# War of 1812.



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

I hope everyone, or at least a lot of people read this. As I am sure most of you have read the 'discussion' between RG and I about the 1812 conflict between Britain and America. 

http://www.napoleonguide.com/campaign_1812.htm



> *The Americans, however, were not blameless and their desire to control Canadian territory backing on to the Great Lakes* lead to a series of battles between the two nations.
> 
> In fact, the *United States declared war on Britain and militia units crossed the border into Canada on 18 June 1812.*
> 
> ...




http://www.usahistory.com/wars/1812.htm



> The War of 1812 began on June 18, when President James Madison officially proclaimed the U.S. to be at war with Great Britain. Congress had voted for war on June 4 and June 8. The war, which caused great harm to the U.S. economy, came after a long period of troubled relations between the two countries, caused mainly by Britain's conflict with Napoleonic France. The British seized American ships, impressed seamen from them, some of whom were U.S. citizens, and attempted to keep U.S. ships from reaching French ports. *The war was also the result of the influence of the so called War Hawks in Congress, Henry Clay and other westerners who wanted to acquire moreland by conquering Canada*. Inronically, on June 23 Great Britain, not aware of the declaration of war, suspended the orders that had hampered U.S. shipping


----------



## Erich (May 6, 2005)

Plan your avatar is doing some interesting isometrics.....

frankly it was quite pitiful in my estimation that my home country aided Napoleon in his crusade to conqueor Europe; the fool


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

Well he got what he deserved at Waterloo


----------



## Erich (May 6, 2005)

there is still so much hate for the little fat Corsican on my mothers side of the familie living in Germany. It would of been nice had Blücher run over that little turd when Paris was sacked in 1814.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

I agree. Not all German States were on Napoleans side though I believe. I may be wrong though. If I recall some were fighting against him. In some cases there were German states fighting against German States. At one point the whole Prussian Army was defeated by Napolean before he marched into Berlin and at the same time other German states were joined Napolean on his way to Prussia. 

*1st Coalition (1792-1797)*: Austria, *Prussia*, England, Spain and Piedmont against France.

*2nd Coalition (1798-1801)*: Russia, England, Austria, Ottoman Empire, Portugal, Naples, and the Papal States against France.

*3rd Coalition (1805)*: Austria, England, Russia and Sweden against France.
*Bavaria I believe was on the French side here, as Bavaria was invaded by the Austrians and Russians.*

*4th Coalition (1806-1807)*: *Prussia*, *Saxony*, and Russia against France and *Germany, Confederation of the Rhine. Hanseatic towns*.



> The Confederation of the Rhine (Rheinbund, Confédération du Rhin) lasted from 1806 to 1813 and was formed from 16 minor German states by Napoleon after he defeated Francis II and Alexander I in the Battle of the Three Emperors at Austerlitz.
> 
> The members of the confederation were German princes (Fürsten) from the Holy Roman Empire. Their states were later joined by 19 others, a total of over 15 million subjects providing a significant strategic advantage to France on its eastern front.
> 
> ...



*5th Coalition (1809)*: England and Austria against France.

*6th Coalition (1812-1814)*: United Kingdom, Russia, *Prussia*, Sweden, Austria, and a *number of German States *against France.

7th Coalition (1815): England, Russia, *Prussia*, Sweden, Austria, The Netherlands and a *number of German States* against France.


----------



## Erich (May 6, 2005)

freind you have me thinking now. haven't looked at a volume on the Napoleonics for some time. During the 1813 campaign and the push of the French out of Germany several Abteilung-German left the battlefield and even 1-2 actually during a battle(s) turned around faced the French and gave the suckers a volley.

George Nafzigers exhaustive volumes.

Lutzen a Bautzen
Napoleon at Dresden
Napoleon at Leipzig.

covering some of the most intense and bloody battles during the French reign


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

Would not suprise me, just about everyone hates the damn the French.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

I certainly know that there were Prussians that joined the field of battle against the French, at Waterloo.


----------



## Medvedya (May 6, 2005)

Also at Waterloo were the Dutch Nassau troops who previously had fought _for_ Napoleon - needless to say, they weren't terribly good.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

I saw a newspaper from 1812 reporting Wellingtons retreat, which amazed me as it was cheap. I was thinking it had to be fake...but it looked real. 

Talk about fighting a war on two fronts though, Britain in America and Europe, while holding the Atlantic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

You can sort of count the War of 1812 as basically just an extension of the Napoleonic Wars. Not really but sort of. Some of the gripes that caused the war were directly from the Wars over in Europe.


----------



## Anonymous (May 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I hope everyone, or at least a lot of people read this. As I am sure most of you have read the 'discussion' between RG and I about the 1812 conflict between Britain and America.
> 
> http://www.napoleonguide.com/campaign_1812.htm
> 
> ...



