Happy War of 1812 Day.

[yubba]

JUNE 18 1812 I would have forgotten all about it if I hadn't heard about Canada making a coin to com mem errr rraatte it, So what is my country going to do to celebrate our freedom, haven't heard much from our Campaigner and Chief, not one word of how we defended our freedom and liberty from him or the liberal media, I am sick of wake-ing in the morning to ABCs Goodmorning Americas 15 minutes of what the royals are doing in England. I know I'll have to correct and edit this piece so don't blow a gasket. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0&feature=related funny after 200 years we might, again have to fight for our freedom, hope the liberal slash loyalist got the stomach for it, I don't want hear it's not fair, whats fair, that you take from us and give to others, whats fair, that we put you in office and you don't represent us, whats fair that you stand in the way of my kids make-ing a lemonade stand, Its We The People, don't like it leave.

[Tribesman]

So what is my country going to do to celebrate our freedom,
Celebrate your freedom ???
Is this the war where they tried to take Canada but got their butts kicked and their trade devestated?

[Oberon]

Celebrate your freedom ???
Is this the war where they tried to take Canada but got their butts kicked and their trade devestated?

On the upside, the White House stopped being grey, and turned black and then white. :hmmm::yep:

[yubba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7jlFZhprU4&feature=related I stand corrected enjoy. funny I don't seem to speak with an English accsent or sound like Sean Connery or courtsey to the queen or bow or what ever you all do, Obama does enough of that, that must mean we kicked your butt twice, so we wanted aittle more room.

[Oberon]

1812 was a good year, the Canucks stayed loyal to the crown and Napoleon got his nether regions frozen off.

http://historylive.us/prints/database/NPS16L%20-%20Napoleons%20Retreat%20from%20Moscow.jpg

But this is the best song of 1812:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgunF7KbgmY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6LY11kV444

And Eiji Oue conducts it just perfectly, the best I've witnessed. :yep:

[Stealhead]

Celebrate your freedom ???
Is this the war where they tried to take Canada but got their butts kicked and their trade devestated?

That would be British Canada in 1812 it was a British colony at the time not a free nation and at that time territory used by an enemy of the United Sates so it was not a stupid strategy.Also the British where threatening American trade prior to the war and these actions where the primary cause of the conflict.

Actually the US was ill prepared for the start yet we did still win the war you don't have to win every battle:

"The War of 1812 gave a dramatic boost to the manufacturing capabilities of the United States. The British blockade of the American coast created a shortage of cotton cloth in the United States, leading to the creation of a cotton-manufacturing industry, beginning at Waltham, Massachusetts by Francis Cabot Lowell. The war also spurred on construction of the Erie Canal project, which was built to promote commercial links yet was also perceived as having military uses should the need ever arise.[22]
As the charter of the First Bank of the United States had been allowed to expire in 1811, the federal government was ill-prepared to finance the war and resorted to such expediencies as the suspension of specie payment and the issuance of Treasury Notes. These actions set a precedent for future Federal responses to financial crises. Also, this exposure of the nation's financial weaknesses explained in part the Congressional decision to charter the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. The readiness of Southern leaders especially John C. Calhoun to support such a measure also indicates a high degree of national feeling.[23] Perhaps the clearest sign of a new sense of national unity was the victorious Democratic-Republican Party, its long-time foes the Federalists vanished from national politics. The result was an Era of Good Feelings with the lowest level of partisanship ever seen.[24]
Canadians, however, contrasted their post-war economic stagnation to the booming American economy, which Desmond Morton believes led to the Rebellions of 1837.[25]"

In the end it was the actions of the British government that caused the war in the first place to protect its sovereignty the US had no choice but to declare war.The Canadian actions where not a success that is true.

Sean Connery is Scottish Yubba and if you do not like what is shown on Goodmorning America why are you watching it and the Uk has been our closet ally for a very long time 1812 is ancient history there is a value to knowing about it but to hold bitter feelings towards the UK still is..... well odd.

[yubba]

Scottish, British, it's still, ish. I don't hold bitter feelings towards the Brits, I hold bitter feelings toward people that are more loyal to the crown than the consitution, and I don't like the liberal/loyalist medias, love affair with Royality, only if we could have that here ooh my and because it comes on after the local news and I like to see a random act of journalism once in awhile, Oh by the way how are you coming along, on that prayer rug .

[Sailor Steve]

Celebrate your freedom ???
Is this the war where they tried to take Canada but got their butts kicked and their trade devestated?
Don't make me refer you to my old thread in which I thoroughly refuted that argument. :O:

[Sailor Steve]

But this is the best song of 1812:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgunF7KbgmY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6LY11kV444

And Eiji Oue conducts it just perfectly, the best I've witnessed. :yep:
It is wonderful, but it has nothing to do with the 'War of 1812'.

This song, on the other hand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0

[Oberon]

It is wonderful, but it has nothing to do with the 'War of 1812'.

