War of 1812

[plan_D]

Also the fact that Britain have taken a defensive stance for decades. Defending our empire instead of trying to expand it and relying on our Royal Navy to end most attempts on the taking of our homeland.

[Anonymous]

Also the fact that Britain have taken a defensive stance for decades. Defending our empire instead of trying to expand it and relying on our Royal Navy to end most attempts on the taking of our homeland.

Yep, we all now Britian was a beneficant power for at least 100 years before WWII

[plan_D]

Much more than America was. What was America doing soon after it gained independance, RG? Trying to build an empire of itself, and they called the British imperialist.

If Britain wasn't a generous empire, why is that a lot of nations had respect for Britain? While they don't for America?

[Anonymous]

Much more than America was. What was America doing soon after it gained independance, RG? Trying to build an empire of itself, and they called the British imperialist.

If Britain wasn't a generous empire, why is that a lot of nations had respect for Britain? While they don't for America?

Respect? Define Respect.

You must pehaps mean India? Or do you mean those lands where the British replaced the indiginous populations with their own people?

And who says countries don't have "respect" for America? LOL - fear and envy is a form of respect.

American Imperialism for the most part stopped at the Pacific Ocean. We never tried to conquer the rest of the world and force them into a subordinate position. Aside from our own continent vs. the Native Americans, our interests were in securing fair trade, not forcing it on exlcusive terms that we dictated.

You need to learn your own country's history before you take foolish jabs at mine.

[plan_D]

You're the same as most other people who are jealous of the British Empire. The British were securing trade through holding land. They improved land and infrastructure of the areas that they conquered.
We didn't massacre the people we conquered. We used diplomacy and hearts and minds. Where do you think our military doctrine of hearts and minds comes from?

Stopped at the pacific? I think you should learn your own countries history, RG. Your country hides it's attempts on expanding it's empire under the guise of "in the name of democracy". The Spanish-American war was Americas reach to capture Cuba. 1812 war was an attempt by America to take Canada to name a few.

What you and your closed mind fails to understand is I know my countries history. I know it better than you and I know this country owned the largest empire known to man. The difference between Britain and America is that we aren't ashamed of it, why should we be? In those days it was what was done. Britain was the best at it. We never tried to hide our empire under "in the name of democracy" like America's expansion was hidden.

Through deceit, force and under-handed politics America secured what it has today.
My favourite being the 1812 war which America to this day passes off as a victory, but how did it start!? American forces attempted to take Canada and were beaten back. British forces pushed down to Washington, sacked it, then moved down to New Orleans before being forced into a treaty with America because of over-stretched forces being beaten. But who won? America never took Canada, so Britain won.

You think you know it all.

[Nonskimmer]

America never took Canada, so Britain won.

We like to think we got something out of it too.

[Anonymous]

You're the same as most other people who are jealous of the British Empire. The British were securing trade through holding land. They improved land and infrastructure of the areas that they conquered.
We didn't massacre the people we conquered. We used diplomacy and hearts and minds. Where do you think our military doctrine of hearts and minds comes from?

LOL - sure - and you slaughted those who did not agree. Study the British occupation of India a bit. Or the British in the ME or Africa. Or the slaughter of the Aboriginies or what happened in many British colonies in SE Asia. These things were done under the auspicies of British companies, using company armies, but when those armies got in trouble the red coats came into the fight.

British Imperialism generally meant effective slavery for the indiginous population, except if they were slaughtered. If you don't realize this then there is little point in discussion.

Stopped at the pacific? I think you should learn your own countries history, RG. Your country hides it's attempts on expanding it's empire under the guise of "in the name of democracy". The Spanish-American war was Americas reach to capture Cuba.

No... it was to get rid of the Spanish. In the Spanish-American war the U.S. gained the Philipines, the Sulus, and Guam and ended up paying Spain $20 million. And Cuba got its independance!

1812 war was an attempt by America to take Canada to name a few.