What a juvinile analysis of the situation leading to the War of 1812.

Let's look at the "War-Hawks" in a little detail here....



> We continue our series on the American System -- dedicated to exposing the lie that the United States is a nation built by Adam Smith's doctrines of "free enterprise" -- with Part II of Anton Chaitkin's essay on the War Hawk faction of Henry Clay. This essay proves that, yes, there really was a War of 1812, despite the history books' efforts to downplay this bitter struggle against that British attempt to overturn the American Revolution. Second, it explains the background of presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche's call for a new War Hawk faction to be created today. LaRouche issued that appeal in his Jan. 29 "State of the Union" address in Arlington, Virginia (see EIR, Feb. 14, 1986).
> 
> Even after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783, the new United States was under military attack. Indians raided exposed villages, using weapons supplied by their British allies. American merchant ships were seized by British and French warships, plundered, and sold.
> 
> ...



The War of 1812 was necessary for the USA to solidify its soviergnty after many years of outragous British actions which amounted to nothing less than an undeclared war. Canada was only a target because the British made it one - it was not about expansionism, it was about making the British stop attacking the USA out of that region which they'd been doing since the America won its indpenendence.

The USA won the War of 1812 because it established, once and for all, that it was not nor would it ever return to being an British colony.

As for...



Erich said:


> rankly it was quite pitiful in my estimation that my home country aided Napoleon in his crusade to conqueor Europe



Hopefully you will study the situation at the time and realize that your estimation is completely and utterly wrong.

The British were abducting our citizens and forcing them to serve abord British ships, they were waging war against us out of canada, they were stealing our merchant ship cargos and sometimes the ships themselves. America had to establish that it was a soveirgn nation or forever live under the heel of the British boot. The fact of the War going on in Europe had no relevance to the US position - we undertook every means of diplomacy to avoid the war of 1812 but the British really left us no other choice.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (May 7, 2005)

I understand the statements you are trying to make and yes Britian had to be stopped from the Colonial point of view but Napoleon was a terror through out Europe and was merciless as his combination of European hordes during 1812 tried to occupy as much of Europe through Russia as possible. As I have said on other posts my mothers familie felt his wrath during the 1800's being forced off their farms, burned, familie shot along with friends, villages torched completely to the ground and later what survivors there were coming home to what ? what home, it was gone, looted destroyed right down to the foundations, the wood reinforcements and even the roofs being hauled away to be burned later enroute to the disaster in the East..........


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2005)

Again, RG, you fail to realise that the US were wanting to gain land from Britain that was in Canada. It is an obvious fact to all others but you. 

Yes, the Royal Navy was capturing U.S ships that were supplying France. It was an extension of the Royal Navy blockade of France, the U.S was supplying our enemy with arms. The U.S risked it's neutrality in World War 2 by supplying Britain against the Germans, the U.S risked it's neutrality in Britain's war against France. 

The U.S were trying diplomatically to aid the French, that is all. The first troops to cross the border were U.S troops, attacking Canada on the 18th June, 1812. Not British troops. In fact, if you could read you would discover that the order to impress U.S citizens, sailors and ships into British service had been abandoned and ordered to stop on the June 23rd, 1812. 
The secondary reason the U.S attacked Britain had already been halted by the British before they knew the U.S had declared war. The U.S gained nothing from the war they started as Britain had already stopped doing what the U.S was so annoyed about. 

Your look on that war is closed to impressing of American sailors into British service. You fail time and time again to see that the another reason for war was the idea of America's "Manifest Destiny" to own the Americas. They wanted Canada, RG, everyone knows that but you!
The Royal Navy's stealing of U.S ships was a good excuse to start that war. I admit, with great ease, that Britain was capturing U.S ships and selling them off and taking their crews. Of course the Royal Navy was going to do such things, they were ships sailing towards France...our enemy. And yes, this would be a good reason for the U.S to go to war with Britain...but it was also a good excuse to take Canada. 

And last but not least *Britain had already revoked the order to capture U.S ships*


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2005)

I also must say that your attack on Britain supplying the Native Americans with arms is amusing. Britain was merely aiding an oppressed people, against their oppressors...we were doing it in the name of democracy...isn't that why America helped the Cubans against the Spanish.


----------



## Anonymous (May 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Again, RG, you fail to realise that the US were wanting to gain land from Britain that was in Canada. It is an obvious fact to all others but you.



There was never any plans to occupy Canada. All the expeditions against Canada were fitted to raid and return. The goal was expansion to the west - there was pleanty of land much richer than that to the north. The problem was that the British were supplying a number of Indian tribes, in particular the Techumsa brother's "First Nation", with firearms and encouraging them to raid American settlements in the Ohio river valley.

