Animosity between USA and Canada

[wellington1869]

i've nothing much to say in response, just a couple of quibbles.

Try the end of the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century, Britain may have been one of the European powers, but certainly wasn't the world's superpower. Britain didn't really achieve naval supremacy until the Battle of Trafalgar; even so Britain's standing army was around 220,000 men whereas France had 2.5million under arms.

As to holding most of the world under a brutal imperialistic yoke, nice try, but that didn't happen until much later either :-

you forget britain's indian empire is taking off right about now. are you seriously questioning british might at the turn of the 19th century? Or seriously equating american power at that time with british power? If you are, you're alone in that. Britian didnt stumble into empire (despite later mythmaking), it had everything it needed by the end of the 1700s, including the technologies. Napolean was the the last hurdle it defeated; America was the last hurdle that it could not defeat. Both of these were settled issues by 1815 and it settled for India and settled in for its long imperial run. None of this could have happened if it was not already a superpower by the early 1800s. Like I said, if you're equating america (scarcely 30 years old as a nation, with no standing armies or navies) with england in 1812, well, lets just say I think you're nuts

I suspect most won't realise there was a war with the US in 1812; out of half a dozen history books I have covering the period (and the ones slanted in favour of British history), the war of 1812 is mentioned in the indices just once. It might be mentioned in the text itself as a passing thought.


To quote a Scottish newspaper editor questioned by Madison in 1814, "Half the people of England do not know there is a war with America and those who did had forgotten it".

this could actually have a lot to do with the fact that they were thrown off the continent a second time.  Nations seldom like to remember their losses (or even their dubious draws, if thats how you want to see it). Its definitely not because england didnt care at the time. If they cared enough to send fleets and divisions, they cared period.

Did AJ defeat a British division ? Yes.

indeed.

The British suspended impressment in 1812 before the US started the war. You won that one without a fight but fought anyway

impressment as a practice didnt end till 1814. In fact i've read elsewhere it was sporadically carried on past that, though I imagine the impressment of americans did cease.

[Rajagra]

random insult having nothing to do with the thread randomly thrown at america, "just because": check

Wasn't your post just random insults nothing to do with the thread too? Pot. Kettle. Black.

[wellington1869]

Wasn't your post just random insults nothing to do with the thread too? Pot. Kettle. Black.

you mean where i responded to your original random insult?

at least both of those were about britain and america (which was the topic of discussion). What does the recent global  meltdown have to do with britain-us relations and the war of 1812?

besides, its more an american meltdown than a global one (last I heard china still hit 10% gdp growth in the latest quarter). I imagine you all should be celebrating america's financial losses.

[chimera15]

This is a pretty funny thread.  Arguing 19th century history on a keyboard forum. roflol

[microsoft windows]

We'll give California, Texas and Arizonaback to the Mexicans.  Good riddance.

Getting rid of California and all their dumb laws and hippy jerks (Not everybody there's a dumb celebrity or hippy, but there's a lot of them!) would be good riddance, but not Texas and Arizona.

[Lanx]

Seems like this should be about is there Animosity between USA and UK?
Now I can understand that growing up in a country, you don't want to teach the youngsters how you "lol wtf, failed"
I mean do UK teachers want to start off little kids by going "ok back in 1776, these former english ppl now became Yanks and proceeded to kick our arse" So to show how great our motherland is, we just gave up the entire area and blamed the French.

Now back in 1812, we still hated the French and their Pom Frites so we tried to instigate another war with America, they weren't doing too well with their new country so we tried to take advantage of that.
Now at the end of the war, did you know the Yanks decided to create a national anthem based on their defeat, "LOL stoopid Yanks" wait... what? Well thats what University told me anyway, so now i'm tell you.
Then this time we all fell in love with tea, only China was getting too rich selling tea to us cuz we love to express how MANLY we were by drinking with our pinkies pointed outwards, and we were loosing so much silver trading with the Chinese that we decided not only "spike the punch bowl" but the whole country, "free opium for everyone!" Is it morally wrong trying to addict a whole country? LOL whateva we need to show off our pinkys at tea time. Plus at the end of the war we got Hong Kong!
But then the damn Gerry's decided to kick our arse, see we were only good fighters in the water cuz we live on a big island, so we were good at building boats, but the Gerry's were able to walk 4feet for every foot we walked!
Good thing those Yanks cared about World Freedom, or I'd be ending this sentence with Achtung!
Then b/c we wanted those Gerry's to suffer we made them pay so much that they got really mad and decided to start up again! and those Gerry's managed to convince the Japs to go crazy too!
You know what the Japs did? They stole our Hong Kong! we ran outta there quite kick, if you were white and didn't sport a queue, you took the first Steamboat back to England so you can hide in the basement while the Gerry's kicked our arse again and we chanted "oh where oh where is my Yankee be, oh where oh where are the Yankees?"
Well when the Yanks saved our arse again and took command of the War again we were quite glad. Heck they even got Hong Kong back for us!
Then in 1997 We lost Hong Kong again!
at least we still control tech support land!
Well that the British history lesson that University taught me kiddies, try not to remember when we sucked please.