Not hardly. A few facts for you:

1803-1812: British impress over 10,000 American citizens to man their ships, stating openly that the USA is still a British colony, not an independant nation, and that these are British citizens.

1806: British seize over 1000 US ships when they blockade France. The ships were siezed without notice or warning.

1807: Leapold fires on the Chesapeake when it refused to be boarded 3 miles of Norfolk Virgina, killing 3 and wounding 18.

The USA still sought a diplomatic solution, but the British would not stop their campaign of impressment. Furthermore, via Canada the British were supplying Indians in the Ohio Valley with firearms. Finally in on June 18th we'd had enough and declared war.

It was the British who then struck out of Canada into the USA and on August 16th captured a fort in Michigan. The USA then tried to attack the British in Canada, but 3 attempts failed. In January 1813, after a battle in Michigan, the British slaughtered the unarmed survivors after accepting surrender of arms and agreeing to allow the soldiers to retreat, known as the "Raisin River Massacre".

However, by 1815 the USA had the upper hand. Had we wanted to take Canada there was nothing the British could do to stop us. We didn't!

What you and your closed mind fails to understand is I know my countries history. I know it better than you and I know this country owned the largest empire known to man. The difference between Britain and America is that we aren't ashamed of it, why should we be? In those days it was what was done. Britain was the best at it. We never tried to hide our empire under "in the name of democracy" like America's expansion was hidden.

You British are proud of having enslaved and destroyed whole cultures?

You really don't see the difference between enslaving a peoples and freeing them?

Through deceit, force and under-handed politics America secured what it has today.

Justify those statements! Your true colors are comming out now kid!

My favourite being the 1812 war which America to this day passes off as a victory, but how did it start!? American forces attempted to take Canada and were beaten back. British forces pushed down to Washington, sacked it, then moved down to New Orleans before being forced into a treaty with America because of over-stretched forces being beaten. But who won? America never took Canada, so Britain won.

You think you know it all.

You prove your ignorance. The USA bent over backwards to avoid the war of 1812 - the British simply would not stop their unacceptable behaviors and refusal to recognize US sovereignty. Finally we'd had enough and even though we were not really prepared for war we engaged the British and after 2.5 years defeated them.

The USA never wanted Canada, but they would like to have had the British out of Canada. It was the British who attacked the USA out of Canada first in the war of 1812. In the end the American forces kicked the snot out of the Brits at Baltimore and then Jackson literally kicked the crap out of them at New Orleans.

Certainly by 1830-1840 there was absolutely nothing the British could do had the USA wanted to take Canada. If that had been an American objective the stars and stripes would be flying over Canada today.

The USA won the war of 1812 because we achieved our objective - the British recognized US sovereignty and never again contested it. You can't see this because your only definition of victory is conquest. That was not our goal in the first place. Had it been, we certainly would have conquered Canada - by 1850 the USA was a match for Britain on the ground anyway, and we had none of the supply problems that would have faced Britain in a Canadian defense.

So, you've proved how well you know/understand your history alrighty there Plan_D!

[FLYBOYJ]

OK guys, now that's over with, every body sing along....

Well, in 18 and 14, we took a little trip....

[Anonymous]

I'll try and not be swayed by his marvellous talent of annoying people.

LOL - you make outragous statements like the USA really lost the War of 1812 because it failed in its goal to conquer Canada and I'm the annoying one?

[plan_D]

Shall we put that to the vote, RG?

Failure in objectives is losing the war, RG. Germany lost the war because it failed in taking Europe from the Atlantic to Ural Mountains, then failed to defend itself.
America lost the 1812 war because it failed in it's objective of taking Canada from the British. Therefore it lost the war.

