Our bicentennial celebration

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

If we had lost, we would have become a colony of Great Britain again. By the end of it all, we had our capitol back (slightly toasted), kept New Orleans (unfortunately?) and the Brits quit conscripting our sailors. Not sure how we lost; I don't think the goal of the United States during that war was ever to conquer the Brits (or take Canada), just to get them to quit fucking with us.

My understanding is that a lot of Canadians consider it a victory for Canada. From where I sit, it was never even a war against Canada. It was a war against the British Empire, and Canada was one of the battlefields. That said, had we swept through Canada in a decisive victory rather than fought the Crown to a stalemate, we probably* would have kept it. So, from that perspective, I could see it being viewed as a sort of victory for Canadian independence. If you ignore that they belonged to the British Empire for another 50 years**...



*Definitely

**Or 115 years, or 165 years, depending on your benchmark. I never could really tell when the Canucks considered themselves independent.

One of the stated goals of the United States, during the War of 1812, was annexation of Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec). For that reason it was a victory

.... well, except the part where we kept Quebec.

Originally Posted by Trip

I was talking about the Battle of New Orleans. It was the British regulars there and a lot of natives to that area were with Andrew Jackson to hold the line before the Brits gave up and went to pick on Mobile but never got the chance cause of the treaty signing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orl...rder_of_battle

Gotcha.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Trip

I was talking about the Battle of New Orleans. It was the British regulars there

It was British regulars (with a lot of veterans of the Napoleonic wars) that burned down Washington, too. Not that it would have made it any less stupid if we had let the war, which we started, end there.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

.... well, except the part where we kept Quebec.

Not so dumb now, are we?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

It was British regulars (with a lot of veterans of the Napoleonic wars) that burned down Washington, too. Not that it would have made it any less stupid if we had let the war, which we started, end there.

It was a small number of regular infantry, who led a large number of Maritimer conscripts.

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

Not so dumb now, are we?

And you wonder why we won't take Justin and Celine back?

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

One of the stated goals of the United States, during the War of 1812, was annexation of Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec). For that reason it was a victory

Wikipedia's thoughts on the matter:

"According to Stagg (1981 and 1983), Madison and his advisers believed that conquest of Canada would be easy and that economic coercion would force the British to come to terms by cutting off the food supply for their West Indies colonies. Furthermore, possession of Canada would be a valuable bargaining chip. Stagg suggested that settlers demanded the seizure of Canada not because they wanted the land, but because the British were thought to be arming the Indians and thereby blocking US settlement of the West.[35][36] As Horsman concluded, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it."[37] In agreement with Horsman is the view: "...American policy makers reasoned that they could take it [Canada] and hold it hostage while demanding that the British back down on other issues."[38] Hickey flatly stated, "The desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war."[39] Brown (1964) concluded, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve negotiation, not to annex Canada."[40] Burt, a Canadian scholar, but also a professor at an American university, agreed, noting that Foster—the British minister to Washington—also rejected the argument that annexation of Canada was a war goal.[41] During the phase prior to the war, he also rejected the possibility of an American declaration of war, despite having dinner with several of the more prominent War Hawks, so his judgement in these matters can be questioned. [42] Canadian scholar Reginald Stuart stated, "But what seemed like territorial expansion actually arose from a defensive mentality, not from ambitions for conquest and annexation."[43]"

[Papa_Complex]

If it had been taken it wouldn't likely have been given back, which means annexation. That we weren't beaten makes it a victory

And you know better than to trust Wikipedia

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

It was a small number of regular infantry, who led a large number of Maritimer conscripts.

Wikipedia disagrees, from what I can tell (and for whatever that's worth):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...rder_of_battle

British(Major General Robert Ross)

1st (Light) Brigade (Colonel William Thornton) (1100 men)
85th Regiment of Foot (Bucks Volunteers)(Light Infantry)
Light companies, 1/4th, 21st, 1/44th Foot
Company of Royal Marines, commanded by Lt Athelstan Stevens, detached from the Royal Marine battalion
Rocket Detachment of 26 Royal Marine Artillery gunners, commanded by Lt John Lawrence, likewise detached from the Royal Marine battalion
Company of Colonial Marines overseen by Captain Reed of the 2nd West India Regiment
2nd Brigade (Colonel Arthur Brooke) (1460 men)
1st Battalion, 4th (King's Own) Regiment of Foot
1st Battalion, 44th (East Essex) Regiment of Foot
3rd Brigade (Colonel Patterson) (ca. 1460 men)
21st Regiment (Royal North British Fusiliers)
2nd Battalion, Royal Marines (commanded by Major James Malcolm) less one infantry company with the 1st Brigade, and the Rocket Detachment with the 1st Brigade.
composite battalion (formed from ship-based Marines) commanded by Captain John Robyns and guarding the shoreline at Benedict
Note: there were a total of 1350 Marines[28]

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

If it had been taken it wouldn't likely have been given back, which means annexation. That we weren't beaten makes it a victory

Granted. But that seems to be the American attitude as well, even from that time. "Well, we didn't give up the mother country. I'm calling this a win." I guess when you poke a grizzly and limp away with all your limbs intact, that might be considered a victory even if you didn't get a trophy claw...

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

And you know better than to trust Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article seems to be decently sourced. But I'm not engaged in this argument enough to look for better sourcing. At the end of the day, it was a stupid war fought because both sides were being pretty stupid. Thousands dead and the only change was in attitudes. We could have better settled our differences in 1812 through a rousing game of cricket.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

The Wikipedia article seems to be decently sourced. But I'm not engaged in this argument enough to look for better sourcing. At the end of the day, it was a stupid war fought because both sides were being pretty stupid. Thousands dead and the only change was in attitudes. We could have better settled our differences in 1812 through a rousing game of cricket.

I think it was pretty useful. We finally settled shit. Brits got a little revenge burning down the white house, we got them off our backs. We eventually became best buds.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

I think it was pretty useful. We finally settled shit. Brits got a little revenge burning down the white house, we got them off our backs. We eventually became best buds.

Less than 100 years later and all hatchets were buried. We're now more alike, I think, than any other two neighbouring countries in the world.