1812 .Whoa! That was a close one.!

[DogOnPorch]

The British were still in control then.. the U.S wouldn't have wanted another war with the British

Ummm...even the British would be playing 2nd fiddle to the Union Army. It was HUGE. The first modern army. The Union also had several brilliant leaders each of whom would have had his boot to our throats in turn. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Farragut, Thomas...etc. The first modern soldiers with the concept of total war at the heart of any campaign. Even the modern ironclad US Navy would have been a tough nut to crack.

The Battles of Antietam and Gettysburg (on Union soil) were the lynchpins of British support for the South. Neither were Confederate victories in the strategic sense (Antietam was tactically)...which is what Britain was looking for. Plus, while the war initially was about cotton, Lincoln cleverly made it about slavery which was something the British simply couldn't support.

Edited February 13, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[olpfan1]

Ummm...even the British would be playing 2nd fiddle to the Union Army. It was HUGE. The first modern army. The Union also had several brilliant leaders each of whom would have had his boot to our throats in turn. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Farragut, Thomas...etc. The first modern soldiers with the concept of total war at the heart of any campaign. Even the modern ironclad US Navy would have been a tough nut to crack.

The Battles of Antietam and Gettysburg (on Union soil) were the lynchpins of British support for the South. Neither were Confederate victories in the stategic sense (Antietam was tactically)...which is what Britain was looking for. Plus, while the war initially was about cotton, Lincoln cleverly made it about slavery which was something the British simply couldn't support.

It would have been unprovoked and the US would look like the enemy to the world

It would have done them more harm it sounds like than it was worth

[bush_cheney2004]

Americans aren't taught much history, and Hollywood hasn't done anything on the War of 1812 because it was mostly seen as a failure.

That is patently false....the film Mutiny was made in 1952 at Samuel Goldwyn Studios, Hollywood, California, USA.

[DogOnPorch]

It would have been unprovoked and the US would look like the enemy to the world

It would have done them more harm it sounds like than it was worth

You really are having a hard time wrestling with the world as it was in the 1860s, eh? Here's a clue: no UN.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Gaining ground wasn't an objective of the war, and we weren't "fighting Canada," we were fighting the British.

Right...this must be where the Canadian identity crisis began!

[Guest American Woman]

That's so much nonsense. Your anger was supposedly about how the British navy was treating you, so the proper thing to do would be to build up a big navy and challenge them.

That was part of the anger. As I said, there was also anger over Britain's support of the Indians in the raids against the U.S. in our Northwest territories.

Instead you invaded Canada

No. Again. We attacked the British - because the British in Canada were supporting the Indians.

- and did a ridiculously poor job of it.

The objective was achieved, so if that's your definition of a "poor job," so be it.

You also only dared do that because 95% of the British military was busy with the French.

If you say so.

They "dared" to do it to achieve the objectives that I've stated. Not all of Congress was eager to go to war by any means, but the U.S. was a young nation and enough felt that we had to assert our independence and sovereignty to gain a vote for war. And again. Our objectives were met. None of the pre-war issues were an issue following the war.

The instant the war with France ended the US hurriedly negotiated peace.

If you say so. While of course Britain negotiated peace just to be nice.

As I said, the pre-war issues were no longer an issue post-war.

[DogOnPorch]

Right...this must be where the Canadian identity crisis began!

It seems that Manifest Destiny is a concept poorly understood on the north side of the 49th. But at least olpfan1 would be yelling 'that's not fair' as the Union Army took Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, etc, after the Civil War.

Edited February 13, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[olpfan1]

It seems that Manifest Destiny is a concept poorly understood on the north side of the 49th. But at least olpfan1 would be yelling 'that's not fair' as the Union Army took Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, etc, after the Civil War.

It wouldn't be fair!

My link

Edited February 13, 2012 by olpfan1

[DogOnPorch]

It wouldn't be fair!

You're right! Yell louder. You might want to look-up '54-40 or Fight' and see what you get.

[olpfan1]

You're right! Yell louder. You might want to look-up '54-40 or Fight' and see what you get.

54-40 is a good Canadian band! Seen them live

[DogOnPorch]

54-40 is a good Canadian band! Seen them live

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

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

Basic Canadian history. Or it was when I was in zee skool.

[olpfan1]

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

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

Basic Canadian history. Or it was when I was in zee skool.

I know about the boundary dispute but not the Monroe Doctrine

[Guest American Woman]

Right...this must be where the Canadian identity crisis began!

Evidently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbQ7WkNw0ig

I have to laugh at the text accompanying the video: "You stupid people saying its a racist song and that usa beat us don't comment."

[August1991]

Basically War of 1812 was a sideshow for the Napoleanic Wars in Europe

The British could not lose to the French so they made US sailors fight for them, desperately searched American ships for deserters, forced the U.S to stop trade with the French through illegal means all in their effort to beat the French

Exactly.

