated being an English colony exactly as much as we did. It was thus with some amazement that we looked across the falls to discover that Canadians were not rebelling against the British. When hostilities started up again, we had the brilliant idea of exporting a little American-style democracy to the great white north.

That was the conventional wisdom. Trouble is, by acting as they did, the Warhawks create exactly what they didn't want. A little patience on their part and the Canadas would've fallen into the U.S. sphere.

Our plan was to fight the British in Canada in order to show the Canadians just how easy and fun it would be to win their independence.

Uh huh! Yup, war's a peach alright. :rolleyes:

They would then take up arms against the Limeys and knock them all into the Arctic Sea or whatever the Atlantic becomes north of Maine.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It came as an absolute shock to us that not everyone on earth wanted exactly the same things we did. Canadians failed to join the US fight. In fact, they kind of helped the British fight us (in their own adorable way).

Look up my namesake for a fine example of your "adorable"

But Canada did not "defeat" us and they did not repel a US "invasion."

I see. And the land in Canada held by the States at the end of the War was......?

Sadly, the lessons of the Canadian experience continue to be lost on us as we keep invading countries on the theory that somehow the people in Vietnam and Iraq really want to be American and only need us to shoot a few hundred thousand of them to show them the way.

On that much we can agree

[Loss Leader]

Uh.....and that is relevant how? Did the U.S. Warhawks not initiate the War? Did you miss UserGoogol's point about Status quo ante bellum? Can you possibly explain how it is that an industrialised country with 10 times the population of a mostly agrarian neighbour somehow failed to overwhelm said neighbour in the first 2 years of a 3-year war? Are you actually familiar with anything other than Baltimore, New Orleans and single-ship battles?



Blah, blah, blah ... America RULZ!!!

[Mid]

...snip...
It was, for example, only thirty years later that the British made it their mission to disrupt the African slave trade throughout the entire world ... except America. American ships were allowed to continue unmolested.

Wasn't this because the importation of slaves into the uS was banned before the West Africa Squadron was set up?

[Loss Leader]

Wasn't this because the importation of slaves into the uS was banned before the West Africa Squadron was set up?


By 1807, American ships were only banned from importing slaves to a US port. They continued bringing slaves to other ports of call for some time thereafter.

[Mid]

By 1807, American ships were only banned from importing slaves to a US port. They continued bringing slaves to other ports of call for some time thereafter.

Much as I'm loathed to use wikipedia as a source the article on the WAS imply that American ships were still stopped:

As the Royal Navy began interdicting slavers, the slavers responded by abandoning there merchant ships in favour of faster ships particularly American clippers, at first the Royal Navy was often unable to catch these ships however with the capture of slaver clippers and new faster ships from Britain the Royal Navy regained the upper hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron

Do you have any evidence that they avoided US slavers?

[Garrette]

I was kinda hoping to use this thread to sound out who knows what about their own country's involvement in the War.I think you will find that Americans know precious little about the War of 1812, and the little we do know comprises the selective reporting we received in grade school.

The exception, as always, are the true military historians and the dedicated amateur historians, of which there are a disproportionately large number on this board.

As an (anecdotal) example of my hypothesis (that Americans know very little of it) I offer myself. I'm a military man. I am an amateur military historian (particularly US military history). But the War of 1812 is the major US war about which I know the least.

I've already learned a few things I didn't know simply by reading this thread.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I've already learned a few things I didn't know simply by reading this thread.

That should be part of the skeptic atheist's morning prayers:

Dear Jeebus or Flying Spaghetti Monster, please endow me the ability to be continually fascinated by the natural world and allow me to learn something new each and everyday .... Amen

Charlie (and question the weird stuff) Monoxide

[fitzgibbon]

I've already learned a few things I didn't know simply by reading this thread.