[wellington1869]

This is a pretty funny thread.  Arguing 19th century history on a keyboard forum. roflol

i actually learned a lot, lol.  (I also recently saw a pbs documentary on the war of 1812, and this thread gave me a chance to see how much of that i could remember, lol). There was also a really interesting episode where the americans made these wooden 'submarines' (called 'turtles') and tried to attach bombs to the hulls of the british fleet. Fascinating stuff.

[Lanx]

i actually learned a lot, lol.  (I also recently saw a pbs documentary on the war of 1812, and this thread gave me a chance to see how much of that i could remember, lol). There was also a really interesting episode where the americans made these wooden 'submarines' (called 'turtles') and tried to attach bombs to the hulls of the british fleet. Fascinating stuff.

Oh is that the 1 person manned bicycle ball submarine with a hand drill? I thought those were total failures at implanting bombs but were decent beginner submarines.

[wellington1869]

lanx you're hilarious

[wellington1869]

Oh is that the 1 person manned bicycle ball submarine with a hand drill? I thought those were total failures at implanting bombs but were decent beginner submarines.

yea those are the ones.  they only worked 'in theory', and its pretty funny to imagine what the poor drivers of the thing had to go thru. but yea, thats the beginnings of submarine warfare.




sadly it kind of reminds me of this:

[mike]

you forget britain's indian empire is taking off right about now. are you seriously questioning british might at the turn of the 19th century? Or seriously equating american power at that time with british power? If you are, you're alone in that. Britian didnt stumble into empire (despite later mythmaking), it had everything it needed by the end of the 1700s, including the technologies. Napolean was the the last hurdle it defeated; America was the last hurdle that it could not defeat. Both of these were settled issues by 1815 and it settled for India and settled in for its long imperial run. None of this could have happened if it was not already a superpower by the early 1800s. Like I said, if you're equating america (scarcely 30 years old as a nation, with no standing armies or navies) with england in 1812, well, lets just say I think you're nuts

No I'm not forgetting that the East India Company was beginning to carve out an empire that eventually became part of the British Empire. No I'm not questioning British might at the time, but it wasn't "the global superpower" you claimed it was - not until the end of the 19thC; I note that you've gone from claiming Britain was "the superpower" to "a superpower".

No I'm not equating British power with American power - where did I do that ?

America wasn't seen as a threat to Britain in 1815. Or are you seriously claiming that if Britain had put every last bit of military power into defeating the US, that the war wouldn't have gone for more than 3 years ?

You seem to be under the impression that Britain fought Napoleon so it could become the British Empire without the French getting in the way. Not quite like that; Napoleon wanted to invade and make us all eat frog's legs, so it was a war of survival even if Napoleon's plans to invade were a little unrealistic.

What always surprises me is that those brutal imperialists didn't try to hang on to huge swathes of European territory that their armies had passed through. Odd that.

Oh and you'll want to take a good hard look at what the US did in the 19thC before getting too hot under the collar about British imperialism. The British invaded lands belonging to other people, destroyed the native system of government, and setup their own government with the British in power over the natives. So exactly what did the British do that the US didn't ?

"Thrown off the continent" ? I guess that shows the typical US attitude towards your continental neighbours. Take a look at that map I linked to earlier - notice those pink bits on the continent of America ? Guess what they are.

indeed.

I note you don't comment on the important bit - that AJ didn't stop those nasty redcoats from being a nuisance - the peace treaty did that.

As to impressment, yes I did read that Wikipedia article. Mysteriously it doesn't seem to mention the suspension which did happen - see page 457 of Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 (an American book I believe), and page 265 of Paul Johnson's "A History Of The American People". Whether it ended in 1812 or 1814 doesn't matter a great deal - it wasn't ended as a result of a peace treaty with the US.

Through one of those quirks of the legal system, it is still officially legal for impressment to take place

[wellington1869]

No I'm not forgetting that the East India Company was beginning to carve out an empire that eventually became part of the British Empire.

actually, i'm glad that you're someone who actually knows the timeline. Credit where its due.

