Well, you'll probably never find an American book on the War of 1812 that will admit this, but "flimsy" is probably the most charitable word you could use to describe it.

For example, the US and France had fought a vicious and more-or-less undeclared naval war in the early 1800s, America suffering far worse depredations from her former ally than anything experienced at the hands of the Royal Navy, but at no point was there a rush to declare war. As for impressment, that was a matter for diplomatic handbag-swinging at best, and would have been the way most countries would have dealt with it.

US historian's attempts to cast the War of 1812 as a second War of Independence have had to rely on some very awkward contortionism on their part. Britain had no intention of retaking its former colonies. The idea is an insane fiction. It was fighting a war of survival in Europe and around the globe that had gone on in one form or another for the best part of 20 years. Still, for certain powerful Americans there was "unfinished business" with the Loyalists in Canada at the time, rich and poorly defended pickings just north of the border, and many Hawks saw the entirety of North America as their rightful, God-given property. Despite promises of land grants to victorious commanders, a good spanking from some Canadian militia put that idea to rest.

At Bladensburg and Washington, Madison, for all his martial bluster about defending the capital himself, ran like a rabbit leaving his wife and slaves to defend the White House. The fact that British soldiers were able to steal his clothes, hats, and valuables - even his love letters - eat the victory banquet prepared in advance, and then burn his home to the ground provides a reason for talking up the subsequent American victory at the (ultimately meaningless) Battle of New Orleans. I've even seen it described as "one of the biggest defeats ever suffered by the British Empire", when in reality it was pretty much a skirmish by the standards of what Britain was engaged in on the continent at the time.

In short, War Hawks, high as gas sniffers on the fumes of Anglophobia, feelings of national superiority, and the expansionist dreams that led to Manifest Destiny, almost managed to wreck the union by pushing New England to the brink of secession, destroyed US coastal trade for years, wasted thousands of lives, and only narrowly avoided a defeat. The US Navy, despite earlier winning some highly-publicised single-ship actions by virtue of having bigger and better-armed ships, ended the war blockaded in port.

Shorter version: a war for sailor's rights that the US attempted to secure by launching a land invasion of central Canada.

(taught as a great American victory in US schools to this day)

Maybe that kind of thinking is why you people lost your empire. The kidnapping and enslavement of our citizens by a foreign power is just about the best justification for a war declaration that I could think of ready or not.

If you really think it's merely a diplomatic issue then go ahead and try it now. We'll give you some diplomacy all right. :shucks:

As for your take on Madison, i'd say that's at best an unfair assessment of his efforts and troll bait at worst. Madison did all that he could have done given the military and political situation at the time, and while the English might have burned our capital in the war of 1812, (not to mention occupying our capital during our War of Independence) the fact remains that England fought for and lost America, twice, and in doing so shed a lot of American blood. Your nation is darned lucky that we didn't side with Germany during WW1 because of that history.

Post of the year....if we weren't on the same SubSim committee and ineligable to vote :rock:

Aaaaand the "My side is better than yours" game starts again.

First, the depredations were about equal from both sides, poaching on unescorted American merchants. Washington tried to maintain neutrality, but Hamilton pushed him into the Jay treaty, which royally ticked off the French.

No rush to declare war? Hamilton and his Federalists pushed, cajoled and threatened John Adams to declare war, but Adams steadfastly refused. This cost him Hamilton's support in the next election, and the election itself, with Hamilton writing articles accusing Adams of wanting war, rather than the other way around.

We tried. For years. You refused to listen, or to talk.

Not really, since the Americans of that time, right or wrong, saw it that way.

I said there was a faction in Britain who preached that. And now I don't have my books, so for I can't give a reference. I never said that was a goal of the country or the government, nor do I believe it.

And that led them to embargo France, forbidding American ships from trading with the French. We saw that as an attack on our sovereignty.

Certainly true.

"A good spanking?" I agree with your assessment, the US militia pretty much sucked. But you sound like King George III himself, talking about "recalcitrant children". A good debate is lowered when you become grandiose.

He was in danger. They weren't. Pretty much the same as during the Revolution when Tarleton invaded Virginia. During his presidential campaign Jefferson was accused of cowardice, but it didn't stick, probably because the accusers were members of the legislature who cleared out first.

But if the British had taken New Orleans they would have controlled the Mississippi River, halting westward American expansion and containing us to the eastern seaboard. Pretty darned important skirmish.

British apologists always talk about the "bigger and better-armed ships", but ignore the battle where Constitution fought against two British ships and still won. And eluded an entire squadron through good seamanship and shiphandling. No, we didn't do them any damage, but we sure tweaked their noses, and British newspapers were demanding heads over the very idea. And Americans like to point out that Shannon beat Chesapeake because Chesapeake's crew weren't properly trained and Shannon was commanded by the man who literally wrote the book on naval gunnery, but I say the Brits won that one fair and square, and the capture of USS President was also fair, even though she was outnumbered three to one.