Truth be told, I'm impressed that more isn't made by U.S. schools of battles in 1814 (ie Chippewa ["By God, those are regulars"]) where the States acquitted itself well against an established regular army or the single-ship battles on the Atlantic. I can see the desire to bury the memory of "Granny" Hull or Stoney Creek but the War as a whole?

[Loss Leader]

I can see the desire to bury the memory of "Granny" Hull or Stoney Creek but the War as a whole?


I think the problem is that the War of 1812 didn't really have a theme. The Revolutionary War was about revolution and World War II was about good and evil. 1812 doesn't have a slug line.

I believe the theory is that with no easily discernable theme, the war is impossible to teach. It's just a bunch of stuff that happened.

As to whether the other wars should be boiled down to such easily digestable soundbites and whether this is at all a good method of teaching history, I make no statement.

[Madalch]

Allow me to present my (and rudar's, apparently) irrefutable source:

The War of 1812 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbQ7WkNw0ig)
This is easily refutable in that the song is being sung by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie, not the Arrogant Worms (same with the Ontario Sucks song posted by the same YouTube user).

[fitzgibbon]

I think the problem is that the War of 1812 didn't really have a theme. The Revolutionary War was about revolution and World War II was about good and evil. 1812 doesn't have a slug line.

I believe the theory is that with no easily discernable theme, the war is impossible to teach. It's just a bunch of stuff that happened.

As to whether the other wars should be boiled down to such easily digestable soundbites and whether this is at all a good method of teaching history, I make no statement.

And therein lies the crux. It was supposed to be a war of liberation for the oppressed brethren north of the border. However, when said brethren seemed blasse about being liberated and those motivated to make a stand did so, it sort of screwed the slug line. Fast-forward to Fort McHenry and all that and you get the "2nd war of Independence" slug line getting played out.

It's value to the States was incremental and short attention spans don't do incremental well. Much better to do "Remember the Maine" or somesuch. Canada should erect a statue in honour of the Warhawks for without them, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Loss Leader]

It was supposed to be a war of liberation for the oppressed brethren north of the border.


I think that's an excedingly narrow view. Liberating Canada from the British was a goal of the US but it was in no way the goal of the war.

In every important respect, the War of 1812 was a defensive war fought by the US to keep England and France from fighting their unending cold-hot-cold-again war on North American soil. To that extent, the US had about as much say in fighting the war of 1812 as Vietnam did in fighting the Vietnam war.

And in every important respect, the US was victorious. When the war came to an end, proxy fighting between the British and French on what would eventually be US soil came to an end as well. French influence fell to trying to get Mexico to turn itself into something worthwhile and the British contented themselves with Canada and a few islands in the Caribbean.

[fitzgibbon]

I think that's an excedingly narrow view. Liberating Canada from the British was a goal of the US but it was in no way the goal of the war.

"Free Trade and Sailor's Rights". Sailor's rights had been dealt with and this was known fairly shortly after the beginning of the War.

In every important respect, the War of 1812 was a defensive war fought by the US to keep England and France from fighting their unending cold-hot-cold-again war on North American soil. To that extent, the US had about as much say in fighting the war of 1812 as Vietnam did in fighting the Vietnam war.

Sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory as to wear exactly there was any threat of British-French battle in North America. Maybe you're thinking of the French-Indian War of a half-century earlier.

And in every important respect, the US was victorious. When the war came to an end, proxy fighting between the British and French on what would eventually be US soil came to an end as well.

And again, French-Indian War. Wrong century.

But we're veering OT here. I started this thread to see what people north and south of the border know of their own history vis a vis the War of 1812, not to have 2 people banging back and forth

[Molinaro]

And in every important respect, the US was victorious.

It looks to me like the Office of the Chief of Military History, US Army, disagrees.

To Great Britain the War of I8I2 was simply a burdensome adjunct of its greater struggle against Napoleonic France. To the Canadians it was clearly a case of naked American aggression. But to the Americans it was neither simple nor clear. The United States entered the war with confused objectives and divided loyalties and made peace without settling any of the issues that had induced the nation to go to war.