This song, on the other hand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0

Well, it was A war in 1812... :O: Besides, you declared war on us, and then our PM got shot...not the greatest timing... :dead:

Plus your song, as good as it is, lacks cannons :O:

I'd like to think had we not been already at war with Boney we might have made more of a show of it, buuut given how well the war of Independence went for us I'd say that we'd still have been kicked out of the US :haha:

[yubba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN5praoZnQ0&feature=related

[Oberon]

Scottish, British, it's still, ish. I don't hold bitter feelings towards the Brits, I hold bitter feelings toward people that are more loyal to the crown than the consitution, and I don't like the liberal/loyalist medias, love affair with Royality, only if we could have that here ooh my and because it comes on after the local news and I like to see a random act of journalism once in awhile, Oh by the way how are you coming along, on that prayer rug .

Eeeh, the Royals you can take or leave. To be quite honest I think a lot of people would prefer to be governed by HRH than the ConDems. Of course, it's been a long time since the 1640s, and I don't think the Royals would actually know what to do with such power, have a gin perhaps... :hmmm:

[Stealhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN5praoZnQ0&feature=related

That song was written by an Englishman John Newton.

Furthermore Memorial Day is an American holiday Oberon and Tribesman are not Americans.

You should have said if your are a US citizen you had better remember why you get next Monday off.What disgusts me is that is in the US many retailers choose to have sales on Memorial Day and the weekend leading up to it that sends the wrong message.

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS386US388&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=www#hl=en&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS386US388&sclient=psy-ab&q=memorial+day+sales&oq=Memorial+day+&aq=2z&aqi=g2g-z2&aql=1&gs_l=serp.1.2.0l2j0i3l2.7563.12324.0.14600.15.15.0 .0.0.2.601.3855.0j9j1j0j4j1.15.0.eqn%2Cfixedpos%3D false%2Cboost_normal%3D40%2Cboost_high%3D40%2Cccon f%3D0-95%2Cmin_length%3D2%2Crate_low%3D0-015%2Crate_high%3D0-015%2Csecond_pass%3Dfalse.1.0.0.7l4WIt4ZFQE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a7440405c8a6cc37&biw=1680&bih=935

For the UK and former Commonwealth they have Remembrance Day.

Why is everyone forgetting Francis Scott Key may I ask what about that poem and later song?There you have direct relation yet everyone thinks of a song written in 1959 when the US national anthem lyrics where inspired by an event during the War of 1812 of course it did not become the national anthem until 1931.

Furthermore Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture was written in 1880 while the music for The Star-Spangled Banner was written in 1780 making The Star-Spangled Banner the most closely related to the War of 1812 or or 1812 for that matter.1812 Overture is a very good piece of music though.

[yubba]

Well it needs to be international, less we forget, so we are not destend to repeat our mistakes.

[Oberon]

Well it needs to be international, less we forget, so we are not destend to repeat our mistakes.

That, Yubba, is something I think we can ALL agree on. :salute:

[nikimcbee]

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/187343/1/Portrait-Of-Mikhail-Ilarionovich-Kutuzov,-Prince-Of-Smolensk-1745-1813,-Russian-Field-Marshal,-1813.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZDixwwq0PM&list=FLaVfse7OxY3T9By3_c__HJg&index=33&feature=plpp_video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHZdrKSS5oo&feature=fvwrel

[Rilder]

^ Remember the good old days when medals had portraits of people on them? :O:

[Sailor Steve]

That would be British Canada in 1812 it was a British colony at the time not a free nation and at that time territory used by an enemy of the United Sates so it was not a stupid strategy.Also the British where threatening American trade prior to the war and these actions where the primary cause of the conflict.
Okay, you made me bring it up again (not like I wasn't looking for an excuse anyway :O:).
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=117199

[Karle94]

Stating that the anyone kicked the Americans ass is kinda wrong. On land, neither the Brits nor the Americans kicked ass. On the high seas though, the Brits outnumbered the US navy 50-1. Not good odds. Still, the six frigates kicked some serious British ass. Especially the USS Constellation and the USS Constitution. I like the part where only ships of-the-line were allowed to attack an American frigate one-on-one. Otherwise, only sqadrons were allowed to attack an American frigate. That pretty much says it all.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Stating that the anyone kicked the Americans ass is kinda wrong. On land, neither the Brits nor the Americans kicked ass. On the high seas though, the Brits outnumbered the US navy 50-1. Not good odds. Still, the six frigates kicked some serious British ass. Especially the USS Constellation and the USS Constitution. I like the part where only ships of-the-line were allowed to attack an American frigate one-on-one. Otherwise, only sqadrons were allowed to attack an American frigate. That pretty much says it all.American "frigates" were armed more like a British 4th rate ship of the line than a frigate. Not a surprise that battle didn't go very well from britons point of view.

[Karle94]

American "frigates" were armed more like a British 4th rate ship of the line than a frigate. Not a surprise that battle didn't go very well from britons point of view.

That was becasue of the emphasise on quality over quantity. The Constitution often sailed with 64 cannons. Most of them 24 pounders. Most British frigates had around 36-38 12-16 pounders. That is a big differance.