What you fail to realize is that Canada was there for the taking from 1830 on. If America had wanted it, they could have taken it, simple as that. The British were in no position to defend Canada from a concerted American effort to take it given the relative populations, military forces, logistical situation, Britian's other military engagments and its economic situation (the Napoleonic Wars had cost the British heavily).

You have not a shred of real evidence to support the claim that the USA had it's eye on taking Canadian land as part of its motivation to engage the British in the War of 1812. Because pure and simple it was not the case.



plan_D said:


> Yes, the Royal Navy was capturing U.S ships that were supplying France. It was an extension of the Royal Navy blockade of France, the U.S was supplying our enemy with arms. The U.S risked it's neutrality in World War 2 by supplying Britain against the Germans, the U.S risked it's neutrality in Britain's war against France.



That is the biggest load of horse dun you've put forth yet. However, when the British enacted the blockade in 1807 they captured and claimed over 1000 American ships without notice, and the French took 500. After that, In December of 1807 Jefferson enacted the "embargo act" prohibiting trade with either Britain or France. Any merchant's trying to run the blockade would have been in violation of US law. The British were boarding US ships anywhere and everywhere on the High Seas and sometimes even within US territorial waters, most often within a day's sailing of a US port, where they would picket specifically seeking US ships to board.

It was Britain that was already making war on the USA, please don't try to turn that around with bogus arguments.



plan_D said:


> The U.S were trying diplomatically to aid the French, that is all. The first troops to cross the border were U.S troops, attacking Canada on the 18th June, 1812. Not British troops. In fact, if you could read you would discover that the order to impress U.S citizens, sailors and ships into British service had been abandoned and ordered to stop on the June 23rd, 1812.



America was trying to act as a Diplomatic agent between Britain and France. Both Franklin and Jefferson wanted to see that war end as they had a great love for both nations. But there was no siding with either country.

Yes, after war was delcared the American's were the first to cross the boarder. However, for years before that the British had been supplying the indians with whom they were openly allied with firearms and encouraging attacks on America's western settlers. In 1811 the tribe of the 1st Nation, armed with British firarms, ambushed US troops.

As for the British order to stop impressments, it's irrelevlant, as it occured 5 days after the US declaration of war on June 18th 1812 and there was more than a month's delay between the issuance of such an order and dispersal through the Royal Navy.

Likewise, the Treaty of Ghent was signed on Dec. 24th, 1814, yet the British still attacked in New Orleans in January - it was more than a month communciation delay between Belgium and America. So I don't see what point you are trying to make here?



plan_D said:


> The secondary reason the U.S attacked Britain had already been halted by the British before they knew the U.S had declared war. The U.S gained nothing from the war they started as Britain had already stopped doing what the U.S was so annoyed about.



You have things backwards. The USA had no idea the British had decided to stop its impressment policy when it finally, after a decade of failed diplomacy, declared war. By the time this British decision reached America, battle had already been joined.



plan_D said:


> Your look on that war is closed to impressing of American sailors into British service. You fail time and time again to see that the another reason for war was the idea of America's "Manifest Destiny" to own the Americas. They wanted Canada, RG, everyone knows that but you!



That's not true at all, and you have nothing to support this argument. The idea of "manifest destiny" had not even come about in the USA at this time. Again, there was nothing Britain or Canada could have done to stop the USA from taking Canada at almost any time after the War of 1812. If the USA had really wanted Canada, it would be ours - simple as that.



plan_D said:


> The Royal Navy's stealing of U.S ships was a good excuse to start that war. I admit, with great ease, that Britain was capturing U.S ships and selling them off and taking their crews. Of course the Royal Navy was going to do such things, they were ships sailing towards France...our enemy. And yes, this would be a good reason for the U.S to go to war with Britain...but it was also a good excuse to take Canada.



You are delusional. American ships were not sailing to France. The only way they could be deemed to have been doing so would be to assume that any Eastward course must be toward France. As pointed out above, it was against American law to trade with either England or France from 1807 on. And British impressments were occuring not near Europe, but right off the coast of the USA.