I only read that opening paragraph over here (http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/amh/AMH-06.htm), but it's not looking like the US was victorious in every mportant respect.

[a_unique_person]

OK. I checked some things. What I've found in my wife's US History textbook (she's a teacher) is that The War of 1812 showed that the US was a viable nation and is sometimes referred to as the second revolution. Wikipedia lists that "War Hawks" billed the war as the second revolution.

Maybe I crossed a couple of things, but saying that what I wrote "in no way reflects historical reality" is somewhat of a hyperbole, to say the least.

Reminds me a lot about Gallipoli, in which Turkey whooped the ass of Australia, and England, and a few others. This apparently also confirmed Australia was a viable nation, while Turkey actually won and confirmed it as the viable nation.

[Loss Leader]

Alright, I give up. I'll read a book on the stupid war.

[Michael Redman]

I don't think I was ever formally taught any American history between the end of the Revolution and the beginning of the Civil War (aside from legal history).

My (nationalistically biased) understanding from self-study:

The US attacked Britain because the British refused to honor American Sovereignty. (and not only by impressment) At the end of the war, the British recognized American sovereignty, and never again challenged it. In this respect, the US won.

The US also attacked Britain to end British control of BNA, and in this respect, the US lost.

Did allied defeat of Napoleon cause the British to finally acknowledge US sovereignty in practice? So what? What if the allies had not defeated Napoleon? It's not like the intercession of outside events changes the fact that the US came out of the war having gained a primary goal in starting the war.

That being the case, why continue to pursue the War once word had arrived a few weeks after the War's start that impressment (the professed reason for hostilities) was being abandoned?Did the British admit that the impressment was illegal, and promise to never do it again? Or did they just temporarily stop, while continuing to assert their right to impress again in the future whenever they felt the need?

Americans, on the other hand, remember that it was the British that burned the White House. Which is technically correct.

Technically?

[Pipirr]

Technically?

Well, actually correct.

It's correct to say that the forces in question were British, in that the residents of Canada at that time were British, not Canadian.

But in point of fact I don't know if it was colonial forces that burned Washington, or if it was the 'British British', if you will. From a quick read, I saw mention that it was the Royal Marines that invaded Washington, and that the attack took place because after success in the war with Napoleon, the British navy could send more resources to prosecute the war in North America.

At least one man present may have been a resident of Canada:

Of the numerous spoils taken from the White House when it was ransacked by British troops, only two have been recovered — a painting of George Washington, rescued by then-first lady Dolley Madison, and a jewelry box returned to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939 by a Canadian man who said his grandfather had taken it from Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

[Michael Redman]

The individual in question might have been regular British, and settled in Canada afterwards.

My understanding is also that Washington was attacked by regular British fresh off the boat from Europe, not Canadians, as Canadian mythology claims.

[Foolmewunz]

Without knowing the exact makeup of the units, you could answer the question logically.... Draw a line on a map from "Lower Canada" to Baltimore and Washington. Where did the troops have to fight their battles en route to the White House?

Answer: They didn't. The troops were regular British forces. There may have been any number of them from British North America, but it was not a force of wild-eyed canucks who battle through the wilderness to sack the city(town, actually).

When the Napoleonic conflicts ended, the British despatched two naval groups. The first arrived in the Chesepeake well ahead of the fateful force that wound up in New Orleans, but they had much the same makeup. Fighting ships along with marines/soldiers. The burning/sacking of Washington was an afterthought. What they really wanted was Baltimore.

Interesting sidebar: When the force landed near Washington, the British General sent forward a small contingent with a white flag to dictate his terms of surrender. Washington DC may have gotten burned down as a result of the fact that they didn't even make it into town to present their terms before someone opened fire from one of the houses along the route, shooting the General's horse out from under him (he went along... a flag of truce was considered inviolate in the European campaigns).