[Jimbuna]

Another interesting topic/conversation takes place whilst old buna is in his sack recovering from a drink or three :-?

Starting to get a little paranoid :hmmm:

God Save the Queen

http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img91/5841/greatbritaincj6.gif

[Osmium Steele]

God Save the Queen

http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img91/5841/greatbritaincj6.gif

Why? Is she sick?:D

[TarJak]

Yeah she's sick of being reminded of British defeats.:O:

Oh OK so 1812 was probably more a draw that anything.

[Bilge_Rat]

In Canada, the war of 1812 is seen as a victory because American invasion attempts were repulsed. In 1812 and 1813, U.S. armies, often with a large numerical superiority attempted to overrun Ontario or Quebec, but were beaten by a handful of British regulars supported by local volunteers.

Next year will be the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Chateauguay where a British/Canadian force of 1500 defeated an American Army of 4,000 attempting to capture Montreal.

As to why Canadians stayed loyal to the Crown, 80-90% of the population was made up of Catholic French-Canadians. The most important local insitution at the time was the Catholic Church. The Church trusted the British who in 1763 had granted religious freedoms to Catholics, maintained french civil law and, more importantly, guaranteed the status of the Church.

The Church did not trust the U.S.A for a variety of reasons: fear of any revolutionary movement, especially after the excesses of the French Revolution; and fear of American protestant religious zealots which were (and still are :ping:) influential on the U.S. Government.

[Tribesman]

That would be British Canada in 1812 it was a British colony at the time not a free nation and at that time territory used by an enemy of the United Sates so it was not a stupid strategy.Also the British where threatening American trade prior to the war and these actions where the primary cause of the conflict.

Most of he primary causes of the war were settled before the war started, those that were not settled before the war started were still not settled when both sides called it a draw (or in "military terms" a waste of time) in their peace treaty.

Actually the US was ill prepared for the start yet we did still win the war you don't have to win every battle:

It was ill prepared at the start even though Madison and Congress had been planning it for a whole year before they declared whereas Britain was commited elsewhere and totally unprepared on that front. And they didn't win, it says so in the peace treaty of status quo which your government agreed to.

The War of 1812 gave a dramatic boost to the manufacturing capabilities of the United States.
what has a wartime boost to domestic manufacturing got to do with the devestation of its international trade?
Plus of course the temporary boost in domestic manufacturing for local consumption led to a post war slump in that very sector when the import market re-opened.
But hey going from nearly a million tons down to 60,000 in your primary business over 3 years must be good for finances eh?

In the end it was the actions of the British government that caused the war in the first place to protect its sovereignty the US had no choice but to declare war.
In the end it was both government playing silly buggers that caused the war, but that is normally the case isn't it.



Don't make me refer you to my old thread in which I thoroughly refuted that argument.
But Steve it doesn't refute that arguement and doesn't even go near the trade angle (which lets face it was the other war aim)

Control of the lakes is no good without control of the land and control of the land is no good without control of the lakes.
Since the main US aim of the whole fiasco from the very start was to sieze upper and lower canada through a land invasion, the fact that the land invasions got battered repeatedly means they got their butt kicked.

Overcoming the Provincial Marine was a good achievement, but not unexpected given the nature of that arm and it was still useless in real terms as the aim was not to control the lakes but to sieze the land.



Starting to get a little paranoid
You are not paranoid, it is true, but they are trying to keep it secret from you.

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, the Americans thought to take Canada, or at least get the Canadians to join them, and we failed. The other side is what the British expected, which was to either bring America back into the fold or to teach us a lesson we'd never forget. As Wellington pointed out, they only thing he could accomplish would be to sign the peace treaty they should already be signing anyway. As far as Britain's goals were concerned America won that war hands down, no question, no argument. Britain lost everything they tried to gain and helped set America on the road to greatness.

[Tribesman]

I see you guys are ignoring me. I have to quote myself directly:

Not at all. look at that first bit and see the problem straight away. you can break it all down into all or any of the stated aims, look at each one.
two simple questions then follow.
1. was it sorted beforehand?
if yes then discard, if no then question 2.
2.was it sorted in the peace treaty?
if yes line it up in the win category if no put it with all the war aims you already threw in the discard pile.

If you then look at a big pile of discards and bugger all in the win category then the only answer is status quo


damn, you edited. you mean the aims they took on later.

[Sailor Steve]

Not at all.
I realize you had addressed that and was already rewriting before you posted. Bad thing about the interwebs: They let you cross your wires before you even know it's happening.

And it's all a matter of perspective. If by "the aims they took on later" you mean "the victor writes the history", then you have to concede that we won. :O:

[Bilge_Rat]

.. America won that war hands down, no question, no argument.

Let me see if I understand this correctly.... the U.S. tried to invade Canada and failed miserably, even with overwhelming superiority, even losing the upper Mississippi region in the process all the way down to Missouri....then wound up fighting a desparate defensive battle to save New Orleans which turned out to be after the peace treaty had been signed anyway...and YOU WON !?!? :o

[Tribesman]

If by "the aims they took on later" you mean "the victor writes the history", then you have to concede that we won.
Naughty boy.