You seem to miss the real point. The War of 1812 was about establishing once and for all that the USA was a soverign nation and not a British colony. Until the War of 1812, the British believed that the Colonies would eventually fail and revert back to British control. They engaged in political and military subtrifuge to this end. This is why the War of 1812 was actually called "The Second War of Indpendance".



plan_D said:


> And last but not least *Britain had already revoked the order to capture U.S ships*



You're repeating yourself again.. as pointed out, this happend 5 days after the US declaration of war, and was done in London, adding over another months delay to the new's arrival in the USA. It is an irrelevant side note to history - people were no more psychic then than they are now, the USA had no way to know that after a decade of failed diplomatic attempts to get Britain to cease its continuing acts of war that they would suddenly do so just as the USA was 

It is even somewhat questionable if this even really happened. The British were not beyond falsifying such a document at the time, in hopes that it might serve to end hostilities more quickly and avoid political embarassment. There is really no evidence of substance that this decision was in fact made on June 23rd and not perhaps a month later and back dated to make it look like the British had already made this decision. This would have avoided it looking like the British were backing down to the Americans had a quick peace been achieved via this concession. It certainly makes no sense - why would they change their policy at this particular time, coincidently so close to the US declaration of War? The timing is extremely unlikely and suspicious. Very likely it never really happened!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2005)

If you didn't notice there were two websites at the top of this thread showing you and everyone else that America was aiming for the capture of Canada. Do you want more websites saying the same thing? 

Britain was supplying an oppressed people against their oppressors. For their own good or otherwise, it's just like America supplying Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Yes, RG, the U.S was oppressing the Native Americans whether you like to admit it or not. 

America tried three times to attack Canada, failing every time. The Napoleonic Wars had cost Britain dearly but it was ended a British victory which gave Britain the manpower and resources to hold Canada with ease. As in 1815 the garrison had been bolstered in Canada, the only three viable entry points into the country (through the Great Lakes) is small and America would need many more people than it did in 1812 to take the place, many more people that the U.S just didn't have. So, no, it wasn't for the taking. 

Britain wasn't waging war. America declared war. Britain was going to stop, as the order had been given in June 23rd, 1812 to stop. It does seem I have to repeat myself to get that into your head. Shall I just supply a string of websites for you to read that all state America wanted Canada?

Your remark about it being a hit and run raid on Canada is a laughable idea. How would hitting Canada and retreating knock out the Royal Navy bases there, RG? America knew the only way they could get rid of the Royal Navy from their waters was capturing their bases in Canada. 
It's all remarkably the same reason why Japan took Singapore in World War 2. The one and only reason was to get rid of the Royal Navy out of the Pacific so they could ship oil from the Dutch East Indies. Would you say that Japan never captured Singapore because the only reason it did was to stop the Royal Navy?

What you fail to understand is that the reasons the U.S went to war had already been stopped by the British. The U.S gained nothing, no new terrority nor did it stop the British attacks on U.S vessels because they'd already been stopped. 

In fact, all the Treaty of Ghent really proposed was a long lasting peace between both Britain and America. The wars waged against the Native Americans by the U.S were even stopped. 

Your obvious, over the top, patrioism claims the 1812 war a U.S victory when in actual fact it was no one's victory. The U.S failed in it's, obvious, goal of taking Canada, or parts thereof. (Which are discussed in the Treat of Ghent) The taking of U.S ships had already been stopped on the 23rd June, 1812. Britain was never attempting to take back America, the *only* glimmer of evidence you have for that is them supplying the Native Americans with arms, of which America had to halt all wars with after the Treaty of Ghent...so, how did America win?


----------



## Anonymous (May 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> If you didn't notice there were two websites at the top of this thread showing you and everyone else that America was aiming for the capture of Canada. Do you want more websites saying the same thing?



Show me some websites that go into enough historical depth to indicate they know what they are talking about. Find some that explain how they reach the conclusion that America was aiming to capture Canada, not just state it as a supposed fact. I can find websites that say just about anything, that does not make it true.



plan_D said:


> Britain was supplying an oppressed people against their oppressors. For their own good or otherwise, it's just like America supplying Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Yes, RG, the U.S was oppressing the Native Americans whether you like to admit it or not.



You're kidding here arn't you? One thing that is clear beyond any doubt is that Britain was not supporting the Indians because they felt they were unjustly oppressed by the white man. What they were doing was arming Indian's and paying them for the goods they could steal from American settlers. In most cases, the Indians involved lived in Canada and raided down into the USA. So your argument here is bunk.



plan_D said:


> America tried three times to attack Canada, failing every time. The Napoleonic Wars had cost Britain dearly but it was ended a British victory which gave Britain the manpower and resources to hold Canada with ease. As in 1815 the garrison had been bolstered in Canada, the only three viable entry points into the country (through the Great Lakes) is small and America would need many more people than it did in 1812 to take the place, many more people that the U.S just didn't have. So, no, it wasn't for the taking.



The US military was practically non-existant in 1812, just a small collection of Militia's. However, after the War of 1812 things were different. Had the USA really wanted Canada, it could have prepared itself and then attacked.

Strategically, all the USA had to do was block passage through those narrow rivers leading into the Great Lakes to strangle the British in Canada. The entry points did not have to be taken at all, they could have been sieged out of existance.