These were very professional English troops. The one documented case of a soldier looting is known because he was caught in the act by British officers, paraded through the HQ/camp, and then executed. There was far more looting by the American residents, include numbers of them who picked through the ruins of the White House and the Capitol after the Brits had returned to their ships.

[Pipirr]

It's interesting how these things are remembered. People pick a side: for the residents of British North America at the time, I expect they saw the attack on Washington as being carried out by 'their side'. Would they have made a distinction between being British born and British North American, especially when fighting on the same side?

To draw a parallel with the first world war, I had little idea of the role that Canadian forces played in the battles in France. Check that, I had no idea of their role. WWI was a battle fought by the British regulars and the pal's brigades, with help from the French and the Americans, and the ANZACS. When I moved to Canada, I learned how wrong that viewpoint was. The Canadians had fought as Canadian units in some of the key battles of the war, and many today look at that time as when the nation proved to the world and to itself that it was a nation in it's own right.

But what did I learn in the UK about WWI, Ypres, the Somme and Vimy ridge? That British forces fought the battles. That 'British' did in fact mean 'Canadian', and sometimes exclusively so, was a nuance that passed me by.

[Garrette]

Hypothesizing about why the average American knows so little about the War of 1812 (and really about other major historical events), I think it may be a confluence of two things. The first is what has been pointed out in that the War of 1812 has no central theme. The second is that most Americans receive the entirety of their history lessons prior to entrance into college where it is, for the most part I think, an unpopular elective unless one is majoring in history.

As history seems to be taught chronologically in the US, early American history is taught in grade school and so is extremely simplified to match the grade level of the learners.

By the time students are prepared for a bit more nuance in their history, they are up to the WWII and beyond.

I realize this is a vast generalization on my part, but I throw it out as food for thought anyway.

[fitzgibbon]

Hypothesizing about why the average American knows so little about the War of 1812 (and really about other major historical events), I think it may be a confluence of two things. The first is what has been pointed out in that the War of 1812 has no central theme.

Ah...but it did! "Free Trade and Sailor's Rights". Not as catchy as "Remember the Maine" but it'll do.

The second is that most Americans receive the entirety of their history lessons prior to entrance into college where it is, for the most part I think, an unpopular elective unless one is majoring in history.

As history seems to be taught chronologically in the US, early American history is taught in grade school and so is extremely simplified to match the grade level of the learners.

By the time students are prepared for a bit more nuance in their history, they are up to the WWII and beyond.

I realize this is a vast generalization on my part, but I throw it out as food for thought anyway.

All history is taught that way. I think if some imaginative history teacher were to grab a copy of one of the extant photos of U.S. 1812 veterans and teach their story using a modicum of imagination, wonders could be accomplished. Same goes for Canadian history teachers. The inspiring ones are so rare. You need a historical evangelist to make these things come to life. Pierre Berton did a good job for the Canadian/British side (while being pretty decent on the U.S. side of the equation) and I'm sure there's a ton of stories that could fire the imagination of kids were there a desire to do so. In Canada, we have the story of Billy Green, Laura Secord and De Salaberry.

[Garrette]

Ah...but it did! "Free Trade and Sailor's Rights". Not as catchy as "Remember the Maine" but it'll do.It won't do when you're a fifth-grader.


All history is taught that way. I think if some imaginative history teacher were to grab a copy of one of the extant photos of U.S. 1812 veterans and teach their story using a modicum of imagination, wonders could be accomplished. Same goes for Canadian history teachers. The inspiring ones are so rare. You need a historical evangelist to make these things come to life. Pierre Berton did a good job for the Canadian/British side (while being pretty decent on the U.S. side of the equation) and I'm sure there's a ton of stories that could fire the imagination of kids were there a desire to do so. In Canada, we have the story of Billy Green, Laura Secord and De Salaberry.Then you need to broaden your criticism to include mathematics and science.

They suffer from the same defect of relying nearly entirely on the rare, inspirational teacher.

[Horatius]

Just becasue the animation is so good......


