War of 1812.

[plan_D]

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.

The first engagements went poorly for the Americans - with the none of the expected support from colonists, French Canadians and the local Indians.

Recovering from the initial shock, the British then drove into America and seized key forts around the Lakes.

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]

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]

Well he got what he deserved at Waterloo

 

[Erich]

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]

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.

The Confederation was above all a military alliance; the members had to supply France with large numbers of military personnel. In return the states were given higher statuses: Baden, Hessen, Cleves and Berg were made into grand duchies and Württemberg and Bavaria became kingdoms. For their cooperation states could also be made larger by incorporating smaller imperial estates.

In 1813, when Napoleon's campaign in Russia failed and some of its members changed sides, the Confederation of the Rhine collapsed. On 30 May 1814 the Treaty of Paris declared the German states independent; in 1815 the Congress of Vienna redrew the continent's political map. In fact, only minor changes were made to inner-German borders, and the resulting German Confederation consisted more or less of the same members as the Confederation of the Rhine.

Member countries
Duchy of Anhalt-Bernburg
Duchy of Anhalt-Dessau
Duchy of Anhalt-Kothen
Duchy of Arenberg
Grand Duchy of Baden
Kingdom of Bavaria
Grand Duchy of Berg
Landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt
Principality of Hohenzollern-Hechingen
Principality of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Principality of Isenburg-Birstein
County of the Leyen
Principality of Liechtenstein
Principality of Lippe-Detmold
Archbishopric of Mainz, after 1810 Grand Duchy of Frankfurt
Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
Duchy of Nassau (Usingen and Weilburg)
Duchy of Oldenburg
Principality of Reuss-Ebersdorf
Principality of Reuss-Greiz
Principality of Reuss-Lobenstein
Principality of Reuss-Schleiz
Principality of Salm-Kyrburg
Principality of Salm-Salm
Duchy of Saxe-Coburg
Duchy of Saxe-Gotha
Duchy of Saxe-Hildburghausen
Duchy of Saxe-Meiningen
Duchy of Saxe-Weimar
Kingdom of Saxony
Principality of Schaumburg-Lippe
Principality of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
Principality of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen
Principality of Waldeck
Kingdom of Westphalia
Kingdom of Württemberg
Grand Duchy of Würzburg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_the_Rhine

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]

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]

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

 

[plan_D]

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

 

[Medvedya]

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

 

[plan_D]

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]

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]

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.

The first engagements went poorly for the Americans - with the none of the expected support from colonists, French Canadians and the local Indians.

Recovering from the initial shock, the British then drove into America and seized key forts around the Lakes.

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

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 situation grew much worse during Thomas Jefferson's presidency (1801-09). Under cover of its war with France, Britain stopped American ships everywhere and forcibly removed sailors, both British deserters and Americans. These then entered the British navy, joining the unfortunates whom the "press gangs" operating within Britain itself had literally shot or beaten into that service.

As James Fenimore Cooper explained in his Naval History of the United States, British

"boarding officers act[ed] on the principle, that the seaman who failed to prove he was an American, should be seized as an Englishman....The number of impressed Americans on board British ships of war, was seldom less than the entire number of seamen in the American navy, between the years 1802 and 1812. At the [U.S.] declaration of war in 1812, the number that [the British] turned over to the prison ships for refusing to fight against their own country, is said to have exceeded two thousand."

Cooper records

"an occurance...proving...the re- luctance of the English seamen to serve in their own vessels of war....[One of the U. S. S.] Essex's crew was a deserter from a British man-of-war, and he was formally demanded [by the British]....The man protested that he was an American, and that he had not entered voluntarily into the English service," but admitted his desertion therefrom. The American captain felt he had to give up the seaman, and ordered him to depart the ship. "On reaching the gun-deck, his eye fell upon the carpenter's bench...he seized an axe, and at one blow cut off his left hand. Taking up the severed limb in the remaining hand, he went upon the quarter-deck, and presented himself to the British officer, bleeding and maimed The latter left the Essex, shocked and astonished, while the affair made a deep and lasting impression on all who witnessed it."

The official agent, sent to England to intercede for the impressed Americans, estimated in 1812 that there had been 14,000 impressments. But apart from pleading and negotiating, the United States had rendered itself helpless to defend its citizens or its trade. Since the advent of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency and Swiss nobleman Albert Gallatin as treasury secretary, not a single U.S. warship had been built aside from tiny, useless coastal "gunboats."

President James Madison, inaugurated in 1809, retained Gallatin at Treasury. Gallatin as unofficial "premier" ruled over a disloyal cabinet, including Secretary of War William Eustis, personal physician and political errand-boy for Aaron Burr.

While Jefferson and Madison dreamed of peaceful utopia, to which isolated undeveloped America could be brought by Gallatin's "economy measures," Britain's rulers systematically kidnapped away the future personnel of a navy that could challenge Britain's superiority; and Britain's surrogate warriors scalped, burned, and terrorized, limiting America's westward growth.

On Washington's Birthday, Feb. 22, 1810, 32-year-old Sen. Henry Clay called for war with Britain. For the next two years, the Virginian-turned-Kentuckian would lead a political movement to regenerate an American national spirit. As unequipped as the country then was, war was the essential first step for the preservation of national independence.