Lets consider the relative populations for an attack in 1830 (since I have not found data for Britain for 1820):

USA: about 13 million
Lower Canada: less than 500,000 (??? very hard to figure out) 
Britain: about 16 million + about 8 million Irish

It is doubtful the Irish would fight, since they were already beginning to stir against British rule and are still suffering from a famine. Also, Britain was female heavy due to the losses of the Napleonic wars, and economically spent. Given the distance involved and the relative populations, Britain might have been able to prevail if the America's were the only place where it needed troops. Not only that, but the Canadian's were staging their own revolutions at the time and might well have accepted US statehood. Here's a quote from a site on early Canadian History:



> By July 1840, the fear of further unrest with possible American involvement, Victoria joins Upper and Lower Canada to form one Province of Canada with its capital in Kingston. To its government of appointed representatives, a cabinet of ministers is added - responsible to the majority vote in the elected Assembly. Although the cabinet of ministers is split equally between French and English Canada, the French rightly observe they are being marginalized.
> http://www.ccma.ca/~mbone/webtree/history-ca.htm#1840



And Britain of course had its holdings in India, China, and Austrailia, all of which required a fair number of troops.







It is clear that Queen Victoria was concerned that Canada was vulnerable to American conquest!

And in 1840 the sitiuation was even worse for Britain:

*Populations 1840*
USA: 17.2 million
Lower Canada: 650,000 ??? (very hard to figure out)
Britain: about 17.5 million + 8.2 million Irish

But now the Canadian revolts are comming to a head as well as the rebellion in New Zealand. Britain is involved in wars in Afgahnistan and South Africa, as well as the first Opium war in China. And Unrest in India is becoming increasingly serious.

At the same time the Irish were in the middle of the potato famine after suffering 20 years of other famine, and Ireland requires forces to quell riots and rebellion - it is no source for troops. 45% of the English/Welch population is under the age of 20. And the US population equals that of the English, the US Navy is no longer to be scoffed at, and the US has a standing army.

Had the USA really been set on taking Canada, it'd have been taken. Britain simply did not have the forces to stop it without watching the whole of the rest of its empire crumble - and even then it may well have failed. Queen Victoria knew this and through some fancy footwork managed to avoid war - and this could not have been achieved if taking Canada were really a goal of the USA.



plan_D said:


> Britain wasn't waging war. America declared war. Britain was going to stop, as the order had been given in June 23rd, 1812 to stop. It does seem I have to repeat myself to get that into your head. Shall I just supply a string of websites for you to read that all state America wanted Canada?



Again, it is irrelevant that Britain maybe gave an order to stop impressment of US citizens on June 23rd 1812, because *the USA had already delcared war on Britain on June 18th 1812, FIVE DAYS EARLIER!* And there was a full months delay of the news of such a decision having (supposedly) been made anyway. By then the US troops had already attacked Canada. So don't keep harping on that date, it is totally meaningless even if it did happen - which I seriously doubt.



plan_D said:


> Your remark about it being a hit and run raid on Canada is a laughable idea. How would hitting Canada and retreating knock out the Royal Navy bases there, RG? America knew the only way they could get rid of the Royal Navy from their waters was capturing their bases in Canada.



That is silly. The British would still have had bases in Newfoundland, they would still have had bases in the Bahamas, etc... Taking out Canada would have had very little effect on British impressments at all. However, the threat of taking Canada, and the costs to the British to fight a land war against the USA, were expected to drive them to the negotiating table to secure an agreement. It was necessary because we could not face them on the Sea, so we had no other means of inflicting damage and showing we were serious.



plan_D said:


> It's all remarkably the same reason why Japan took Singapore in World War 2. The one and only reason was to get rid of the Royal Navy out of the Pacific so they could ship oil from the Dutch East Indies. Would you say that Japan never captured Singapore because the only reason it did was to stop the Royal Navy?



This argument is so stupid I'm not going to even waste time replying to it.



plan_D said:


> What you fail to understand is that the reasons the U.S went to war had already been stopped by the British. The U.S gained nothing, no new terrority nor did it stop the British attacks on U.S vessels because they'd already been stopped.



And what did that matter since the USA didn't have any idea that the British were going to decide (if they really did) 5 days after we declared War to stop impressments and the siezing of American ships without cause. What you don't seem to understand is that in 1812 such an order issued from London would take months to filter through the RN, and about a month to reach the USA. There was no radio - it had to be carried by ship.



plan_D said:


> In fact, all the Treaty of Ghent really proposed was a long lasting peace between both Britain and America. The wars waged against the Native Americans by the U.S were even stopped.
> 
> Your obvious, over the top, patrioism claims the 1812 war a U.S victory when in actual fact it was no one's victory. The U.S failed in it's, obvious, goal of taking Canada, or parts thereof. (Which are discussed in the Treat of Ghent) The taking of U.S ships had already been stopped on the 23rd June, 1812. Britain was never attempting to take back America, the *only* glimmer of evidence you have for that is them supplying the Native Americans with arms, of which America had to halt all wars with after the Treaty of Ghent...so, how did America win?