OWkOeK5AmI8

[Kopji]

The thing I liked about the war was that I could always remember the year.

Although the book is flawed in some ways, 'Lies My Teacher Told Me' by James Loewen frames the war of 1812 in what I think is a proper context of the US desire for expansion; and all in a few easy pages inside a chapter titled 'Red Eyes' starting around pg 124...

For whatever surface reasons were given for fighting, the outcome was simple and practical:

The US would leave Canada alone if Britain dropped its alliances with the Indian nations in what would become the United States. The American Indians lost their traditional status as something of a buffer between super powers (well, circa 1800's).

[Morrigan]

The Canadians won it. And they burned the White House down.

Damn, beaten to it.

Sorry, got nothing to contribute. Going away now... :boxedin:

[tracer]

Most of what I was taught (and my concentration was ancient and medieval history when I was in jr. high/HS) had to do with "mess"ing with the British and some stuff in New Orleans (In 1814 we took a little trip, along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. We took a little bacon and we took a little beans, and we caught the funny Btitish in a town called New Orleans!)


I never would've known about the Battle of New Orleans if it wasn't for that song. (Some say that this one battle was the only thing that kept the British from taking over the U.S. completely.)

[Garrette]

I never would've known about the Battle of New Orleans if it wasn't for that song. (Some say that this one battle was the only thing that kept the British from taking over the U.S. completely.)Those who say it couldn't be more wrong. The battle occurred after the peace treaty had been signed but before the news of it had reached the area.

[Madalch]

I never would've known about the Battle of New Orleans if it wasn't for that song.

I prefer the 3 Dead Trolls version:
In 1812, we were just sittin' around
Minding our own business, putting crops into the ground
We heard those soldiers coming, and we didn't like that sound
So we took a boat to Washington and burned it to the ground!

(Some say that this one battle was the only thing that kept the British from taking over the U.S. completely.)

I've heard people say that. For reasons that Garrette pointed out, it always makes me laugh.

[kookbreaker]

Those who say it couldn't be more wrong. The battle occurred after the peace treaty had been signed but before the news of it had reached the area.

Had the British won New Orleans that treaty would have been trashed in a heartbeat. They would not have conquered the US, but they would have laid claim to N.O. and much of Louisiana. Remember that England considered Napoleon's sale of the territory void since he was an illegal government in their eyes.

[Garrette]

Had the British won New Orleans that treaty would have been trashed in a heartbeat. They would not have conquered the US, but they would have laid claim to N.O. and much of Louisiana. Remember that England considered Napoleon's sale of the territory void since he was an illegal government in their eyes.This is conceivable, but only just. And even then, it is a far cry from tracer's claim that the British would have taken over the U.S. "completely."

[dogjones]

I'm afraid you're all terribly misinformed. Read this comprehensive and true account (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812) of the war.

The harrowing account of what impressment entailed is particularly engrossing.

[dudalb]

And if you want to refight the land battles of the war:

www.hpssims.com.

[bruto]

I don't know a whole lot of the history of the war, and I'm sure much of what I was taught was a bunch of half-truths and lies, but I do know that the US won the battle of Plattsburgh, which was pretty significant in determining the outcome of the war and the post war status of major inland waterways.

[Garrette]

My oldest son is in 11th grade and just completed the section on the War of 1812. I asked him to summarize what he was taught and what he could remember. His answer, paraphrased but nearly exactly:

We learned about the Fort McHenry and the Battle of New Orleans. We fought the war because we wanted the British to stop stationing troops here.

[Giz]

My oldest son is in 11th grade and just completed the section on the War of 1812. I asked him to summarize what he was taught and what he could remember. His answer, paraphrased but nearly exactly:

We learned about the Fort McHenry and the Battle of New Orleans. We fought the war because we wanted the British to stop stationing troops here.

Stationing troops "here"? As in, British troops were stationed in New Orleans (?!), or as in the Western Hemisphere (i.e. the War of 1812 was a precocious implementation of the Monroe Doctrine?)