No I'm not questioning British might at the time, but it wasn't "the global superpower" you claimed it was - not until the end of the 19thC; I note that you've gone from claiming Britain was "the superpower" to "a superpower".

you're really going to extreme nitpicking lengths at this point. The point being debated here (which you're assiduously avoiding) is the relative power of the US vs Britain in or around 1812.  Thats the point I keep trying to come back to since that was the original point being made. You're trying to reconfigure this as "relative strength of Britain in 1812 vs Britain in 1900", which isnt the point at all.
The reason we are talking about US vs Britain relative strength in 1812 is because the war occurred between US and Britain in 1812.

No I'm not equating British power with American power - where did I do that ?

you appear to be doing it since you keep insisting this was a military 'draw'. It was not. The british were repelled at baltimore (which they dearly wanted to capture) and soundly and decisively defeated at N.O. Its only a 'draw' in terms of territory because the treaty stipulated a return to territorial status quo. It was not a draw militarily.
You then want to suggest that well the brits could have (coulda, shoulda, woulda) kicked US ass in 1812 if - and its a big if - they werent busy fighting the rest of the world at the same time. But they were, and if they were short on resources to send to the US, it just proves how much they underestimated American resolve and ingenuity in 1812. This takes nothing away from the fact that the troops they sent were british regulars (the most powerful army and navy in the world, as the world was discovering) and the US only put up local militias against them. This is why the US effort deserves credit, and because of the lopsidedness of the power, and the victories of the US in the face of it, is considered a victory for the US. You can argue till the cows come home about how many troops the british should have sent, but that just proves our point about the american successes that necessitates such a hypothetical ramp up.

You seem to be under the impression that Britain fought Napoleon so it could become the British Empire without the French getting in the way. Not quite like that; Napoleon wanted to invade and make us all eat frog's legs, so it was a war of survival even if Napoleon's plans to invade were a little unrealistic.

actually both parts are true. Its absolutely true that the french were competing with the british for world empire (the 7 years war, a few decades earlier, was actually the decisive one there, where the french were soundly defeated by the brits on three continents, setting the stage for britains global dominance). Its because of that prior defeat that napolean was bound to the continent. He may have harbored (unrealistic, as you note) dreams of conquering britain, but the basic stage was already set: britain already ruled the waves, already had kicked france out of india and kicked france out of north america (thats what the seven years war accomplished).
You keep trying to shift britain's rise to somewhere in mid-19th century. Not true. Once britain defeated its last major competitor, france, in the 7 years war, napolean was merely a last continental gasp by french imperial ambition. At no point did napolean threaten britains global dominion - which is why all he could was dream only of crossing the channel.
SO i disagree very fundamentally on which decade we can mark as the emergence of britain as superpower (i'll let you choose "the" or "a", cuz it does not matter compared to where the US was at the time and is a mere quibbling). I mark britain's emergence basically uncontested global empire to the end of the seven years war (and its incredibly rapid acquisition of territory in india indeed begins right around that date, with france out of the way).

What always surprises me is that those brutal imperialists didn't try to hang on to huge swathes of European territory that their armies had passed through. Odd that.

like they had any chance, with european nationalism rising in every corner of that continent. The european nations were also, by this point, entirely capable of defending their homelands from prolonged occupation; the colonies, obviously, were not.
I know you're not disputing britain's imperial urge in the 18th and 19th centuries (and beyond), or the brutality of imperial control in any form -- or are you?

Oh and you'll want to take a good hard look at what the US did in the 19thC before getting too hot under the collar about British imperialism. The British invaded lands belonging to other people, destroyed the native system of government, and setup their own government with the British in power over the natives. So exactly what did the British do that the US didn't ?

in the 19th century the US had nowhere near the global reach of the brits (there you go trying to draw equivalences between them again in that era). The US was a bit player in world politics until wwii, actually, compared to the european powers. The US didnt take over serious global dominance until after wwii when britain relinquished its empire and the US emerged as superpower with the USSR in the late 40's and 50's.
I know you're not equating american strength prior to wwii with british strength - cuz that would be nuts.

"Thrown off the continent" ? I guess that shows the typical US attitude towards your continental neighbours. Take a look at that map I linked to earlier - notice those pink bits on the continent of America ? Guess what they are.

if you're equating manifest destiny with british empire - again, wrong example because of the difference in scale. There's no question the US set its sights on the west coast and much injustice was done on the way. But its not until the US cold war sins in 20th century that we have sins (in intensity if not scale) that compare to those of britains 150 year old empire.
You can try to make this about american 'empire' (and again compared to britain's 150 year virtually uncontested run, it simply pales), but the topic here is about 1812. Lets try to stick to the world of 1812 unless you want to officially abandon that topic and start a new one.