Personally, Clay had been ready for war since age four when he and his frightened mother had watched British Redcoats rifle through the grave of his father looking for treasure. But revenge would be sweetest if America rose to great national power, and led all mankind to defang the British imperial lion. Learning law, history, and philosophy from Virginia's scholar and patriot leader George Wythe, Henry Clay had acquired the cultural depth necessary for such a sweeping vision of America's future; he had taught himself the mental toughness needed to implement it against treason and imbecilic public opinion.

Clay began his campaign for war in response to Albert Gallatin's latest outrage. Congress was abjectly debating the Treasury Secretary's draft law, "Macon's Bill No. l," repealing the prohibition of trade with England and France. By the end of the debate, Congress went even lower, accepting "Macon's Bill No. 2," Gallatin's repeal of tariffs or favoritism to American over British shipping. "Free trade" -- under terrorist coercion!

F. J. Jackson, just dismissed as British ambassador to the United States, exulted in his diary,

"Congress has...completed my triumph, by repealing without any concession on our part, the famous non-intercourse law....They have covered themselves with ridicule and disgrace."

Dirigist growth = national survival

In a speech of March 26, 1810, Clay called for the deliberate development of American manufactures by government patronage, beginning to link defense to the forced, rapid industrialization without which defense must collapse. To win a national return to this outlook of the Founding Fathers, Clay would later use the cooperation of fellow War Hawks William Lowndes and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, George Poindexter of Mississippi Territory, and Peter B. Porter from upstate New York. Their fight for tariffs, govemment-built canals and roads, and national banking to guarantee cheap development credits, was then carried on by Clay's Whig Party and Abraham Lincoln's Republicans.

Clay's war drive was also backed by Felix Grundy of Tennessee and many westerners, and by former Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson -- all of them disgusted with the policy of surrender.

On July 18, 1810, William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indiana Territory, reported the announcement by British Captain Elliot to Tecumseh's Indian warriors, "My tomahawk is now up -- be you ready -- but do not strike until I give the signal."

Over the next year, Americans, given some leadership, began to show they had spines. Boston "Brahmin" Congressman Josiah Quincy threatened the secession of northern states if it came to war; he then complained that he was threatened with lynching by "bullies and blackguards . . . using language learnt in the backwoods or among their slaves." Virginia's effeminate, opium and liquor-soaked, pro-British Congressman John Randolph of Roanoke warned that we were being "ruled to our ruin by [westerners] bound to us by no common tie of interest or sentiment." On May 16, 1811, the U.S. frigate President, after chasing the British kidnapping sloop Little Belt from our coast, was fired upon by her, returned massive fire and crippled the British warship with 31 killed and wounded.

Jeffersonian publisher William Duane, who had years earlier been imprisoned in the Black Hole of Calcutta for attacking the East India Company in his Indian newspaper, ran a devastating attack on Treasury Secretary Albert Gailatin in his Philadelphia Aurora Sept. 3, 1811. He portrayed Gallatin quite accurately as a foreign spy and traitor who mocked the President and kept him in the dark.

On Nov. 7, 1811, Tecumseh's Indians attacked Governor Harrison's troops. Harrison prevailed, Tecumseh fled to the British in Canada, and Harrison reported capturing guns and ample supplies of the best British glazed powder."

Clay drives for war
To increase his effectiveness, young Henry Clay now quit the Senate. He was elected without opposition by his Kentucky district to the U.S. House of Representatives, and was at once elected (Nov. 4, 1811) Speaker of the House by his respectful colleagues.

Clay immediately appointed War Hawks as leaders of all the important House committees: New York's Peter B. Porter to Foreign Relations, South Carolina's Langdon Cheves to Naval Affairs, and likewise to Military Affairs, and Ways and Means.

On Dec. 26, 1811, Porter's committee reported in a bill to raise thousands of new troops. The new British ambassador, Augustus John Foster, closely watched the congressional debates on this and other war measures. He personally attended some sessions, and received reports from disloyal American congressmen. On Dec. 28, 1811, Foster wrote hopefully to the foreign office that since the administration will not allow itself to "be pushed into a War with us...there never was a more favourable moment for Great Britain to impose almost what terms she pleases." On Dec. 31, 1811, Henry Clay took the floor to speak for the increased forces bill as a war measure, setting a militant tone for the rest of the debate.

Foster wrote home to the British Foreign Office on Jan. 16, 1812, that a slight concession, "a little management," or a threatened attack on American seaports would "bring them to our terms."

On Jan 22, 1812, Henry Clay again came down from the Speaker's chair to call for passage of a bill to construct warships, as the beginning of a sizeable United States Navy; he echoed Alexander Hamilton's Federalist essay number 11, presenting a sizeable United States Navy as essential to unite and protect all American economic and regional interests. Clay named Albert Gallatin as the author of opposition to a navy under tonner President Jefferson. As Clay's supporters in the newspapers called for aid to the Mexican and other pending Spanish American independence struggles, Clay recommended a navy strong enough to keep the British from dominating the contested Carribean and Gulf of Mexico.