No, the order was supposedly signed on the 23rd of June, 1812. The taking of US ships was still going on and would continue for as much as another 2 months even if the order really did exist. Again, there is no solid evidence to support this date. It is more likely that it was fabricated after the fact to make it seem when the British did back down that they were not capitulating to American demands. Such political manipulations of evidence were common at that time.

All the Treaty of Ghent did was have the British formally agree to recognize US soverignty and to return to the borders as recognized before the start of the war. Which was exactly what the USA wanted - thus it was a US victory.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2005)

You're trying to uphold your argument now on the basis that the June 23rd, 1812, order of the British to cease the impressment of U.S sailors and ships into British service is false and never existed. Which it did, so the U.S gained nothing out the war. It would have been the exactly the same if the U.S had never declared war and left it another good two months. 
So, how did the U.S win? 

How do you propose the U.S strangle the holds in the Great Lakes, to strangle you must surround, to surround you must breakthrough, to breakthrough they had to go through those little gaps. Are you a professional idiot or a talented amateur? 

Populations often mean nothing, the British population in 1814 was 20,000,000. The French population was near double that, yet Britain came out on top. The entire U.S population wasn't going to go along with the forces to invade Canada, Britain would be on the defensive and in those days it was extremely advantageous to be on the defensive. 
The U.S were hoping on the French Colonists help in 1812, what makes you think that the Canadians would help in 1820, or 1830, or 1840? 

Don't avoid the argument, RG. The only way the U.S would be able to stop, or slow, British attacks on their ships would be to take British ports. To take British ports, they must take land. The Carribean would then be the only base of operations from which the British could send out ships to attack any U.S ships. This would leave U.S ships in an easy situation to evade them. 

I could just as easily state that all your websites and 'facts' are bullshit, RG. Sooner or later I'm going to take the advice from CCs signature.


----------



## Anonymous (May 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You're trying to uphold your argument now on the basis that the June 23rd, 1812, order of the British to cease the impressment of U.S sailors and ships into British service is false and never existed. Which it did, so the U.S gained nothing out the war. It would have been the exactly the same if the U.S had never declared war and left it another good two months.
> So, how did the U.S win?



What reliable evidence do you have that the order to cease impressments was really issued on June 23rd 1812, and not, lets say, fabricated on July 12th (about how long it would take for word to get back to London that the USA had declared war)? None!

But again, that is not the point. The salient fact is that the USA declared war on June 18th 1812 - so any British order to stop impressments on the 23rd was irrelevant. You say the USA should have waited another 2 months... well, I say the USA should have gone to war at least 3 years earlier! Diplomacy had not worked in 9 and a half years, why should America have believed it would suddenly suceed in another 5 days?



plan_D said:


> How do you propose the U.S strangle the holds in the Great Lakes, to strangle you must surround, to surround you must breakthrough, to breakthrough they had to go through those little gaps. Are you a professional idiot or a talented amateur?



_Note: I hope the admins here are reading your comments - so when I've had enough and decide to insult you back they will understand WHO STARTED THE INSULTS!_

You must not be very familiar with the geography involved. Take a look at the map below:






Now, surely even you can see that all that is needed is to establish a position on the St. Larwence river and run chains and setup cannon and shipping could not progress. The most strategic spot would be that narrowing about 100 miles NE of Montreal. This would force the British out of their forts or they would have to endure without supplies. Canada had no industrial capacity so it could not supply them. In the meantime all of Upper Canada would have been strangled and after a single winter the US forces could simply have marched in and taken it for free.



plan_D said:


> Populations often mean nothing, the British population in 1814 was 20,000,000. The French population was near double that, yet Britain came out on top. The entire U.S population wasn't going to go along with the forces to invade Canada, Britain would be on the defensive and in those days it was extremely advantageous to be on the defensive.
> The U.S were hoping on the French Colonists help in 1812, what makes you think that the Canadians would help in 1820, or 1830, or 1840?



Populations indicate how big an army a country can field. Britain was far from alone against Napolean, had they been they surely would have lost. They would have had no allies against the USA. The French colonists really didn't do anything one way or another in 1812, but they'd not yet set their sights on independence of their own - by 1830 they had. By 1940 both upper and lower Canada had in fact rebelled against the Crown. But even without their support it would not have mattered.

