Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → The War of 1812 (A question strictly for Americans)
Without Wikipedia-ing it or actually trying to figure out exactly what happened in this war. I was wondering if any Americans actually know anything about the war of 1812.
It was a war round 1812, people killed eachother, am I right?
the british burned our white house in this war i think?
I think it was the canadians, but i'm not american...soo...i'll... shut....up.................................now.....soon.
In 1812, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and Great Britain were in conflict with the French Empire. The conflict resulted with a mutual embargo between France and its continental allies and subjects, Napoleon hoped to crush Britain by denying it from having consumers to sell their products to. The mutual embargo disrupted trade for the US, as merchant vessels headed to France were boarded by British warships (the British at the time had a monopoly on sea power). This created diplomatic tensions, and the US seeing a political opportunity to reduce British power and increase its own, invaded the Canadian territory of the British Empire. One important seige was in Quebec, where the US hoped to weaken British power by liberating the French there. Unfortunately for the US, the military expedition was expelled from Canada, and in response the British decided to invade the US again, beginning with the burning of Washington D.C. As the war continued Britain found itself unable to gain a decisive strategic victory against the US, because it was also expending a tremendous amount of resources to fight Napoleon. The resulting stalemate was eventually brought to a white peace agreement, but because of poor communication at the time there were still some battles and skirmishes. One famous battle that happened despite the peace agreement was at New Orleans, where Andrew Jackson's vastly outnumbered and out armed forces delivered a crushing victory against the advancing British army.
And to expand upon this, the Marine Barracks were saved due to the English thinking the Marines had been honorable, as was a cultural building (The National Library) but no other government buildings were spared.
One aspect that did occur in this war was US Warship production. This surprised the English that we could make such good ships. While they had a huge numerical advantage... we had a technological superiority of sorts with our first ships of the line. Concerned with the ability of the United States, which had a lot of shore line, to potentially start making these superior vessels in numbers played into the hands of peace. Furthermore the idea of blockading France and the United States was rather daunting.
I was a history major but did not really deal with much US history. Anyway sounds like Justinian I knows enough on the subject for all of us 
"Furthermore the idea of blockading France and the United States was rather daunting.'"
Oh, not at all.. The english were undisputed rulers of the sea. France didn't have a lot of ships, they were a land-power.
> Newb wrote:
> I love this part of history! 
(I'm Canadian)
----------------------------------------
the White House was burned down LMAO
Newb, could you use the edit function instead of repeating your old post and adding something to it in advance? Thank you!
You're welcome.
I thought this was a joke because it is the longest running open wound in the history of the forums
because the Brits and Canucks can't admit America won the war
Anyhow.
Apart from the European and Atlantic aspects, which involved total British disrespect of the US flag, the Brits also lied about pulling out of the Ohio River Valley and kept aiding Indians who raided peaceloving white Gaiarapers. USA started the war being totally unprepared to fight the UK, our regular army was small compared to the part-time amatuer militias, who got pwnd after walking through the woods for a few weeks. Our Secretary of War kept putting lousy generals in charge so he could try to command the Army himself. new england got ready to secede from the US and do a deal with the Brits. Then, in spite of that, our kickass Navy shot the hell out of the Brits even with 2:1 odds,so the Brits had to concede the North Sea and the English Channel to France and Spain while they blockaded us. Our bold and bodacious Navy shot the canucks off the great lakes and we kicked the crap out of English armies on US soil. If it weren't for the damn diplomats and the secessionist dorks up in NE (John Kerry country, go figure) we'd have forced the UK to give us Canada. But sadly the country elected Democrats so we got a diplomatic settlement 
Alan,
That's kind of true. The problem with the French, was that in 1789, they were still a competitor to the British Navy. However, the French relied on fewer, and bigger ships. The British relied on numerically superior, but more smaller, faster and maneuverable ships. What destroyed the French sea power was that after the French revolution, the fleet was under manned, poorly maintained, and the commanders and seamen poorly experienced and educated. In other words, the French fleet was in the hands of a bunch of noobs, and those noobs were consistently outsmarted by the British.
But you're right, by 1812 the French fleet was very insignificant. Just saying that it wasn't long before that they were still able to challenge British sea power.
Alfred Thayer Mahan had a different conclusion Justinian
after the British admiral and court favorite Admiral Byng refused to fight even odds of French warships the British garrison on Minorca had to surrender the island to the french (a permanent transfer) Byng was tried for treason, but because he was the king's friend, the court-martial found him guilty of the lesser offense of "failing to do his utmost in the presence of the enemy". The sentence for that was death by musketry, which was easier on Byng than being throttled, gutted, quartered and beheaded and exhibited all over England as a traitor. But still, death .