I note you don't comment on the important bit - that AJ didn't stop those nasty redcoats from being a nuisance - the peace treaty did that.

since the topic here is specifically whether america 'won' against the brits, and since you so graciously acknowledged that AJ did in fact beat a british division, I found that part to be the "important bit".

 Whether it ended in 1812 or 1814 doesn't matter a great deal - it wasn't ended as a result of a peace treaty with the US.

again you seem to be quibbling if you think it wasnt one of the grievances that led to the war and if you think the war didnt help influence its end.

Through one of those quirks of the legal system, it is still officially legal for impressment to take place

i'd like to see them try to impress americans today

[mr_a500]

I don't want to drag this thread any further and beat a dead horse that died 200 years ago, but I MUST clear up another American misconception.

This was not a second American revolution, patriotic Americans fighting evil British, and gloriously fighting against all odds to win. It wasn't US vs. Britain. It was US vs. Canada - and Canadians defended it with British naval help. It was a sneaky land grab - Americans attacked Canada, knowing that Britain was busy in a war in Europe and unable to offer support. Yes, Canada wasn't yet an official country and most of its people were British descendants (as in the US), but they lived in Canada, some already for many generations. (my own anscestors were in Canada even before the US was a country - and most certainly fought in the War of 1812)

Here's another quote:

"Great Britain, exhausted by nearly twenty years of conflict, and still engaged in a strenuous struggle against the European despot, Napoleon, could only, till near the close of the war, furnish scanty military aid. It was the Canadian militia, with little help from British regulars, that won the brilliant victories of Chrysler's Farm and Chateauguay; and throughtout the entire conflict were the principal defence of their country."

Not only that, but consider how amazing the Canadian win was:

"The position of the parties to this conquest were very unequal. [...] Canada was unprepared for conflict. She had less than six thousand troops to defend fifteen hundred miles of frontier. Her entire population was under three hundred thousand, while that of the United States was eight millions, or in the proportion of twenty-seven to one. [...] Forgetting their political differences, the Canadians rallied with a spontaneous outburst of loyalty to the support of the Government."

Yes, the British navy came along to "save our back-bacon". Thanks guys.

I'm not going to argue the point further. I just want to conclude with this:

The War of 1812 was an attempt by the US to annex Canada. Canadians defended against incredible odds and not one foot of land was annexed. Therefore, Canada won, the US lost.

(anybody who denies this should re-read my quotes!)

[quadibloc]

I think we have always hated Canadians since the Loyalists became traitors and went North.

I was puzzled by the defective version of the Union Jack in your post - as it had the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, but not the one of St. Patrick - but I see from the image URL you were intentionally using the older version of the Union Jack that predated the annexation of Ireland, as was used by the Loyalists.

[wellington1869]

a500, i have to give you credit for taking up the least plausible interpretation of the war, and forging ahead with it despite everything You are a true canadian nationalist (with all that is good and bad in being a nationalist).

[mr_a500]

Not plausible, eh? How strange. It seemed quite plausible.

Don't worry. I don't have any animosity toward you. Your arguments probably make sense to you. You've had decades of American pseudo-history propaganda teachings. You'll need years of deprogramming sessions to get that stuff out of your head. :wink:

[keyboardlover]

You'll need years of deprogramming sessions to get that stuff out of your head. :wink:

...but that would mean being reprogrammed into a Canadian :wink:

[mike]

you're really going to extreme nitpicking lengths at this point.

It's actually quite an important point. Britain wasn't quite the superpower you like to claim it was. It had enough trouble trying to defeat France with the assistance of other European powers, and certainly didn't want another war with the US going on at the same time. And indeed went to certain lengths to avoid that war by both making concessions on free trade - not enough to keep the US happy admittedly, but Britain wasn't prepared to go to the lengths of allowing US merchants free access to France's ports, and prepared to suspend impressment - too late to stop war as it turned out.

soundly and decisively defeated at N.O.

Winning a battle doesn't win a war if it isn't decisive enough. AJ successfully defended New Orleans against a British division, but did not force that division to withdraw to England and did not stop it fighting in the US. What stopped that British division fighting was the news of the peace treaty - who knows what may have happened if the treaty hadn't been signed ?

in the 19th century the US had nowhere near the global reach of the brits (there you go trying to draw equivalences between them again in that era).

Who said anything about global reach ? The US did exactly the same to the Native Americans as the British did to other less well equipped natives in other parts of the world.

if you're equating manifest destiny with british empire - again, wrong example because of the difference in scale.

Imperialism is pretty much about assuming you have the right to rule over other people because you're militarily stronger than they are so you're entitled to take their land and resources away from them. Theft is theft whether you steal an acre of land or a continent.