Porter's increased force bill was passed on Feb. 6, 1812. But Albert Gallatin's congressional flunkie, John Smilie, worked on the parochialism of Clay's fellow western War Hawks to defeat the Navy bill. Smilie had led Gallatin's Pennsylvania political forces a quarter-century before -- trying to stop ratification of the U.S. Constitution. In letters to London from Dec. 11, 1811, through March 12, 1812, British Ambassador Foster described his secret meetings at the British legation in Washington with New England Federalist leaders, who urged him to "concert measures . . . [push Madison] to the Edge of the Precipice, by an unbending attitude...[to] neither revoke our Orders in Council nor modify them in any manner." If Madison backed down, or went into a war which the pro-British faction would (and later in fact did) sabotage from within, the patriots would be discredited, bringing about "a thorough amalgamation of interests between America and Great Britain....They seemed to think that Great Britain could by management bring the United States into any connexion with her that she pleased."

Henry Clay spoke on Feb. 15, 1812, against rechartering the Bank of the United States on the grounds of its "British" orientation. Yet in 1816, after Gallatin had been removed from financial dominance of the govemment, Clay led the successful drive to charter a new, identical U.S. Bank.

Secretary of State James Monroe, recruited to militancy by Clay's leadership, now delivered a stunning blow for the War Hawks. On March 9, 1812, the President presented to Congress evidence purchased by Monroe: the British Governor General of Canada had employed spy John Henry, to work with traitorous elements in Boston for the secession of New England from the Union.

British Canada was now widely identified by Americans as a legitimate target of invasion, a headquarters for terrorism and political subversion to be cleaned up-similar to Switzerland today.

The next day Treasury mole Albert Gallatin wrote to former President Jefferson, explaining why he had framed a program of deliberately frightening excise taxes to pay for the increased military forces: he wanted "the smallest possible quantity of debt, perpetual taxation, military establishments, and other corrupting or anti-republican habits or institutions." British ambassador Foster put it more plainly: Gallatin's tax program would result in "damping the military ardor." Foster also admired Gallatin's new trade report, which "served to expose the immensity of the sacrifice [i.e., lost exports] required by the advocates for Hostilities with Great Britain." Meanwhile War Secretary Eustis was simply refusing to recruit the authorized officers. As South Carolina's Lowndes reported later, "He wished to avoid war."

But the Baltimore War Hawk paper, Niles' Register, urged that Gallatin's deliberate attack on their cause be absorbed: People will pay the proposed taxes "to defend their lives from the tomahawk, their persons from the pressgang, their government from treason, and their property from theft." Undaunted, Clay's Congress passed the taxes.

The week after the John Henry disclosures, Clay called on Secretary of State Monroe and demanded an emergency embargo preliminary to a declaration of war. The Richmond Enquirer of March 27 typified the support for Clay's position. Without resolute action now, "there is not a petty nation Europe, but will despise us. The Dey of Algiers or Tripoli will again insult us. And as to France or Great Britain...they will spit on us, and treat us as the vilest caitiffs breathing."

The Embargo act was signed April 4 by Madison. Gallatin and the Federalists, Foster's troops, now worked to turn the embargo into a substitute for war by issuing con ing statements about the govemment's intentions. Gallatin's lieutenant Smilie argued for a recess of Congress, but Spe er Clay said there would be no recess until the war had been declared!

According to Mr. Foster's diary on April 8, 1812, John Smilie was still "most in the Confidence of the President." The administration newspaper, the National Intelligencer, whined on April 9 that the Embargo was not war, nor would it inevitably lead to war, and the President was said to have agreed to the dispatch of a new peace negotiator to England.

But Henry Clay marched straight through the flak. Madison was simply informed that unless he brought about war with England, he would not be renominated for the presidency. On April 14 the National Intelligencer ran an editorial by Henry Clay himself, announcing that war was inevitable.

Republicans now stopped coming to visit the British legation. Former President John Adams wrote on May 14 that the people must unite against England. Gallatin's congressional lieutenants were now superceded in the confidence of the Executive by Clay's War Hawks. On May 18, the Republican ("Jeffersonian") caucus renominated President James Madison, who was overwhelmingly reelected in November. On May 24, on a motion of John C. Calhoun, the House of Representatives ruled John Randolph's attempted pro-British filibuster out of order. Randolph was later a crucial early leader of the Southem secession movement. It was reported that Randolph, as U.S. minister to Russia in 1833 delivered his credentials to the Czar on his knees.

On June 1, 1812, President Madison asked Congress for a declaration of war, with many shocking parallels for today's terrorism and surrogate warfare:

"Thousands of Americ citizens... have been torn from their country and...dragged on board ships of war of a foreign nation....A secret agent of [the British] Government was employed in intrigues having for their object a subversion of our Government and a dismemberment of our happy union....Our attention is. . . drawn to the warfare just renewed by the savages on...our...frontiers...in constant intercourse with British traders and garrisons...."

The House voted 79-49 for war, the Senate voted likewise 19-13, and the President on June 18, 1812, signed and issued the declaration, called at the time our Second Declaration of Independence.
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/warhawk.htm

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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".

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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