Happy War of 1812 Day.

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]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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 !?!?

it's the magic of being american

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

it's the magic of being american

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Karle94

A Britain gained ground in the east...

What ground?

[Karle94]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.)

[August]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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 !?!?

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]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

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

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

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

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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)

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.

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

God bless the Queen, no joke.

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

Article 10

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]

Originally Posted by Karle94

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".

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?