why is the argument weak?
I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I didn't say the arguments were weak; I questioned whether chimera15 felt his arguments were weak because he resorted to accusing me of lying. That's not the same thing at all.
the british were pressing americans into their navy, boarding our ships, and blockading ports, all intensely hostile actions against an officially neutral nation and continuing despite official complaints against them. That isnt provocation?
To quote myself, "there are two sides to every argument". Much of the provocations you list are perfectly justifiable actions by a nation at war; some even perfectly legal
today (enforcing a blockade). I didn't say anything about which one I believed was justified --- "two side to every argument". Both sides had perfectly reasonable justifications for their actions.
You forget in this era it is the british that is the world's superpower, and unapologetically holding most of the world under its unapologetically imperial rule. Nice try passing that mantle off to the poor americans of 1812!
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 :-
Wikipedia's map of the British Empire in 1815now who's making excuses? They didnt allocate enough resources? Thats like saying "we lost the war because we didnt fight correctly". No ****!
I was pointing out to chimera15 that yes, there was a war with France on at the time; a rather serious one. It was actually rather a sensible tactic to wait until Britain was distracted with France before going to war.
i wonder how your countrymen, especially descendents of the fleets and divisions that invaded the US in 1812, will respond to you for calling these British regulars (which they were) a mere 'rag tail'. I suspect you wont get much support from them on that one.
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".
I understand you want to minimize what the americans achieved in their 'second war of independence', but like a500, you're choosing the wrong example.
Not really. The US survived which was a reasonable accomplishment, but hardly qualifies as winning the war.
thats only true in terms of territory because the treaty of ghent proposed each side vacate conquered territory. It certainly isnt true in any other sense. The fact remains that the US defeated whole british divisions and fleets (baltimore and new orleans)
The Battle for New Orleans is particularly interesting as it came after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. Whilst Andrew Jackson defeated the initial attack, the British forces remained in enough force to give him a bit of a headache (around 1,500 causalities out of a force of 15,000), but news of the treaty reached the forces putting an end to hostilities.
Did AJ defeat a British division ? Yes. Did he finish off a British division so that it was forced to retreat and unable to fight ? No.
If you have issues with accepting that, that really isnt history's problem 
You can take consolation in the fact that Britain continued to rule the rest of the world with its brutal empire for another 150 years -- if thoughts of empire console you so.
Not really bothered. History is an entertainment for a lazy Sunday.
Please bear in mind that I'm not saying the US lost that war; merely that it didn't win it either. Many of the justifications the US had for war in 1812 were over by 1815; amongst other things :-
The British suspended impressment in 1812
before the US started the war. You won that one without a fight but fought anyway
The British had defeated Napoleon by 1814, meaning no more blockade of France so no need to interfere with American merchant shipping.
Neither side in 1815 had a strong reason to carry on fighting, although neither side had truly been defeated.
