The War of 1812: What really happened?

[SilentHunter7]

I blame Bush.

 

[dungeonmaster]

well actually Canada was a significant part I thought.
I think I remember that the British would have been overrun by the Americans, but Canadian Metis and full blooded Indians helped out and surprised the hell out of the invaders.
Then as the Americans retreated the American commander dropped all the plans and maps he had and THEN the British pressed on and burnt down the white house.....

Damn history class was a long time ago,and I'm Canadian so I may be a little wrong.

 

[runtheplacered]

"The White House" (Named such because only white people are allowed to rule there, not because of the color of paint used).

I don't know if you were being funny or not, but on the chance that you weren't.. that isn't true. Nobody really knows why it's called that, but the main theory, I think.. is that it was the name of Martha Washington's plantation.

 

[Seldon2639]

It was a whole lot about impressment. British ships would impress (force) American sailors into working on their ships under the guise of catching people who had escaped their service on English ships. America was none too happy about this, and asked the British to stop. They refused. America proceeded to invade Canada (which was at the time English territory) in order to attempt force the English to knock it off. America proceeded to get its ass kicked up and down the Eastern seaboard, culminating in English troops burning down the White House (burn marks from this are still visible on the Eastern Portico). Fortunately for America, England had other concerns (like, as always, the French) to deal with, and signed a peace treaty which ended the war and stopped impressment.

A few days later, Andrew Jackson won one of the few American victories in the war, which went a long way to securing America's role as a military power. The fact that America's military was able to beat the English military in a single stand up battle was impressive at the time.

So, from the American perspective, it was about a righteous struggle against people being shanghaied into military service for a foreign country. I dunno about other groups, though. I've read a bunch of different accounts though, from both American and foreign sources, and this seems pretty consistent

Life was notably better in the Royal Navy than the Aerican Navy, its true that the only victory at sea was the capture of USS Chesapeake by HMS Shannon, however a British Sailor had a regular rum ration, which the American sailor did not have, and a chance to earn prize money. For those not in the know when an enemy ship was capture it and its contence were sold and the money raised was divided between the crew responsable for its capture, during a time war such as was happerning between France and the rest of Europe at the time a man could make more money fro a few years service in the Navy than he could working as a merchant seaman.

It was a result of this that many exeriance American sailors joined both the Royal Navy and the French Navy, however to maintain the good relasionship with Franch (something that motivated Benadict Arnold thirty years earlier) France agreed to stop pressing experianced sailors.

As for Andrew Jackson's great victory in a rightous struggle, are we talking about the battle in Louisina ere he attack an exhaused army that was low on supplys and ammunition that was heading towards the sea in order to return home.

And finally as for America's role as a military power that did not take place until after the First World War when Wilson's idea of the League of Nations was rejected by Congress, so while the rest of Europe was conforming to the disarmerment brought about by things like the Washington Navel Treaty, America decided arm herself.

You have got to learn the difference between the history you think happened and the history that did happen.

The issue being they weren't just "allowing" American "sailors" to join them, they were "impressing" American "merchants" into service. If this were simply defection, I would agree with you, however any account of the history I've read (and I've read more than a few) includes mention of the fact that the impressment was forced service, and that they would take Americans even off of commercial vessels.

I never claimed that this was a "great" victory, merely a victory. Nor did I claim it to actually be a righteous struggle. I was giving both sides' views on the issue, and from the American perspective, it was.

Finally, you have your post-World-War-One history a bit mixed up. America largely disarmed following World War One, which is why our military was woefully inadequate coming into World War Two (Oxford University Press, "Freedom From Fear", by David Kennedy). To argue, however, that historical events are somehow insulated from each other is somewhat short-sighted. To say that American supremacy occurred during the World Wars is valid, but ignores *why* that would have taken place. Any good historian or accounting of history is going to explain how events earlier on influence current events. So, for instance, American supremacy after World War Two occurred largely because of a preexisting belief that we could be (as fueled by the European powers accepting the Monroe Doctrine), and that belief was largely informed by the stalemate in the War of 1812.

You should read history, and then people's posts, before (a) creating straw-man arguments against them, and (b) misrepresenting history.

On a side note, I'm amazed when we talk about NAFTA that both sides (American and Canadian) view it as a generally bad deal

 

[AfterAscon]

Everyone seems to have a different view on the subject. Its reminds me of the time i heard the Spanish armada beat Britain.

I always thought the war started because British ships were attackig American ships who were supplying Napoleon, so in response decided to invade Canada to take it into the union. The US were opposed mainly against canadian militia with the odd group of British troops. Come the time when Napoleon was defeated, Britain sent over more forces, pushed them out of Canada and back into the US which subsequently led to the Capital being burnt down. Then both countires decided on a truce.