Being on the defensive is an advantage. But having short supply lines that are nearly impossible to break vs. an extremely long supply line that is easily broken is a much bigger advantage. The USA could withstand a much longer war than Britain.

By 1840 the USA could have fielded an army of over 2 million men - how was Britain going to fight that? If we'd have wanted Canada as badly as you say, it'd be ours.



plan_D said:


> Don't avoid the argument, RG. The only way the U.S would be able to stop, or slow, British attacks on their ships would be to take British ports. To take British ports, they must take land. The Carribean would then be the only base of operations from which the British could send out ships to attack any U.S ships. This would leave U.S ships in an easy situation to evade them.



Your knowlege of American geography is outright bad. But even had all the ports been taken the British still could have picketed the US coast easily - they just had a lot more warships in 1812 than the USA. US ships were better in a given class, but British had a lot more of them.



> I could just as easily state that all your websites and 'facts' are bullshit, RG. Sooner or later I'm going to take the advice from CCs signature.



The sites I've given you provide depth and explain their positions. The sites you've referenced just make a statement as if it were fact without providing the reasoning behind the statement. Do you really not see the difference?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

I think you both need to stop with the insults here!


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 8, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

Thats cute skimmer. I like the flag!


----------



## evangilder (May 8, 2005)

Let me guess, there is a tag on that flag that says "Made in China"?


----------



## Anonymous (May 8, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think you both need to stop with the insults here!



LOL - I did not insult him back. *So please don't say "both" when it is your boy Plan_D who is doing all the insulting.*

You gonna wear that admin hat you have to be objective Alder.

When the admins start spamming out a thread one thing is clear... THERE ARE TOO MANY ADMINS!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 8, 2005)

RG, I think you should calm down just a bit. You've been known to chuck a few insults and insinuations yourself here and there, so when Adler says "both" try not to be too incensed by it. I don't have quotes for you, nor am I about to bother hunting them down, but enough of us have seen it happen, so that's good enough.

If at any time you're particularly annoyed with an individual because you feel that they've insulted you or your country, try sending them a private message about it or contact an admin and we'll look into it. Believe it or not, _sometimes_ it might just be meant in good humour.

I'll ask the _both_ of you to please try to keep the hard insults about each other or each other's nationality either to yourselves or to PM's.


Now if you want to bark at me too then feel free, and if you feel that there are just too many admins on this site for you, you can leave at any time.


Lighten up.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 8, 2005)

Can I just say guys, we had a cracking debate going on here...the mudslinging has bought it down though. Not wanting to get on me soapbox, but it would be cool to just have a good debate on here without it getting nasty.

Just my 0.02 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2005)

Alright. I'm sorry, to all of you. I apologise, RG.

It wasn't my fault, I hadn't had my tea.  

Anyway, I will carry on this debate tommorow. I'm not really in the mood at the moment.


----------



## Anonymous (May 8, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> RG, I think you should calm down just a bit. You've been known to chuck a few insults and insinuations yourself here and there, so when Adler says "both" try not to be too incensed by it. I don't have quotes for you, nor am I about to bother hunting them down, but enough of us have seen it happen, so that's good enough.
> 
> If at any time you're particularly annoyed with an individual because you feel that they've insulted you or your country, try sending them a private message about it or contact an admin and we'll look into it. Believe it or not, _sometimes_ it might just be meant in good humour.
> 
> ...



Skimmer,

On entry to this new thread on an existing topic I specifically asked Plan_D and anyone else who wished to discuss this to refrain from insults. And thus far I have made none.

Therefore, I find it totally hypocritical and abusive that Adler, who from the past discussion clearly sides with Plan_D (or more accurately against me), to admonish BOTH of us for throwing insults in this thread where I have thrown NONE.

I hope you can see my point.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Alright. I'm sorry, to all of you. I apologise, RG.
> 
> It wasn't my fault, I hadn't had my tea.
> 
> Anyway, I will carry on this debate tommorow. I'm not really in the mood at the moment.



Accepted! 

Hopefully we can debate such issues vigorously without having it degenerate into personal insults.

Thank you,

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I think you both need to stop with the insults here!
> ...



No, first of all I said *both* because I meant *both*. *Not as Admin*but as a member of this site. Other posters here have asked everyone involved to stop, when other posters ask of this is *polite* and *mature* to stop so that you do not ruin for it everyone. I too am getting tired of it all. Through reading of the posts in this thread there were many things that *both* of you have posted that I did not like at all and could have made comments and insults to them but I chose not too.

As Skimmer said if you think there are too many admins, then you can leave no one here is *begging* you to stay.