But you are right about perspective, after all the "big event" was really just a sideshow that arose due to another conflictand was settled when Britain sorted that other conflict.
Put it another way with another conflict, Britain achieved its war aims when it defeated vichy france after germany invaded poland. or maybe Britain lost the war because poland was still buggered by continuing occupation after 1945

[Karle94]

A victorius war is not measured by how many battles you`ve won, but by the goals achieved. Also, Britain gained ground in the east, while America gained territory in the west. Historians says that between America and Britain, it was a draw. The real loosers were the native Indians that fought for both sides.

[joegrundman]

Let me see if I understand this correctly.... the U.S. tried to invade Canada and failed miserably, even with overwhelming superiority, even losing the upper Mississippi region in the process all the way down to Missouri....then wound up fighting a desparate defensive battle to save New Orleans which turned out to be after the peace treaty had been signed anyway...and YOU WON !?!? :o

it's the magic of being american:D

[Stealhead]

it's the magic of being american:D

Well the British forces also where not aware that the treaty had been accepted so the Battle of New Orleans was not a miscommunication the treaty was not ratified by the Senate until February 16, 1815 the battle occurred on January 8, 1815. They did not have instant communication back in those days after all.

The British had already ratified it but until the other side does so as well the conflict is still on.There where troops in WWI that died just hours before the end. In those days the victor almost always got to keep any lands gained in battle so if the US had just allowed the British to take New Orleans they would have kept it more than likely.

[Tribesman]

In those days the victor almost always got to keep any lands gained in battle so if the US had just allowed the British to take New Orleans they would have kept it more than likely.

In those days the parties reached an agreement which settled the claims, who got to keep what from which battle or no battle was in the terms they negotiated and there certainly wasn't an "almost always" in those times as any treaty from then will show

[Sailor Steve]

A Britain gained ground in the east...
What ground?

[Karle94]

What ground?

Down towards Rhode Island and into DC. I don`t remember the details exactly.

[soopaman2]

Happy Status quo ante bellum day!
USA didn't get Canada, and you did not get to recolonize us.

Lol at you burning our capital, we rebuilt it better, and more grander. (just like our standing among nations, more grander)

Try it again. We will let the Pakis finish invading you!

(this post is satire, mind how tight you let your britches get.):O:

[August]

Let me see if I understand this correctly.... the U.S. tried to invade Canada and failed miserably, even with overwhelming superiority, even losing the upper Mississippi region in the process all the way down to Missouri....then wound up fighting a desparate defensive battle to save New Orleans which turned out to be after the peace treaty had been signed anyway...and YOU WON !?!? :o


You guys stopped illegally boarding our ships and kidnapping our sailors and you stopped getting the Indians to raid our frontier homesteads.

That's a win in my book.

[u crank]

Try it again. We will let the Pakis finish invading you!

We're thankful that you are between us and Mexico.:haha:

As a peace offering we give you Justin Bieber. Take him. Please take him.:O:

[soopaman2]

You guys stopped illegally boarding our ships and kidnapping our sailors and you stopped getting the Indians to raid our frontier homesteads.

That's a win in my book.

He's got a point.:salute:

We may have not accomplished what we set out to do initially. But impression did stop. And was a huge part of our grievances.

It seemed after we kicked your asses in 1776-78, you still felt the need to try to enslave us. That is (in modern terms) called "butthurt"

Taking advantage of our weak navy is so manly. (edit: Best navy in the world versus the newest nation with one maybe 2 shipyards) We did great IMHO

I welcome you to try now, we won't be as easy as the Falklands.
(most of us are armed today)

[Tribesman]

You guys stopped illegally boarding our ships and kidnapping our sailors and you stopped getting the Indians to raid our frontier homesteads.

That's a win in my book.
There was no illegal boarding of ships to start with, the practice of boarding was not even mentioned in the settlement, however the contentious orders of council had stopped before the war even started.
Impressment of sailors continued to be practiced and like wise was not mentioned in the peace treaty.
Looks like "your book" is mainly fiction.

But impression did stop.
Impression continued to be on the books until the navy was downsized

[soopaman2]

Thanks for at least admitting GB thought the new USA as rubbish, and worth trying to (re) enslave like Ivory coast Negroes.

Not people, but a resource, and you wonder why we shot at ya.?

Impression was despicable.

I dare you to try it again, not being malicious, just pointing out that the one wearing the pants can change over time.

Just saying, not trying to start a flame war.:salute:

I love mother Britain, she gave me my language, and my natural sense of defiance.

God bless the Queen, no joke.:)

[Tribesman]

Thanks for at least admitting GB thought the new USA as rubbish, and worth trying to (re) enslave like Ivory coast Negroes.

Article 10:know:

Impression was despicable.

Who was he trying to do?

I dare you to try it again, not being malicious, just pointing out that the one wearing the pants can change over time.

Geography lesson?