So from 1651 the Royal Navy commanders had to try and attack any Frenchmen in front of them or risk being shot to death. Whenever and whereever.
French naval officers, however, still saw their main mission as going from Point A to Point B. So if a French commander knew a British fleet was between him and India or Haiti, he ignored it, and tried to get to Haiti, on the grounds the Navy supports the land forces. That's what Mahan says, anyhow. And he said time and again the Brits chased the French to a point wehre the Brits had better wind and current conditions for their battles, and fought a French commander whose battle aim was to escape to his destination.
Mahan said regardless of any technical differences, the Royal Navy won more often because it jumped the French before the French considered themselves in a place to fight.
I find it interesting that this is the ONLY real war that the americans has actually lost and most americans either don't know about it, or they'll argue tooth and nail that they actually won the war. Typical of any american though, I find it quite interesting how warped many of the facts have become throughout YOUR telling of what happened during this time.
this thread had little to do with politics, more psychology, thanks for the help with my paper.
We didn't lose the war. Although we probably would have if Britain was not tied down in Europe at the time.
Yell,
I suppose that could have been part of the reason, but there's also the fact that the nobility had left France by the time. Both the land and naval forces were then filled with incompetent people for a time, and that shows in the strategic incompetence of dealing with the British. Intelligent commanders see the situation on a strategic level, incompetence commanders reproduce a method even when it doesn't work.
[flame]
The sacking of the white house and Washington DC was a crushing loss for the Americans.
The President fleeing the Capital was a major embarrassment.
The US was coming out of a MAJOR economic Depression, had no real military land or sea.
Yet, in a short time, the American managed to raise two significant armies, one in the south, one in the north.
And many naval battalions to face the significant perceived superiority of the British Navy.
The Americans stalemated the Canadians in the North on the ground, and defeated the great lakes naval force.
The Americans shaped the battle of New Orleans with superior maneuver, and soundly defeated a larger, well equipped force..... It was after the formal end of hostilities though no one in New Orleans new this.
The tactical tenacity of the young US Navy set the course for the future.
I find it hard to believe how anyone could say the US Lost the war of 1812.
The US ill prepared, and not wanting a war, defeated a world power .... again.
Did the US Face the total military might of the British ? No.
Did the British force the hands of an ill prepared US ? Yes.
Did the US loose their Govt or any territory or concede any rights to Britain ?? No.
Did the US win their trade routes, that forced the war ?? Yes.
Did this war prove the US a worthy sea trading nation, and set the tone for their naval forces ?? Yes.
What did Britain gain in this perceived "Victory" other than Canada not becoming US Territories....that were never challenged anyway ?? Nothing.
I dont see the British victory here. I see a US victory, and a solidifying of its international position.
"defeated the great lakes naval force."
Not arguing the point this just made me think, what kind of naval force could you keep in the great lakes? I must now look up photos of the lakes to get a better idea of their size.
"The US ill prepared, and not wanting a war, defeated a world power .... again."
You started it! How the hell do you rationalize US not wanting a war when they started it. That's like me saying I didn't want to eat cake after having baked one, cut myself a slice, and eaten it.
"What did Britain gain in this perceived "Victory" other than Canada not becoming US Territories....that were never challenged anyway ?? Nothing."
lol
DPS,
Did Britain or did Britain not board US merchant vessels and encourage bordering Native Americans to skirmish US territory?
as a guess the Great Lakes are probably equal in total sea area to the Black Sea. They are only about 500 ft deep though, which is why the Edmund Fitzgerald (700 ft long) actually rammed the seabed before capsizing.
Brits had two or three seagoing frigates and some Canuck lake vessels, we had two or three ocean vessels and some lake craft. About a dozen warships in all. The strategic importance was it sealed the mississippi and Ohio from the Brits.
we started it? um we declared a state of war existed because of the warlike acts of the Brits
DPS.
Please. Boarding a vessel w/o the consent of the Capt of the vessel, or with the threat of violence, is an act of war on the high seas.
Many in the US Govt. nothing to do w/hostilities toward Britain. In fact, many wanted to end trade w/France, to avoid conflict with Britain.
This was what YELL referred to as the threat of succession by the New England states, if nothing was don by the federal Govt. under their power to declare war (in these days, the states ACTUALLY had power).
Britain started the war. That is w/o question a fact. the US Declared because of the war-like acts of the British Navy,.....as well as the referred to constant harassment from frontier raids supported by Britain.
Actually BW Connecticut and New Hampshire were ready to leave the union in 1815 because they did not want the war to continue. THey were sending an ultimatum to DC but word of the peace came first.
Imperial Forum → Politics → The War of 1812 (A question strictly for Americans)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.