RG_Lunatic said:


> Therefore, I find it totally hypocritical and abusive that Adler, who from the past discussion clearly sides with Plan_D (or more accurately against me), to admonish BOTH of us for throwing insults in this thread where I have thrown NONE.



Oh give me a break. If I had a penny for every insult you have thrown to everyone in this Forum I would have more money then Bill Gates!

If you want to take my post about both of you insulting each other so seriously, then go ahead.


----------



## Medvedya (May 9, 2005)

RG - You can hardly expect Adler to dance at your wedding after the comments you made to him when he was still in the Gulf. However - that is in the past and we're _not_ going to discuss that. 

Look, I've never crossed swords with you, or any regular poster here, so I have no agenda other than the smooth running of this forum. 

I say that the comments that the new staff have made are entirely reasonable and valid.

If you want to have a go at anyone, you should have a pop at me, because I hired them, and I am convinced they are acting wholely as I imagined and wished.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

Medvedya said:


> RG - You can hardly expect Adler to dance at your wedding after the comments you made to him when he was still in the Gulf. However - that is in the past and we're _not_ going to discuss that.



I was not even going to bring that back up.  

All I know is that other people come to the site and post here and dont want to hear this squabbaling whethter it be from anyone. 

Heated discussions are fine and they actually make for interesting threads however when it gets personal and we start bashing each other and each others countries then it goes to far. It does not matter who does it. And as I stated above RG_Lunatic it was not meant toward just you but to you both of you. This had nothing to do with any past arguments that we may have had. I have stated several times over I think you make interesting and great posts most of the time. They get people thinking, including myself and everyone can learn from it. We have had our incidents in the past but I have tried to keep my cool and temper (its really hard sometimes with you  ), especially now that I am home and have better ways to control it (a nice scotch whisky or glass of wine helps with that). 

Okay now I am getting side tracked and I need to get off of this soapbox, basically what I am saying is we all need to refrain from it a bit.


----------



## Anonymous (May 9, 2005)

Medvedya said:


> RG - You can hardly expect Adler to dance at your wedding after the comments you made to him when he was still in the Gulf. However - that is in the past and we're _not_ going to discuss that.
> 
> Look, I've never crossed swords with you, or any regular poster here, so I have no agenda other than the smooth running of this forum.
> 
> ...



That was a different thread. And those comments went both ways too.

Adler is now an admin, when he makes a comment like he did above, he does so as an admin. Read it again, it is clearly done in a tone of authority.

I avoided all personal insults at Plan_D. I did put a warning in italics that I felt he was asking for such with his replies, in the hopes of settling him down. I ask you to look at what Adler's post, with his huge signature, has done to this thread. It's effectively dead now. The huge signatures are very disruptive to the flow of conversation.

========================

You may think it is a good idea to have a large number of admins. I am confident you will find this to be a serious mistake. I've run msg boards and too many admins almost always ruins them in one way or another.

And, unless phpBB has added more levels of admin than it had when I ran it, such that the lower level admins cannot destroy the board, each additional admin is a new level of risk. Don't you think it would be more appropriate to make these people moderators if you feel the board needs more management?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

No actually RG, I was not a admin at the time. I had no admin rights or anything like that. I think I was speaking for everyone else, sorry if you dont like it but again as I said above you dont have to, no one is begging you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> That was a different thread. And those comments went both ways too.



If you read my post up there you will see that I admit to getting out of hand, the difference is I have made an effort too lately and am going to keep doing so. I am asking you to do the same.


----------



## Anonymous (May 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No actually RG, I was not a admin at the time. I had no admin rights or anything like that. I think I was speaking for everyone else, sorry if you dont like it but again as I said above you dont have to, no one is begging you.



It say's admin under your name you're an admin. Just because you couldn't figure out how to access the admin panel does not change that fact.

You're agenda is all too clear Adler.


----------



## Anonymous (May 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > That was a different thread. And those comments went both ways too.
> ...



I WAS MAKING SUCH AN EFFORT IN THIS THREAD.

If you'd bothered to actually check you'd have seen this.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

Now that I can take as a personal insult. Saying that I can not figure it out. Actually get your story straight first. I had not been granted permission yet! I thought we were all going to stop this insult crap. Why do you fight it RG? 

Second of all I did read all the posts, I was telling you both to stop the insults as to be fair, if you would actually stop thinking about yourself for once then maybe you would understand this. Believe it or not, I am not out to get you and neither is anyone else. 

Lastly *WHAT IS MY AGENDA?* This should be interesting. Man you really are paranoid.


----------



## Medvedya (May 9, 2005)

Look, as this has blown as far off the original subject as it possibly can I'm going to lock this. If you want to talk to me about running this place then by all means P.M me. (I have a hunch you will anyway)


----------