[Sailor Steve]

Down towards Rhode Island and into DC. I don`t remember the details exactly.
They marched across the land and burned four buildings, then retreated before any opposing forces could catch them. The took no ground and went back to where they started. They gained nothing. They tried to reconquer America and failed. Their most legendary general tried to tell them they couldn't win and and refused to lead their army when asked. Tell me again what they "took".

There was no illegal boarding of ships to start with
I would refer you back to the 'Chesapeake Incident' which started the thread I refered to. A British warship attacked an inferior American warship in peacetime and took four sailor off. One of them was a British runaway. The other three were Americans. Was that legal? The British took sailors off of American merchants with impunity. Was that legal?

[Stealhead]

He's got a point.:salute:

Taking advantage of our weak navy is so manly. (edit: Best navy in the world versus the newest nation with one maybe 2 shipyards) We did great IMHO




You do realize that Royal Navy was much more heavily concerned with the French Navy during this time period and the time period leading up to The War of 1812.So it was not as David vs. Goliath as you claim.The US Navy was not facing the entire Royal Navy.The US Navy won some naval battles but also got soundly stomped in others and generally speaking both navies performed fairly well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Third_Coalition Edit: I meant this link;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars

Of 41ish:DL naval battles the US won 24 the UK won 13 though if you read of the numbers involved in each battle several where very much in one side or the others favor(no wonder they won) many where a single ship vs. a single ship as well.Both sides also won battles in which the odds where greatly stacked against them as well. I would say that both the US Navy and the Royal Navy gave pretty good account of themselves all things considered.

Read about each one here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles_of_the_War_of_1812

What is your opinion?after you read about each battle of course.

[August]

The Canadians like to display a lot of national pride for repelling the Yankee hordes but the truth is that we didn't go to war over Canada. If the British weren't kidnapping our citizens and pushing the Indians into raiding our frontier we never would have invaded. That was just a way of waging war against England. A military excursion against assets that we could get at. We certainly weren't going to land an army in Liverpool. Not like we could have held either if we had though.

No, we won the war of 1812 by surviving it intact. We bloodied the nose of the premier military power of the age and we got away with it. We forced them to respect our flag and our sovereignty. That is victory.

[Tribesman]

I would refer you back to the 'Chesapeake Incident' which started the thread I refered to. A British warship attacked an inferior American warship in peacetime and took four sailor off. One of them was a British runaway. The other three were Americans. Was that legal? The British took sailors off of American merchants with impunity. Was that legal?

Peacetime?
This was during the naploleonic wars, was it in the brief period between the 2nd and 3rd coilition?

One Runaway?
wasn't it 4 of them, were they deserters from British ships and was one of them also a British citizen as well as a deserter?

Legal?
Had the US authorities in port and the US authorities on the USS Chesapeake both been served with legal papers over the matter?

Impunity?
It wasn't with impunity was it?

Legal?
When it was within the law it was wasn't it?


No, we won the war of 1812 by surviving it intact. We bloodied the nose of the premier military power of the age and we got away with it. We forced them to respect our flag and our sovereignty. That is victory.
Some people just can't be happy with a draw:rotfl2:
So North korea won the war as it is intact. America won in Vietnam as it is intact Britain lost WW1&2 because it broke up parts of it. :doh:
The flag and soveriegnty issue relates to maritime matters, these were not even addressed in the peace treaty.
After the war when these same issues arose America said Oh OK you can still do that to American ships under the American flag, but you can't also do it in that other place as that port has a dutch flag and is under their jurisdiction.....comes back nicely to legality and impunity doesn't it:yeah:

[Oberon]

To be fair Tribesman, the other three chaps we nabbed from the Chesapeake were press-ganged into Royal Navy service. The legality of that, in hindsight, is somewhat debatable, and indeed was quite distasteful to Americans of the time.

Furthermore, the Leopard barely gave the Chesapeake notice to stand down before she gave a full broadside.

However, we did offer to return (and did return) all three of the American citizens and pay reparations.

[Bilge_Rat]

No, we won the war of 1812 by surviving it intact. We bloodied the nose of the premier military power of the age and we got away with it. We forced them to respect our flag and our sovereignty. That is victory.

ex post facto rationalisations. Whatever grievances the US had against Britain, the US declared war and planned to seize Canada. Not only did they not succeed, they wound up fighting defensive battles just to avoid losing chunks of their own territory. Only Americans would see this as a victory. :O:

[Sailor Steve]

Peacetime?
This was during the naploleonic wars, was it in the brief period between the 2nd and 3rd coilition?
Britain and France were at war. That makes it okay to poach on neutral shipping? No wonder we wanted to get away from you jackwagons! :O:

One Runaway?
wasn't it 4 of them, were they deserters from British ships and was one of them also a British citizen as well as a deserter?
Only one was a British deserter:
Affidavits were produced which proved that two of them, William Ware and John Strahan, were born in Delaware. The third, Daniel Martin, had been brought from South America as an indentured servant. Martin and Ware were both of African descent. Madison finally contested to Erskine that it was against American law for US citizens to enlist in a foreign belligerent service while America was neutral, so they had to remain in US custody. There was also a real British deserter aboard the Chesapeake, Jenkin Ratford, alias John Wilson, who had deserted from HMS Halifax. Wilson was known to have laughed at his former officers on the streets of Norfolk, and dared them to try to get him back

Legal?
Had the US authorities in port and the US authorities on the USS Chesapeake both been served with legal papers over the matter?
That makes it legal to open fire on a neutral warship without warning or provocation? Maybe it's a good thing you lost your empire.