So how was the US any less imperialistic in attitude than Britain ?

since the topic here is specifically whether america 'won' against the brits, and since you so graciously acknowledged that AJ did in fact beat a british division, I found that part to be the "important bit".

Yes, but AJ hadn't finished the job - see earlier.

again you seem to be quibbling ... and if you think the war didnt help influence its end.

How? Impressing had been suspended before the war as a half-hearted attempt at preventing war. Britain's need to restrict free trade had ceased with the end of the Napoleonic war. Any direct effect the war of 1812-1815 had was pretty much limited to the American continent, and one of those effects was to stop US "adventures" in Canada.

The war wasn't won by the US; and Britain's "win" was to block American merchants from shipping supplies to Napoleon. Now the peace treaty itself could be said to give both sides what they wanted; indeed some historians point out that the indecisiveness of the war itself and the usefulness of the treaty gave greater emphasise to diplomacy to settle differences.

[quadibloc]

So how was the US any less imperialistic in attitude than Britain ?

I'd be more worried about a comparison of Britain to France, or Germany... or Belgium.

Britain was a relatively benign colonial power. One can criticize it for exacerbating famines in India or for the Opium War. And the United States behaved roughly in the Phillipines.

But other colonial powers were more brutal, and more consistent in their brutality.

The current sufferings of countries like Nigeria and Uganda are because their independence hadn't been revoked at the time of the first military coup - it should have been strictly conditional on maintaining a constitutional democratic government.

In Grenada, more recently, when the Prime Minister refused to leave office when required by the Constitution, and instead attempted to set up a dictatorship, the Governor-General had to ask the U.S. for assistance because Britain failed to intervene. It is generally believed that Britain rebuked him for this afterward.

Colonialism didn't happen in a vacuum. If Britain hadn't grabbed country X in Africa, someone else, who would have treated it more roughly, would have done so. And before the colonial powers took control, many Africans were being captured and sold into slavery by members of militarily stronger tribes or by Arabs.

So Britain didn't really take away peace and freedom from people who never had it. That part, of course, is an exaggeration; there may well have been some African tribes that were neither perpetrators nor victims.

But what isn't nailed down gets stolen. That should come as no surprise. Respecting foreigners as human beings, instead of practicing naked ethnocentricism, is a relatively recent invention.

[mike]

Britain was a relatively benign colonial power.

"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment"

An Englishman is at an obvious disadvantage claiming Britain wasn't really that bad as a colonial power

[quadibloc]

How come the Queen is on all the Canadian coins?

She used to be on all the Canadian banknotes. Now, she is only on the $20 bill, with former Prime Ministers on the other.

She used to be on the regular stamps, but now issues with her on them are rare.

Many Canadians appreciate that this one tradition is preserved... and, in fact, there is likely some legal reason that the trend to placate Quebec by downgrading all traces of the Monarchy in Canada has not extended there.

[mr_a500]

I liked the moose better than the people in Quebec.

Well, duh. Everybody likes the moose better than the people in Quebec - just like everybody likes the hoary marmot better than the people in Alaska.



That's not a comment on Quebec or Alaska people, it's just common sense.

[wellington1869]

mike said stuff

i confess i got distracted away from this thread, tho also got bored a bit cuz i felt most of the major points of contention were well covered already. So i dont really have much to say in response to your post above. Just more quibbling for what its worth.

re: -theft, and "same as an acre" - disagree. context is everything and scale matters along with intent and effect, particularly when assigning blame. esp dangerous for a historian to forget that, I think. Scale matters.

re: native americans and US western expansion - this didnt happen in the way you're describing until after civil war; in 1812 (which you keep wanting to leave while making arguments about 1812) u.s. not yet even in a position to realistically consider west coast. Louisiana purchase itself was a happy surprise and in its time was criticized as folly. And in fact in the 1812 war, brits armed native americans who joined them in the fighting, before that in 7 years war the french did the same. You're thinking of events after american civil war when rapid western expansion commenced in earnest. So again you want to leave the world of 1812 to try to make your 'equivalences'.

re: AJ finishing the job at N.O.:
british division (11,000 in force) casualties: 2500 (including 2 generals killed)
AJ's militia (4000 in force) casualties: 300.
looks pretty decisive.

[Oqsy]

America, **** Yeah!

[wellington1869]

Britain was a relatively benign colonial power.

i'd actually agree with that (and i've said same about america for that matter). Though obviously colonial experience varied greatly by country as well. Canada fared far better under the british than, say, south africa did. Even within same country, from one decade to another colonial effects were starkly different. Brits in india from 1800 to 1860 were far more brutal than they were in, say, the 1900's. By 1900 the brits (despite themselves) were actually instrumental in india's modernization towards democracy. So much depends on the arena and the era and the context.