The problem with Britain is that they've won so many battles you can't possibly expect the citizens to know them all.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

ok story goes like this

britain and france were having a fight. britain was actively drafting/forcing americans into service into their navy. france, the country that america wouldn't exist without, told them "hey do you want to stop this and get more land? invade canada then"

america said "yes sir, we'll help you out anyway we can" they invaded, the canadian militia and native americans (on both sides of the border) held off the americans. once the british dealt with napoleon, they came over here and helped canada push back the americans and burn their capital to the ground (a sign of vicotry) and then turn around and leave again

now the british navy lost a few of the sea battles for a few reasons, they were over confident and they weren't fighting with their best ships, those were fighting france.

as for the nafta stuff, canada was being hosed at the beginning (we saying it was unfair) and now america is being forced to do things it doesn't like now and going so far as to outright refuse to follow the treaty

 

[tthor]

you no, until this thread, i nvr new that the original white house was burnt down. i guess its not mentioned so much since it was kinda a bad event for the usa

 

[X nosgoth X]

But why is the War Monger quoting his own posts and cursing so much?

In any case, isn't history always written by the victors? (Well, not so much anymore now since you can check all sides of a fight within minutes with today's technology)

 

[windfish]

Right then, I've noticed that lot's of people here are saying "Wow, I should have paid more attention in History" or "We didn't go over that stuff". Well, here's the savior of the internet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

Teacher, educate thyself.

(An anti-wikipedia rant can happen in another forum. I think it's fine for discussions like this, because the moment something inaccurate or politically skewed comes up on such a historically significant topic, it is corrected.)

 

[MrHappy255]

Canada is NOT irrelevant internationally. We are beloved by most countries, friendly or at least neutral with the rest.

I didn't say people didn't like Canada; just that Canada...doesn't really figure into many geopolitical issues. Sure you have "political and economic ties with China and Mexico, the friendship of Cuba, and the backing of our British brethren" but none of them are really asking you to do much. Substitute 'Ireland' for 'Cuba' and all of that is true of the U.S. No one is asking Canada to do anything about the issues surrounding Israel, what might happen in the Balkans, managing Russia as it becomes a totalitarian state again...

It's easy to have good relations with China when you don't have any responsibility for what happens to Taiwan. It's...also not something to be proud of, having Cuba as a friend.

I mean, can you imagine *any* situation where people would look to Canada to take *any* action whatsoever on the world political stage? For as good as your friendship is with Cuba, if the U.S. invaded, would anyone look to Canada to take any serious action? Would you as a Canadian feel that if it came down to war, war it is to keep Cuba sovereign? Now think of the U.S.: we've got that kind of relationship with Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, even this Balkans/Kosovo thing puts us right back in the quagmire that led to WWI, with Russia looking on the Serbs as 'little Slavs' that they have to back.

Speaking of Russia, any chance of Canada being in the vanguard of response to Russia cracking down on its former Republics? What response do you think Canada would feel compelled to undertake if Russia backed a breakaway state in Georgia as a counter-move to the West backing Kosovo? How much was Canada involved with the issue of the Ukraine and the possible poisoning of Yushchenko?

Dude, you guys are basically living as close as one can get in the real world to The Shire--celebrate that kind of luck! The only issue you really have with any other country is if Russia starts going wacky over that whole Arctic thing, and even there your interests coincide with the U.S. in keeping Russia from going wacko.

Where Canada differs from the US is that we go into other nations with our arms wide open, while the US enters most nations with their arms set to full-auto. One thing I have said about Canada for years is that no country dares to fuck with us because most every other nation would be at their doorstep with nukes and spiked dildos before the second shot could be fired.

And one of those places is the U.S. See how tricky it gets when people expect you to show up with "nukes and spiked dildos"? Aren't "nukes and spiked dildos" an example of "arms set to full-auto"?

The last "Terrorist" act committed against Canada was from a radical group of Quebec'ers. That aside, I can't remember a single terrorist attack in my lifetime. Oh I DO remember American pilots bombing the shit out of Canadian troops, an "Accident" it was called...

Americans also killed Pat Tillman. He played football. Americans love football. Don't read anything into that which isn't there..

Lastly, as to being the US's closest ally... It's sad but true, we ARE the closest ally the US has, but the US is not the closest ally CANADA has. Between the NAFTA butt-fuckery, the contention over our ownership of the arctic pass, and this new fishing fiasco... Our relations are going sour.

No, they're really not. Relations going sour is when Russia puts the missile launchers and tanks back in their May parade as a big 'screw you' to NATO after Putin figured out a loophole that allows him to stay in control of Russia for life. Canadian private citizens getting their feathers all ruffled and writing editorials and swamping forums on the internet while continuing to maintain the longest undefended border in human history is not 'relations going sour'.

I mean, I guess to a *Canadian* a strongly-worded, grammatically perfect opinion piece is 'relations going sour'; for an *American*, if they're not hanging a burning effigy of Uncle Sam in the streets of their capital, things are looking good!

In fact, this is exactly what I'm talking about: Canadians...blow everything out of proportion, whether their place in the geopolitical landscape or the War of 1812. I mean really, "Between the NAFTA butt-fuckery, the contention over our ownership of the arctic pass, and this new fishing fiasco..."? You think those are *real* problems that will cause a relationship to 'sour'? We've got N. Korea landing missiles in the Sea of Japan and you think the world turns on a *fishing* dispute?