Impunity?
It wasn't with impunity was it?
Neutral. No warning. Not impunity in the long run, but as far as Commodore Barron was concerned there were no consequences involved

Legal?
When it was within the law it was wasn't it?
What law? British law? "I'm bigger than you and there's nothing you can do about it." law?

Some people just can't be happy with a draw:rotfl2:
And some people only see what they want to, and conveniently miss the rest. I'm perfectly happy with a draw. My comments are only to Anglophiles who keep insisting we "lost". Nothing more, nothing less.

So North korea won the war as it is intact. America won in Vietnam as it is intact Britain lost WW1&2 because it broke up parts of it. :doh:
Now you're using the same tactics as those you so often deride in this forum. Those examples have nothing to do with this discussion. But, since you brought it up, no, I don't believe America "won" in Vietnam, and for exactly the same reasons Britain didn't "win" in America. First, it was a bad war in the first place, and we should never have been there. Second, sustaining a war in a country where even the so-called "friendlies" don't want you is close to impossible. The parallels are striking. In both cases even if the invader had won they would have been shackled with the impossiblilty of managing a people who hated them. In Iraq we won the war in a matter of weeks, and we've been losing the "peace" for more than a decade. We taught the British a lesson in 1812 that we failed to learn ourselves 150 years later.

The flag and soveriegnty issue relates to maritime matters, these were not even addressed in the peace treaty.
After the war when these same issues arose America said Oh OK you can still do that to American ships under the American flag, but you can't also do it in that other place as that port has a dutch flag and is under their jurisdiction.....comes back nicely to legality and impunity doesn't it:yeah:
The details and ramifications are many, but the simple fact is that while the Americans failed in their attempts to get Canada to join us or to take it by force, the British completely failed in their attempts to subjugate America. Reread my William Cobbett quote if you believe otherwise.

[Oberon]

What law? British law? "I'm bigger than you and there's nothing you can do about it." law?

I believe that was common British law at the time, yes... :haha:

Then again, that's the common law of just about all large empires from the beginning of time to the present day. However, sometimes those large empires get a bloody nose from an unexpected corner. Most times, in fact.

[August]

ex post facto rationalisations. Whatever grievances the US had against Britain, the US declared war and planned to seize Canada. Not only did they not succeed, they wound up fighting defensive battles just to avoid losing chunks of their own territory. Only Americans would see this as a victory. :O:

Hmm, well the US's reasons for going to war against England in 1812 are well documented and existed long before the fact. Canada was an ancillary objective at best. Heck William Hull invaded with less than a 1000 untrained militia. That's hardly a serious attempt at capturing and holding such a huge territory. The Brits took almost 5000 professional troops to burn Washington and even then they had to beat feet back to their ships before we bumbled our way into cutting them off.

[August]

To be fair Tribesman, the other three chaps we nabbed from the Chesapeake were press-ganged into Royal Navy service. The legality of that, in hindsight, is somewhat debatable, and indeed was quite distasteful to Americans of the time.

Furthermore, the Leopard barely gave the Chesapeake notice to stand down before she gave a full broadside.

However, we did offer to return (and did return) all three of the American citizens and pay reparations.

That's one single incident among many Oberon. How about the Leander affair?

Blockading French ports is one thing, "confusion to boney" and all that, but anchoring frigates right in New York harbor and indiscriminately shooting cannonballs at civilian shipping while they stop, board and search everything afloat for stuff and people to steal is a bit over the top. :DL

[Oberon]

That's one single incident among many Oberon. How about the Leander affair?

Blockading French ports is one thing, "confusion to boney" and all that, but anchoring frigates right in New York harbor and indiscriminately shooting cannonballs at civilian shipping while they stop, board and search everything afloat for stuff and people to steal is a bit over the top. :DL

I defer to my earlier comment on 'British law' :03:

[August]

I defer to my earlier comment on 'British law' :03:

Exactly, and that is ultimately what the war of 1812 was about. Proving to England and everyone else that bullying us would now come with a cost.

[soopaman2]

To be fair Tribesman, the other three chaps we nabbed from the Chesapeake were press-ganged into Royal Navy service. The legality of that, in hindsight, is somewhat debatable, and indeed was quite distasteful to Americans of the time.

Furthermore, the Leopard barely gave the Chesapeake notice to stand down before she gave a full broadside.

However, we did offer to return (and did return) all three of the American citizens and pay reparations.

I did hear that as well, but I think with our rebellion being still somewhat fresh in the minds of both, the situation was escalated.