And my vote for what a succesful invasion of New Orleans would have meant:
Territory lost by the USA = zero
Concessions made to the Royal Navy's right to blockade/impress/impound ships/crew = yes

[Garrette]

Stationing troops "here"? As in, British troops were stationed in New Orleans (?!), or as in the Western Hemisphere (i.e. the War of 1812 was a precocious implementation of the Monroe Doctrine?)Don't worry. I larned him good about the real down-low.

[Corsair 115]

There was an article about the War of 1812 in The National Post newspaper last week. It mentioned the differences in views between Americans and Canadians to certain aspects of the war, not the least of which is who won it.

You can read the article online here (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b294d588-07a0-43c3-bbd4-09e361b8f5fe&k=0).

[Jorghnassen]

But what did I learn in the UK about WWI, Ypres, the Somme and Vimy ridge? That British forces fought the battles. That 'British' did in fact mean 'Canadian', and sometimes exclusively so, was a nuance that passed me by.

Before 1952, they were all British citizens, living in Canada perhaps, but British nonetheless. Technically, there were no such things as Canadians before then. There were plenty of Canadiens but those in general were not fond of fighting in wars...

/now if your history books talk about Newfoundlanders in World Wars in their Canadian contributions section, you can toss them in the garbage.

[Charlie Monoxide]

There was an article about the War of 1812 in The National Post newspaper last week. It mentioned the differences in views between Americans and Canadians to certain aspects of the war, not the least of which is who won it.

You can read the article online here (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b294d588-07a0-43c3-bbd4-09e361b8f5fe&k=0).

Good link.

I still think the Arrogant Worms said it best ....

Charlie (Ontario Sucks) Monoxide

[Corsair 115]

Before 1952, they were all British citizens, living in Canada perhaps, but British nonetheless.Many vets of both the First and Second World Wars would argue that, while perhaps that might have been technically correct, the troops themselves did not think of themselves as British. Nor did the British command structure; they considered them to be colonial troops and often got second-class treatment as a result.

[bigred]

Sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory as to wear exactly there was any threat of British-French battle in North America.
I think "where" is the word you're looking for.

(pardon, not much for the "grammar nazi" thing but for crying out loud...the verb butcherings were bad enough, but geez...)

Generally an interesting thread though. I confess I don't know as much as I'd like about this war either.


Hypothesizing about why the average American knows so little about the War of 1812 That's easy:

1 - Not much is taught about it
2 - People forget most of what they learn in school
3 - The avg American is a moron (not that they exactly have a lock on this)


As history seems to be taught chronologically in the US, early American history is taught in grade school and so is extremely simplified to match the grade level of the learners.

By the time students are prepared for a bit more nuance in their history, they are up to the WWII and beyond.

I realize this is a vast generalization on my part, but I throw it out as food for thought anyway.Yes it is very general but as I recall my own experiences at least, accurate. Partly I think it's also because it's easier to make the earlier history of (eg) the Rev War "palatable" for young kids vs the horrors of (eg) WW II w/the concentration camps etc.

[fitzgibbon]

1 - Not much is taught about it

Pity as it's the beginning of the States as it's presently constructed. The States' first experience with a professional armed forces,


2 - People forget most of what they learn in school

Pity that. True on the north side of the border as well. Trouble is we have more to lose from forgetfulness than you do.


3 - The avg American is a moron (not that they exactly have a lock on this)

They have company. Took me some twenty-odd years to recognise the worthwhile things Canadians did during the War. The Yanks like to frame it as the Second War of Independence©) which honestly is a steaming crock while Canadians on the whole don't recognise it as the tipping point in our history where we realised that we weren't Americans.


Yes it is very general but as I recall my own experiences at least, accurate. Partly I think it's also because it's easier to make the earlier history of (eg) the Rev War "palatable" for young kids vs the horrors of (eg) WW II w/the concentration camps etc.