Really dude--a *fishing* dispute? We had New York dumping medical waste into the ocean that was washing up on New Jersey beaches--our own *states* get into bigger tiffs.


Seriously--Canadians are basically Hobbits (I still have no idea how a bar with only twenty stools and ten tables can afford to have eight taps...and everyone's drinking Canadian from a bottle anyway). Rather than act like that isn't true, enjoy it, rather than getting all Yukio Mishima over it.

Well the thing about Canadians is that because of our little feelings of inadequacy (since we have such a small population with the second largest land mass) we are mostly kinda nuts. Scary but true.

Secondly we are heavily involved in much of the world stage since we make up most of nato's armed forces. We were involved in the whole bosnian, kosovo thing as well as way back in Greece to stop a big ass war there.

Hey I am not ripping the US I lived there for 5 years but ya can't say Canada is full of Hobbits I mean that's like saying the US is full of Fat lazy whiny pieces of crap and I would never say that.

Thirdly we are one of the richest countries in the world with regards to natural resources as well and grown food supplies. Why does no one screw with us?

Well It would hurt everyone else, we are the big friendly guy in the room that smiles and keeps quiet but don't piss him off or he'll smack ya. I mean even though no one wants to admit it the US gets 20% of their fuel from Canada and 30% of their Natural gas comes from us as well. Why ruin that?

Just be nice and friendly and we can all get along.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

If it makes anyone feel better, we press-ganged most people. Including our own chaps. So we weren't just picking on America!

...we were just generally being bastards. Well, what do you expect? We had "empire" in our name. That makes anyone the bad guys.

 

[CanadianWolverine]

Is it really any surprise that a War of 1812 discussion turned into a Canada vs US silliness?

We have family, friends, and fellow fun gamers in the US - give it a rest will ya?

But as far as US policy makers go, I'm pretty sure there are US citizens that think their Prez stinks to high heavens, and I'm all for supporting those US citizens who are true patriots as set out by the example of their founding fathers ... seriously, Clinton got impeached for promiscuity, why they hell hasn't Bush (and Company) been handed his ass yet with far more serious impeachments?

When average Joe US citizen deals with average Joe Canadian citizen, I'm willing to be we get along just fine; heck, back to War of 1812, they had militia who refused to invade and even some of them still traded with the British and former French colonies. But what the heck do I care anyways really about the past of some eastern provinces? Did War of 1812 have anything to do with the western or northern parts of North America, what is now California, Oregon, Washington, BC, Alaska, Yukon and so forth? Those are the parts I care about to be honest, I could do with out Ottawa and Washington, and its Monarchs and Presidents, because they seem to care so little for how their policies screw with our lives.

I'm with the poster who said we are like Hobbits, I rather like that, lets get drunk and make smoke rings already, I'll be happy knowing that we have Rangers and Wizards looking out for us, and if anyone does come a calling, they'll find Hobbits are far more feisty than they bargained for. Though, if anyone in this big wide world are like Hobbits, it seems like some New Zealanders have that even more down pat than us. Screw it, who wants to rule or police the world anyways? So much hassle, having to send your people off to die all the time.

 

[Sib]

Oh and don't go flaming about how The US is the best or anything. This is not a rip at any individual country but I mean c'mon ya win some and ya lose some.

Mention that on youtube and you are likely to be flamed so hard that even a Half-Life grade suit won't save your arse. Luckily this is the Escapist

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I'm with the poster who said we are like Hobbits, I rather like that, lets get drunk and make smoke rings already, I'll be happy knowing that we have Rangers and Wizards looking out for us, and if anyone does come a calling, they'll find Hobbits are far more feisty than they bargained for. Though, if anyone in this big wide world are like Hobbits, it seems like some New Zealanders have that even more down pat than us. Screw it, who wants to rule or police the world anyways? So much hassle, having to send your people off to die all the time.

you do realize that canada has one of the best trained armies and was also one of the best performing armies in both ww1 and ww2 right?

there were several places that NO ONE could take or hold, well that is until the canadians came around.

yes up in canada we're a bunch of laid back party hardy beer drinkers but you mess with us or our army and you'll be getting your teeth shoved back down your throat. i mean come on we got a unit called the princess pat's light infantry, the first words i hear when i mention that unit is "those guys are crazy"

yes we don't police the world, we also don't pick sides when we enter into a conflict zone to peace keep. we go in and stop both sides

 

[Sheppard]

Wow, this thread is proving more popular than I thought. I didn't realize that this many gamers cared as much about history as I do(a tear coming to my eye).

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

My main problem with this thread is all the people throwing historical inaccuracies about. First off, Canada as a country didn't even exist in 1812, much less play a direct role in the war. As a territory it did, but only by proximity. Secondly, the war ended in a stalemate, a classic status quo ante bellum, meaning nothing changed after the war. Just clearing that up.

Edit: Also, the White House was not completely burned down. A better term is "gutted by fire", as the exterior was made of stone and therefore could not burn.

 

[Sheppard]

My main problem with this thread is all the people throwing historical inaccuracies about. First off, Canada as a country didn't even exist in 1812, much less play a direct role in the war.

Yes. When I said Canada, I meant the colony of Canada, not the country.