It is impossible to understand the War of 1812 unless you take into account the world political situation at the time. To consider the War of 1812 as a fight between Canada and the US would be like viewing Canada's troops in Afghanistan as a fight between Canadians and the Taliban. When America invaded the British colony of Canada in 1812, Napoleon was invading Russia.

Similarly, one must also view the battle of the Plains of Abraham between Montcalm and Wolfe in the context of Europe's Seven Years War and Frederick the Great's desire to establish Prussia.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess Johnny Horton's original version really upset the royal boot lickers! ;}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmE_clkBBU&feature=related

[DogOnPorch]

Ah, yes. The battle after the war ended.

[jbg]

Fortunately we burnt their capitol House and saved our beavers.

Wasn't in the White House, the President's residence, that you burned? At least that's what the Arrogant Worms' "War of 1812" says.

As mentioned, popular opinion aside, this war was a draw. However, it did set off warning bells in London that the border needed to be fixed and peaceful. Canada couldn't handle another invasion. That it took another 50+ years to get serious about this was typical complacency...taking almost 2 years after the US Civil War to 'make' Canada.

It was a draw - everyone ended up with what they started out with; yet it was successful for the U.S. in that the objectives were met - the interference the U.S. faced in trade ended after the war (though whether or not that was a result of the war in debatable), the Britain ceased to take American sailors prisoner and released those they had taken, and the British no longer supported the Indians in the wars in our Northwest frontier. The war wasn't about taking land, but about asserting our sovereignty and independence.

It was a draw. But successful for both since Canada (Britain) and the U.S. learned that the other wasn't going away any time soon. The British, up until the war, wanted their colonies back. Parts of the U.S., typically those not affected by the war's disruptions, felt that Canada was easy prey. They were badly and sadly wrong.

The huge, restless Union Army was ideal for manifesting a destiny or two, it seems. Our natives were LUCKY.

That Army was on occupation duty in the South for about another 15 years or so.

So the objective of the U.S. wasn't to annex Canadian land and the objective of the British wasn't to reclaim the colonies. Everyone ended up with what they started with, so it was a draw in that sense - but as I said, the U.S. objectives were realized after the war.

I really don't agree with you on the U.S. objectives. I am an American citizen. However I have always been taught, and read, that the objective was very much to snatch much of Upper Canada. Since New England was anti-war, Lower Canada was never on the menu.

[Moonlight Graham]

I was under the impression the British burnt down the Capitol House

There was no such thing as Canadian citizenship until 1947. Until then, we were all British.

[jbg]

And when you're fighting someone much smaller than you (Canada) a stalemate can't be seen as a heroic national victory.

You also have to remember that only the South wanted to fight this war. Much of our better military resources were not available to us.

I agree with you though; both sides failed miserably.

[DogOnPorch]

That Army was on occupation duty in the South for about another 15 years or so.

The westward expansion began immediately after the USCW with numerous 'Indian Wars' taking place right up until the 1920s. The Union Army was THAT big.

[Smallc]

They were badly and sadly wrong.

So are you saying that you wish Canada was part of America?

[jbg]

The westward expansion began immediately after the USCW with numerous 'Indian Wars' taking place right up until the 1920s. The Union Army was THAT big.

No, the Western expansion began in the 1760's. That led Britain to try to stop it by expanding Lower Canada to cover what is now the U.S. down to Ohio or Kentucky, I forget which. When the U.S. Revolutionary War was won Western independence proceeded apace. Kentucky, I believe, was admitted to the Union in 1791 or 1792, with Tennessee and Ohio not far behind. Then of course there was the Louisiana Purchase which expanded the U.S. to the Continental Divide north of the current Colorado border. The Mexican War and Gadsden Purchase in the 1840's brought us to the Pacific, and the U.S.-British (mostly) peaceful split of Oregon Country at the 49th Parallel (54'40" or Fight was a campaign promise Polk reneged on) gave the U.S. its current contiguous state boundaries.

Thus, Western expansion began long before the "USCW".

[jbg]

So are you saying that you wish Canada was part of America?

No. My point was a lot of blood was spilled and commerce lost for a standstill.

[Guest Peeves]

The U.S. never wanted your beavers - that wasn't the objective of the war.

Like you thought that was serious even with the icon. Besides to this very day everyone wants to save a beaver

Unless it's somehow connected to Brazil and wax on wax off.

[DogOnPorch]

jbg: Thus, Western expansion began long before the "USCW".

It began in 1493 if you wish to get technical.

The Indian Wars (and general expansion) took a break during the Civil War. The West was stripped of Regulars as they took sides and headed east...Lee being a typical example. But as soon as it was over, it was back to unfinished business.

Great Britain, having toyed with helping the Confederates, once again worried about the border and the Union's attitude towards this aid*. It's not a coincidence that Canada became a reality less than two years after the end of the conflict.

* Invasion again??