Another remarkable thing you seem to forget is the age of both nations. You disrespect Britain by saying it was cruel to the natives of the lands it conquered because you compare it to the world of today. Britain begin forging it's empire in the 14-15th Century before the U.S was even thought of.
In those days little was thought of in the way of human rights. Britain has nothing to be ashamed of from those times because that is what all European nations did. It cannot be expected of a nation to think far ahead into the future and wonder what people will think of it because of it's lack of human rights.
This disgraceful country, as you believe it to be, was also the first full country to abolish slavery. In 1772 Britain reported that it did not support slavery, Britain and the U.S prohibit international slave trade in 1807, Britain used the Royal Navy to stop the slave trade and slavery was abolished throughout the entire British Empire in 1838. It did not take until 1865 with the passing of the 13th Amendment that slavery was abolished in America. So, don't go off on any big rants about Britain's harsh treatment of natives when your country still keeps Native Americans in reservations and seperates them from White-Americans.

Now, in case you didn't notice, a few posts ago NS and evan both made the request that we stop this bickering. I put my hands up and am willing to stop. Have your much needed last word if you will, RG but this is going to stop. So I will leave this, feel free to reply but don't expect a reply from me on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Fine don't reply. Just as well since your argument is indefensible. If you could keep your arguments civil then I'd do the same and we'd not have any problems.

Your argument about Indians being "kept on reservations" is ludicrous and stupid. Native Americans are totally free to leave the reservations if they so choose, are afforded every right of citizenship, and also are offered many special benefits to compensate them for past injustices.

Your argument about slavery denies the reasoning behind Britain's policy change, which was to prevent internal social chaos because of the unemployment that would occur should the practice of slavery have been continued. BTW: this was the same reason the North abolished slavery and in the end the reason it was abolished in the South via the Civil war.

It was economic interests in both cases, not moral conviction, that lead to the abolishment of slavery. Yes the USA did this later than the British, but the difference is that we recognized the wrongness of slavery in all its forms at that time, where Britain only applied its policies internally - in the colonies effective slavery continued as a matter of policy right up to WWII. Without US policy via the Atlantic Charter, Britain would have continued its policies w.r.t. most of its non-white colonies past WWII as Chruchill clearly intended - he felt India was "owned" by Britain and should remain so.

But then I also have to admit both our nations are guilty of having allowed corporations to conduct such policies right up to recent times via proxy dictators - it gets to be a complex issue when you look at it in depth. Fortunately it seems to finally be a thing of the past (let's hope).


Back to the War of 1812 --

My point remains - the objective was achieved, Britain stopped its policy of impressing American sailors into to the RN and stopped sacking American ships.

CONQUEST OF CANADA WAS NEVER A GOAL OF THE USA! You need only study Jefferson's efforts to avoid war over this period to see exactly what the issues were that lead to this war and thus what the goals were.

Achieving most or all of your goals is VICTORY! So the USA won. Simple as that. Your attempt to create a false goal and then claim the war was lost because that goal was not achieved is totally without merit.

[plan_D]

Just for anyone who doesn't know about the War of 1812.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1649

Feel free, RG, to comment.

[plan_D]

evan, you may as well delete this. It can all build up in the other War of 1812 thread I've already started.

[BombTaxi]

I hope, as this thread is not locked, I might add a few comments?

RG, what was the US 'liberating' Cuba from in 1898? What threat did Spain pose to the Cubans or to the US? If the war was solely of liberation, why did the US, as you yourself said, claim Guam, the Phillipines and the Sulus as spoils of war? And finally, how can you justify the war at all when the pretence upon which it was declared (the sinking of the Maine) was clearly false?

And as an aside, explain how the Mexican - American War was anything other than a blind and agressive grab for territory? The US claimed half of Mexico after that war, and the Democrats wanted more (see James B. McPherson, 'Battle Cry Of Freedom', ch.2, p.51 plus footnotes)

Like plan_D, I will not dent that the UK was the premier colonialist and imperialist power in the world. But again like plan_D, I can admit to my countries past. There is nothing shameful in a country being a product of its age. To my mind, however, there is something extremely shameful about later ages distorting history because they cannot stomach the actions of thier predecessors.

Just my 0.02

[plan_D]

Alright, don't delete the thread just re-name to something like "America Imperialist?" or something. Really, man...there is the SpanAm and 1812 threads too!

Some good words there BombTaxi, by the way.