Britain thought they could push their will, and America thought we should teach them another lesson.

Enslavement is enslavement. Whether you did it to our sailors, or attempted to do it (again) to our nation.

We earned this, let us destroy ourselves accordingly.:D

Edit: But things always change, I like to think we are the best of friends now, and have no need to be hostile. We both got over it, and have bigger mutual fish to fry.:yeah:

[Oberon]

I fully agree, it was a foolhardy endeavour, but at that point Britain was still in the frame of mind of about six or seven decades earlier. It needed taking down a peg or two, and it was systematically done so in South Africa, China and Afghanistan over the next century, and then came the Great War and the end of the Empire.
Every empire runs up against a brick wall eventually, be it expansion through hard or soft power.

[Sailor Steve]

Of course the American state of mind was varied and complicated at that point. Under President Washington we tried to stay out of the British-French conflicts. His Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, didn't exactly support the British, but he didn't trust the French. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson wasn't happy with the bloody turn the French Revolution took, but he didn't trust the British. They fought about it incessantly. After Jefferson resigned his post Hamilton convinced the president that Britain was the lesser evil, and could actually protect their convoys. Washington sent John Jay to negotiate a treaty that gave away more than it gained, and Jefferson wrote a letter to a friend that became public, causing a falling-out between him and Washington.

While John Adams was president and Jefferson vice-president French ships preyed on Amercan merchants in French waters. There was a large public outcry demanding that we go to war with France. Adams kept us out of war, but waged an undeclared 'quasi-war'. Hamilton wanted the war, seemingly because he would be the commanding general which would set him up as a candidate for president. When Adams prevented that from happening Hamilton reacted by withdrawing his support in the next election, which Jefferson won.

During Jefferson's presidency the 'Chesapeake Affair' took place, which Jefferson countered with an embargo which hurt the United States more than anyone else. British sailors jumped ship because conditions were much better in the US Navy and merchant service. This continued to 1812 and you know the rest. I just wanted to point out that conditions on both sides were confused politically and both sides went into the war with no clear objectives, and it was pretty much a mess for everybody.

[Oberon]

The entire era was a mess, when you look at Europe and the fracturing and rebuilding of nations that took place, and then onwards to the American Civil War and eventually the tensions that broke into World War One.

[Stealhead]

The entire era was a mess, when you look at Europe and the fracturing and rebuilding of nations that took place, and then onwards to the American Civil War and eventually the tensions that broke into World War One.


One war leads to another then by what you say because the way WWI ended it only lead into WWII.As long as nations or even groups feel a threat to their hegemony they will wind up in a war sooner or later seems to me.How many wars occur in just one life time too many to count on all your fingers and toes.

[Tribesman]

Britain and France were at war. That makes it okay to poach on neutral shipping? No wonder we wanted to get away from you jackwagons!
Would you like to run through the issues of neutrality and shipping during that conflict?
Would you like to run through modern issues of neutrality and shipping during conflicts to get a gauge of consistancy through history?

Only one was a British deserter:

Read what I wrote about the 4.

That makes it legal to open fire on a neutral warship without warning or provocation?
I wasn't without warning.

Maybe it's a good thing you lost your empire.

Steve, would you like to join soopaman in a geography lesson?

Neutral. No warning. Not impunity in the long run, but as far as Commodore Barron was concerned there were no consequences involved

1&2 already done, impunity is impunity or it isn't impunity.

What law? British law? "I'm bigger than you and there's nothing you can do about it." law?

Last time we dealt with this topic the details were brought up.

And some people only see what they want to, and conveniently miss the rest. I'm perfectly happy with a draw. My comments are only to Anglophiles who keep insisting we "lost". Nothing more, nothing less.

That wasn't you being quoted, have you made claims like those quoted?

Now you're using the same tactics as those you so often deride in this forum. Those examples have nothing to do with this discussion. But, since you brought it up, no,
Those examples are pure nonsense to measure the level of nonsense in the specific claim they were directed at.

The details and ramifications are many, but the simple fact is that while the Americans failed in their attempts to get Canada to join us or to take it by force, the British completely failed in their attempts to subjugate America. Reread my William Cobbett quote if you believe otherwise.
Both failed and no one won, so who are you directing that at?

[Oberon]

One war leads to another then by what you say because the way WWI ended it only lead into WWII.As long as nations or even groups feel a threat to their hegemony they will wind up in a war sooner or later seems to me.How many wars occur in just one life time too many to count on all your fingers and toes.

Spot on, if you want to nail the actual start of it all...well...you'd probably have to go back to Roman times, if not earlier. Start of human history perhaps, war is something we excel at, and is a double edged sword (pardon the pun).

[Stealhead]

Spot on, if you want to nail the actual start of it all...well...you'd probably have to go back to Roman times, if not earlier. Start of human history perhaps, war is something we excel at, and is a double edged sword (pardon the pun).


I would say on a large scale at least to the Greeks and Persians.

[August]

I would say on a large scale at least to the Greeks and Persians.

It goes back much further than that. War has been a part of the human experience since forever.