That's both arrogant and condescending, and bad debate to boot. If you read my link you would read quotes from the British, including the Iron Duke himself, explaining exactly what the Americans did win. But that seems to be too much trouble.

I love that I've stirred up this vigorous debate. It's entertaining AND I'm learning.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1KTWDOjOu_...t-mr-burns.gif

Yet there was the counter justification for war of harbouring fugitives and supplying false documents.
Even before the outbreak the Sec. of the Treasury said there were at least 5000 british sailors(all liable for service in the RN) onboard american vessels.

But with the Milan decrees American ships were no longer considered neutral, this led to France seizing over 200 American ships. No war with France followed that attack on soveriegnty

Link or quote, please.

And I've already explained why the war was only 'quasi'.

I will have to lookup Gallatins quote

check the dates for the start and end of the quasi war then check the date of the decree.

A.D. 313?

Oh, not that Milan Decree.

It did lead to a reciprocal statement that all British and French shipping in American ports would be seized. Why no war? I'm not sure. It could be that we were trying to avoid any involvement in European matters. We also put off war with Britain that same year despite the Chesapeake affair.

So no, I don't know.

[edit] Oh, I forgot.
Not necessary in this case. I recall reading about it in the Jefferson books. I'm pretty sure that at that time we were more than willing to help anyone wanting to flee British "tyranny". Conditions for sailors in the US Navy were far better than in the Royal Navy at that time. Were we wrong? That's arguable either way, and I don't really blame the British, even for the impressments. Sure it was arrogant, to say the least, but to their minds it was also both warranted and necessary.

Consider the challenge accepted, colonial manque! I shall order the Empire's fleet into action at once!

Apart from the obvious absurdity of your statement, the sight of a man doing the internet equivalent of standing up from a bar-room table and theatrically rolling up his sleeves for a "square go" is baffling. I can practically see steam coming out the ears like a Tex Avery cartoon as you prepare to give the arrogant Movie Brits a collective cherry nose while "Johnny Comes Marching Home" plays in the background.

This bit is only worth repeating to state the fact that the empire was given back (to the people who really owned it), and that no one under the age of about 80 really remembers it.

:haha:

August, you really do an Olympic-class job of coming across as an insecure trumpet in that post.

It honestly was not my intention to wind you up, but the result could not have been improved as an example of the type even with liberal references to tea and oral hygiene.

"Spanking" in this sense is another example of the British idiom. It simply means a seeing off, and often appears in reference to the result of sports games.

I did read your post in fact. I also think that Wellesley's reputation is only enhanced by his lack of involvement in the war.

It took you that long to respond with this witty reply? And who says the English are slow? :roll:

Ah, I see. Here "A good spanking" is the same as a "smackdown", as in "We showed you who's boss, loser!"

I couldn't agree more. The man was the best of his time, and we would have done well to heed his words in 1964.

I don't know, who does say that? Cos, y'know, I'm not English.

Some people have speculated that the British might have had more successes, great ones even, had Wellington been present and in command in North America at the time. I personally doubt this very much. There was no way that Britain was going to make serious inroads without far more men, heavy equipment, horses, ships of the Royal Navy, etc. - even then, the inescapable logistical problems of conducting a campaign over 3,000 miles of Atlantic, combined with a hostile population, make a crushing victory of the kind Wellington excelled in unlikely.

On this day, I read posts as such, tomorrow when I have proper installation, I shall add. :shifty:

glad it's over

I trouble you to ask what you are glad is over? the revolution war or the thread topic in question! :hmmm:

:har: So it begins. Proclamation I do hereby declare, all indentured servants and lurkers, or others, that are able and willing to bear arms (with words), FREE ! They joining his majesty's troops as soon as may be!!! :yep: 342 crates of tea ruined by the sons of liberty, at the cost of £10,000 British pounds. :cry: @ August, you fired the shot that echoed out across the forum. ;)

I agree with this sentiment, insofar as even a hundred years later, we - the US and the UK - saw how difficult it was to support an army deployed in major conflict overseas across that same 3,000 miles in far more modern ships. For Britain to support any kind of major offensive on such short notice in the States would have been monumentally difficult, and in otherwise perfect circumstances, even one moderate American Naval success against such sea- and transport- power would have had shattering ramifications in London. Add in all the other things going on, a large-scale extracurricular excursion into the States would have been too great a stretch, and a politically dangerous risk as well.

As to Wellington's fitness for combat in North America, I have to wonder whether that skilled a field general would have performed as admirably in the more no-holds-barred environment of North America.

Good question, and I think the answer lies in whether he was successful because he knew the rules better than anyone else and stuck to them, or because he knew how to read the situation and adapt to it. I'd like to think the latter, but perhaps his reluctance was also because he knew his own limitations. We'll never know, but spectulation is always fun.