Same could be said for so-called american imperialism during cold-war in late 20th century. japan and germany did very well after (and as a result of) american occupation/influence; central america not so much. But then i also wouldnt compare 20th century cold war political context  to the uncontested imperial age of 19th century; all colonialism is not the same, again, even from country to country or century to century. Context matters and so each case has to be taken up on its own merits in the end. Despite mike's great desire to draw broad equivalences

[HaaTa]

America, **** Yeah!

America...****. yeah~

[wellington1869]

America, **** Yeah!

lol

[clickclack]

America, **** Yeah!

I was lead model maker at one of the sfx shops for that movie (Team America). One of the most riotous gigs ever. Many Lolz =)

and once again I have nothing to contribute to the thread, so...
F#@% Yeah!

[mike]

re: -theft, and "same as an acre" - disagree. context is everything and scale matters along with intent and

Rubbish. Scale matters in the effects of a crime on other people, but it doesn't matter in terms of whether an action is a crime or not.

re: native americans and US western expansion - this didnt happen in the way you're describing until after civil war; in 1812 (which you keep wanting to leave while making arguments about 1812) u.s. not yet even in a position to realistically consider west coast. Louisiana purchase itself was a happy surprise

Who said anything about the west coast ? Funny you should mention the Louisiana purchase - this is one of the biggest examples of behaviour used to illustrate imperialistic US behaviour during the 19th century. Were the occupants of the territory asked by anyone about whether they wanted to join the US ? No ?

As for Western expansion ... when did Texas join the union ? Before or after the civil war ? When did Kansas become a territory ? Utah ? Nevada ? California ? Oregon ?

Imperialistic behaviour didn't start in 1776 or later ... it was far earlier than that. All the US (and probably mostly the citizens) did was carry on with an old tradition.

re: AJ finishing the job at N.O.:
british division (11,000 in force) casualties: 2500 (including 2 generals killed)
AJ's militia (4000 in force) casualties: 300.
looks pretty decisive.

You're totally missing the point ... the battle was decisive, but that left 8,500 red coats still left[0], and probably growling for revenge (they weren't green troops). They carried on fighting without trying NO again - standard military tactics to try and draw the defending troops out. Would that have worked ? Probably not as AJ was hardly green either. In fact they had taken one fortification and were preparing to attack another just as the formal notification of the peace treaty arrived.

You haven't beaten foreign troops until they aren't burning down your home.

0: And I have figures of 14,000 troops and 1,500 casualties on the British side. With three "general officers" killed ... not two Generals.

[wellington1869]

Rubbish. Scale matters in the effects of a crime on other people, but it doesn't matter in terms of whether an action is a crime or not.

who said crime was not committed? But in your analysis and judgement of a crime, of course scale comes into it! Otherwise you're like the taliban, chopping off a hand no matter if a piece of bread was stolen or a billion dollars were stolen. Now I know you dont want to be like the taliban. so if you dont, scale must matter and so must context.
I dont know about the british legal system, but in america all these issues around a crime come into the question of judgement, just as it does in historical judgement.

Louisiana purchase - this is one of the biggest examples of behaviour used to illustrate imperialistic US behaviour during the 19th century.

lol, by a handful of leftist canadians and defensive 21st century brits, i'm sure

Imperialistic behaviour didn't start in 1776 or later ... it was far earlier than that. All the US (and probably mostly the citizens) did was carry on with an old tradition.

absolutely untrue, first of all. Perhaps you're thinking of columbus and the spanish. Second, we are going to rapidly run into a definitional problem. Define imperialism. Deaths by themselves may or may not be because of 'imperialism'. Does imperialism require an ideology? or not? does it require continuity? In the british case of 150 years of direct occupation, all that was true: plans, policy, intent, ideology. THis was also true of a few other forms of early european colonialism. But this is not so with other clashes that have happened in the world. THe US has sinned, no one is denying that, but your attempt at equivalence is the problem here. Presumably you think equivalence will get the brits off the hook.

You're totally missing the point ... the battle was decisive, but that left 8,500 red coats still left[0], and probably growling for revenge (they weren't green troops). They carried on fighting without trying NO again - standard military tactics to try and draw the defending troops out. Would that have worked ? Probably not as AJ was hardly green either. In fact they had taken one fortification and were preparing to attack another just as the formal notification of the peace treaty arrived.

again this is a 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' argument from you. We will never know the outcome because peace broke out after that battle. So you want to argue that if peace treaty had not been signed then british would have won. first off, doubt it. second, its a hypothetical and you keep arguing hypotheticals.