[Stealhead]

I am aware of that which is why I said large scale the "stone age" type fighting more than likely mostly consisted of small skirmishes between groups you need an organized nation state to really have a large army.The Egyptians and Babylonians where the first to have large some what organized armies but they only fought mostly regional battles.The Greeks and the Persians where the first to have large armies that consisted at least partly of full time professionals and also to fight major conflicts that lasted years even decades.

[Betonov]

It goes back much further than that. War has been a part of the human experience since forever.

Since humans started cultivating land. Somehow when we were hunter-gatherers there was enough land and food, but when we started growing our own food wars arose.

[Stealhead]

I think before that what happens when two opposing hunter-gatherers wind up competing for the same resources? They shook hands? I doubt it.Now if one guy has fish and you have venison you will trade if you both want venison someone is getting an atl atl arrow to the face.

The groups that took longer to become cultivators(or that never did) are the ones that lost out in the long run because the societies that could produce their on food rather than forage where able to have full time warriors and full time farmers the hunter-gatherers they lacked this luxury so the hunter-gatherers got dominated by the farmers.

Ever read "Guns,Germs and Steal"?It is a very interesting book I used to discus this book with others in the military that had read it the author goes into great detail about this topic.For the hunter-gatherers combat was to be avoided if at all possible for the cultivators they where able to develop more advanced societies faster and therefore armies.Cultivation of food means that you produce an abundance of it which means that you can feed an army but you keep wanting more and more dominate those that are inferior get more land to cultivate build a bigger army.Of course it is a theory but it makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

[Betonov]

I think before that what happens when two opposing hunter-gatherers wind up competing for the same resources? They shook hands? I doubt it.

Probibly killed eachother. Problem is defining when two groups of men fighting formed from a forrest brawl into a war. Most likely when they started fighting so they held a teritory and not just one dead animal

[Stealhead]

Probibly killed eachother. Problem is defining when two groups of men fighting formed from a forrest brawl into a war. Most likely when they started fighting so they held a teritory and not just one dead animal


Probably so I imagine that most hunter-gather groups where fairy well spread out and knew of the others near by and probably respected each others land and traded it would probably have been a harsher than normal time that might cause a conflict two guys just fighting though I doubt they went out alone very often 4 or 5 can kill more game and bring it back more easily than one.

[joegrundman]

There's a new (not computer) wargame for The War of 1812 called "Amateurs, to Arms" (of course). I haven't tried it, but it looks good and seems to have had good reviews

http://www.clashofarms.com/

[Sailor Steve]

Looks good, but I wouldn't pay half what they're asking for it.

[Hottentot]

Since humans started cultivating land. Somehow when we were hunter-gatherers there was enough land and food, but when we started growing our own food wars arose.

It has a lot to do with the fact that people (let's call them "Group A") settled and started storing food instead of just consuming it and wandering in search for it. Then the other people ("Group B") figured out that there is lots of food in one place and that it might be easier to steal it from there.

So then Group A found out they need to be more organized to defend their food (and other stuff, the settlements were pretty obvious targets.) And Group B imagined they need to be more organized to have a chance against organized defense. And it went on and on.

[August]

Probibly killed eachother. Problem is defining when two groups of men fighting formed from a forrest brawl into a war. Most likely when they started fighting so they held a teritory and not just one dead animal

I think organized fighting started long before that. Remember the human capacity for greed and revenge. That single stolen kill can easily escalate into a clan war that results in the utter destruction of one side or the other.

[soopaman2]

The entire era was a mess, when you look at Europe and the fracturing and rebuilding of nations that took place, and then onwards to the American Civil War and eventually the tensions that broke into World War One.

Very good point. This was the age of enlightenment! We got better at blowing each other up, and republics was the new fad.

With gentlemen philosophers, came improved artillery and ironclads.

Britain was fooling around with Napoleon, and we saw an opening, with valid pretense mind you. Many men died in Europe with Nappys wars.

Then the American Civil War came about. 600k paid the price. But a good price (albeit sad, I find it pathetic many people would still go for slavery today), we in America are still fighting it. Some folks in the southern states still refuse to let it go 160-170 years later. And us in the northern states still make fun of them (tease) for it.:D (at least you know how the indians felt, maybe you can get casino funds too) Joking, it's crude, I know!
(you all know I am a jerk, it is mostly unintentional though)
WW1 seemed to be the last throes of Empire (Kaiser=Ceasar), and the point where the monarchist system began to die.

All these troubles seemed to have ended when monarchist families were minimized by the more people/vote oriented democratic systems that came about after WW1. (or at least became more common)

Go ahead and blast me about WW2, I blame Neville, and a brutal France on the treaty of Versaille. for that farce. Not monarchists, or republics.

Where are we today? Hand in hand. As time went on we realized we had alot in common despite out differences. :)

Very late edit: Me and Steves Geography is fine, maybe your viewpoint is the one that needs adjusting?
(Funny an Irishman, taking a Brits side, at least to me, they were way worse to you guys, than us)