It's black-or-white as far as war goes with you Yanks; never a half-measure. Pity that because war is usually a half-measure endeavour. War in and of itself is a passtime worth avoiding except in the most exceptional circumstances. When it becomes fetishised, it loses its horror which is problematic. Perish the thought that your country becomes too fond of war.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<< SNIP >>


They have company. Took me some twenty-odd years to recognise the worthwhile things Canadians did during the War. The Yanks like to frame it as the Second War of Independence©) which honestly is a steaming crock while Canadians on the whole don't recognise it as the tipping point in our history where we realised that we weren't Americans.

<< SNIP >>



In my case (late 50s, Protestant School Board of Montreal) it was identified as being important to Canada and its continuing existance. The lack of success of the invaders in the East and their repulsion in Upper Canada. The other point I remember is the loss of the control of the Great Lakes that led to the building of the Rideau Canal.

There is a long thread at:
http://ask.metafilter.com/38485/Who-won-the-War-of-1812

That parallels some of the comments in this one and is worth a read (if you have the time :D ). It also has song lyrics. :cool:

[bigred]

Pity as it's the beginning of the States as it's presently constructed. The States' first experience with a professional armed forces,Well there's only so much time to spend on so much history - I don't offhand have strong feelings that more time should be spent on this war or not though.


Pity that. True on the north side of the border as well. Trouble is we have more to lose from forgetfulness than you do.? Because-?

The Yanks like to frame it as the Second War of Independence©) which honestly is a steaming crock ? Because-?

It's black-or-white as far as war goes with you Yanks; never a half-measure.Well gee I'm glad you're not engaging in pointless silly stereotypes :rolleyes: Regardless, I don't know what you mean here either.


Pity that because war is usually a half-measure endeavour. or here.

War in and of itself is a passtime worth avoiding except in the most exceptional circumstances. Well duh.

When it becomes fetishised, it loses its horror which is problematic. or here.

[Father Dagon]

You would be hard pushed to classify the Luddite rebellions as a civil war.The number of troops involved was fairly impressive.Couldn't that be beacuse of dealing with the Luddites was more of a policing action? It was not about securing key points and killing as many enemies as possible, right? Anyone could kill hundreds, if not thousands of people with a machine gun and a mortar. But policing the same amount of people with a machine gun and a mortar? No way!

[fitzgibbon]

Pity as it's the beginning of the States as it's presently constructed. The States' first experience with a professional armed forces,
Well there's only so much time to spend on so much history - I don't offhand have strong feelings that more time should be spent on this war or not though.

Fair enough although I think in many ways, the path that the States has taken in the ensuing 2 centuries was dictated by lessons learned in blood through this particular conflict.



Pity that. True on the north side of the border as well. Trouble is we have more to lose from forgetfulness than you do.
? Because-?

Because the commercial media here is so dominated by productions originating from the U.S. with an initial target audience of Americans and laced throughout with U.S. cultural references. Because they're dumped here for prices well below the cost of producing similar programming with a more Canadian focus, the commercial networks suck the stuff right up and we get American culture references left, right and centre by osmosis. Makes differentiation a tad difficult when you're bombarded that way. Les Québecois are about the only group that's gone out of their way to support their indigenous culture. Lose your culture you lose yourselves. Had the States not invaded, Canada would've fallen into its thrall by default.



The Yanks like to frame it as the Second War of Independence©) which honestly is a steaming crock
? Because-?

Free Trade and Sailor's Rights. That was the avowed intention of the War. But those problems were addressed before the War even started (although it took time for this to be transmitted across the Atlantic). Still and all, word was received in Washington before any real damage was done. Yet the States pressed-on. Seems a little disingenuous to frame your country as put-upon when you were the initial aggressor.

[bigred]

OK. Well it was still a war for independence, ie whether it was from being oppressed or simply saying "we don't want to be under your thumb anymore so piss off."