0: And I have figures of 14,000 troops and 1,500 casualties on the British side. With three "general officers" killed ... not two Generals.

0: "two British generals, including Major General Pakenham, were killed in battle, with a third severely wounded"
http://lsm.crt.state.la.us/cabildo/cab6.htm

[mike]

lol, by a handful of leftist canadians and defensive 21st century brits, i'm sure

Try answering the question rather than making cheap shots. Did the US ask the permission of the peoples living in the area covered by the Louisiana Purchase or not ?

I'll answer it for you, no the US didn't ... before going to France to negotiate the purchase, the US expected to get New Orleans and didn't expect to get a 1/3 of the continent (well perhaps a touch less). So the US effectively imposed their government on people who had no say in the decision.

As far as the natives in the area were probably concerned, there was probably little difference between that and those evil Brits invading the place and setting up a colony there.

absolutely untrue, first of all. Perhaps you're thinking of columbus and the spanish.

Not at all. Was the eastern seaboard vacant before the British (and others) setup the colonies there ? Did the colonists have to use force to keep their colonies ? Well the earliest pitched battle with native americans was sometime between 1585-1588. That was the lost colony of Roanoke and quite feasibly the native americans had second thoughts about allowing a bunch of strange white dudes setup shop.

The native americans would have been quite used to strange white dudes stopping by to pick up water and supplies at least by reputation, but may well have been a bit alarmed by any signs of permanence - invading another tribe's territory wasn't exactly unknown to them.

A British colony by the way. And of course much the same thing happened again with more success. The US is founded on the proceeds of colonialism (or "imperialism") - British, French, Dutch, and Spanish (sorry if I've forgotten anyone!). And didn't really change behaviour until after it bumped into the western seaboard - it carried on invading the lands of other people and inflicted it's own form of government on them.

Assuming you've abandoned your rather strange notion that the US didn't expand westwards until the end of the civil war of course

true: plans, policy, intent, ideology.

To quote Thomas Jefferson: “. . . till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece" (speaking of the Spanish Empire). Sounds like a plan, policy, intent and ideology (the "Manifest Destinty").

Technically, according to the dictionary definition of imperial, even Britain can't count as imperial - we had no emperor with absolute power during the colonial era. The last monarch with that kind of power was Charles I, and we shortened him. No matter what we call it, the US behaved in much the same way towards the native americans as Britain did towards other natives in other parts of the world.

Presumably you think equivalence will get the brits off the hook.

Not at all, I don't delude myself on the history of my country. I wonder how the Irish feel about you reducing our period of crimes to 150 years though ? We started adventuring in Ireland in 1169 - a tad more than 150 years ago.

again this is a 'woulda, coulda, shoulda'

I'm not sure AJ would have felt the red coats running around just outside his defences were quite so hypothetical. Particularly as they carried on elsewhere :-

"The British army then attacked and captured Fort Bowyer at the mouth of Mobile Bay on February 12. The British army was making preparations to attack Mobile  when news arrived of the peace treaty. "

(Wikipedia)

So you want to argue that if peace treaty had not been signed then british would have won.

Nope. Merely point out that the defeat of the British division at N.O. didn't end the threat from them. As I said, you haven't truly beaten foreign troops until they aren't burning down your home.

Technically a Major-General isn't a General (he's two ranks lower), and I believe the third general officer was wounded on the day and died later.

[Oqsy]

You guys do realize that if Andrew Jackson had been able to spit fire and was 55ft tall that the British would have never considered ANY military action in 1812?  I'm just saying, it's worth considering...

[keyboardlover]

Ripster...you need to create a "Meanwhile in..." website. When it makes millions, you owe me a free keyboard

EDIT: Since you LOVE cherry blues so much, I'll gladly take your Realforce 87U

[wellington1869]

mike said some more stuff...

dude, all you keep doing is:
1) creating hypotheticals to argue about
2) argue about anything but the world of 1812.

so are you basically conceding on the 1812 argument and want to open a new argument about the definition of 'imperialism'? We can do that if you want, but then lets agree to move on past 1812 and say the american victory against the brits in that war is a settled issue here.

[Oqsy]

55ft. tall fire-breathing AJ.  Think about it for a minute.  Shhh wait, don't post.  Just think.

[wellington1869]

55ft. tall fire-breathing AJ.

after the beating the brits took at his hands they probably did think of him that way

[quadibloc]

AJ already Rulez Da World.

Well, yes, at the current state of inflation, the $20 bill is the most popular denomination... which is presumably the reason that, in Canada, it is the one on which the Queen's portrait was left.

But soon enough it'll be another President's turn.

[quadibloc]

Or the Queen dies.  Then you'll have to put some King on it.

I was thinking of U.S. currency - specifically, after a little inflation, instead of Andrew Jackson being on the most used banknote, eventually it will be Ulysses S. Grant's turn, and then Benjamin Franklin's turn after that.

Given the difficulties with Charles and Diana, it's entirely possible that if His Royal Highness Prince Charles were to succeed to the throne, Canada might simply become a republic, and put another Prime Minister on the $20 bill. We might refuse to settle for less than a monarch who can command our respect, being a conservative people.

[itlnstln]

Yeah, especially when you don't have the font pack.

[HaaTa]

I'm guessing that's Inuit. Though I'm too lazy to google it.

[quadibloc]

Recently, in Canada, a New Brunswick politician got blindsided by being asked to name his favorite Acadian (recording?) artist.

Well, to prevent similar dirty tricks in future, I searched YouTube and found a Francophone singer from Prince Edward Island whom Wikipedia, at least refers to as an Acadian:

So Canadian politicians are safe now!

Earlier in my search, I turned up Zachary Richard, but he is an American who lives in Louisiana. He is, of course, of Acadian descent, but that wouldn't have been a satisfactory response; they weren't asking for his favorite Cajun artist.

[wellington1869]

fs=1&hl=en_US">

[ClackHead]

Can't we just all be friends?

[wellington1869]

Can't we just all be friends?

here's the canadian version of that song (and, er, their version of history

fs=1&hl=en_US">

[wellington1869]

meanwhile, here's the british version of that song (sung to the tune of yankee doodle):

andrew jackson
kicked our ass
while riding on a pony
stuck a canon
in our butt
and blew us up quite boldly

andrew jackson
kicked our ass
andrew jackson
wooowie
andrew jackson
was 55 feet tall
and he breathed fire
like a dragon

From what I understand the british sang that song on the voyage back to London.

[ClackHead]

There is no need for all this. Canada and the USA are best pals.

[quadibloc]

There is no need for all this. Canada and the USA are best pals.

Of course we are. But no two countries are identical.

And just as in Canada, the Liberals and Conservatives don't see eye-to-eye, in the United States the Democrats and Republicans don't see eye-to-eye. So, at any one moment, the prevailing political sentiments in the two countries may differ.

That doesn't mean these two countries have stopped being friends, any more than the normal political processes within each of those countries means that either one is about to break into a civil war.

[Lanx]

Can someone shed some light on the Euro really? was it created because countries were too small to have their own currency? or cuz people frequently travel to italy and france and germany so much that they all decided to just have one currency for them all, is it cuz of all the easy to use rail cars?
This would also lead me to believe that between Euro nations, coming in and out and traveling between isn't as security intensive as it is with the United States and every other country, I remember When I took a bus trip to Niagra Falls the Canada side, they didn't even check all our passports just grabbed one passport, looked fine and let the whole bus in.
Wonder if it is the same way within the Euro countries. (i don't think US/Canada passport relations are the same now tho? is it?)

[wellington1869]

the euro was created out of fear of andrew jackson.

the brits had heard that andrew jackson was rising from the grave and was planning to devalue european currency. However, they hatched a plan to try to woo andrew jackson to their side and sic him on France. Hence the brits continue to waver on the question of the Euro.

When the 55 foot andrew jackson emerges out of the ocean and rampages through london breathing fire, thats probably when the brits will finally abandon the pound and adopt the euro, hoping to join with the continent to stave off andrew jackson.

Source: Wikipedia.

[keyboardlover]

Can someone shed some light on the Euro really? was it created because countries were too small to have their own currency? or cuz people frequently travel to italy and france and germany so much that they all decided to just have one currency for them all, is it cuz of all the easy to use rail cars?
This would also lead me to believe that between Euro nations, coming in and out and traveling between isn't as security intensive as it is with the United States and every other country, I remember When I took a bus trip to Niagra Falls the Canada side, they didn't even check all our passports just grabbed one passport, looked fine and let the whole bus in.
Wonder if it is the same way within the Euro countries. (i don't think US/Canada passport relations are the same now tho? is it?)

I think the concept of the Euro and the European Union was to make the economy of many European countries much better and allow them to compete against other currencies in the marketplace. Currencies like the Italian Lira and The German Deutschmark could never compete with USD (and I believe the GBP) before. I know Americans used to be able to go to Italy and Germany and live like kings after they converted their money. I have traveled to Italy both when they had the Lira and more recently with the Euro and it's a HUGE difference in what's affordable.