MovieChat Forums > U-571 (2000) Discussion > Question to those arguing the War of 181...

Question to those arguing the War of 1812


This question is addressed to the Americans and Britons who have made reasonable arguments about the War of 1812 (and the American Revolution as well). I am currently working on my master's degree in military history. Yes, my school is in the United States, but one of the topics that keeps cropping up in my classes is objectivity and the validity of the sources one cites. So I would like to know if anyone has given any thought to the fact that American history textbooks and British history textbooks have very different slants on the War of 1812? Maybe the American Revolution and World War II as well? Perhaps that is why there is so much dissension here? If there are any Brits out there who could tell me what their secondary school history textbooks were I would love to do more research on that. Thanks everyone!

P.S. Please believe that I respect every point of view!

reply

According to British history, the War of 1812 was a sideshow. They were far more interested in Napoleon. There is no doubt that there are different slants, which happens in all history books, though most people are mostly objective at this point.

Case in point: by now it should be clear that the War of 1812 was a land grab by the President Madison. There was a reason it was called "Mr. Madison's War" for a while there. Other than that, and possibly trade concerns, the War of 1812 was mostly pointless in that the treaty set the boundaries back to status quo ante bellum. Most current scholars accept that, be they British, American, or Canadian.

This is not to say that Gen. Brock wasn't awesome or that the US scored some impressive naval victories or that people burned lots of stuff on both sides (notably York [now Toronto] and the White House). :-)

reply

Yes in Britain we're tought more about the Napoleonic wars than the war of 1812, although my teacher always points out that we burned down the white house.

reply

Thanks Sagajagan. Obviously the War of 1812 is given a little more importance in the US but the emphasis in our textbooks is on the Battle of New Orleans and how the result of that battle discouraged the British from going to war with the United States again.

reply

SL1992- I don't think the Battle of New Orleans discouragee the British from going to war with the USA again, regardless of what US textbooks state. It was hardly a battle that the US forces won decisively on a level field was it? The US forces were hunkered down behind fortifications with the British forces being forced to attack in the open, hardly surprising therefore that the British took heavy casualaties. The British army had already shown it could beat US forces during both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 so the Battle of New Orleans wouldn't have changed that view.
The British simply didn't want to fight their ex-colonists in the first place whether it was in 1776 or 1812 and had no reason to seek a future war that would only disrupt trade.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

reply

With all due respect Hotrodder, I have to disagree. Were not those British troops the crack veterans from the Peninsular Campaign? Were they not led by Wellington's own brother-in-law Packenham? (Not that being related to someone great by marriage necessarily makes you great) And if the British realized that a frontal assault didn't always have the desired results (case in point Battle of Bunker Hill - I know, I know, the Americans lost that one), why didn't they choose a different method of attack? Obviously they thought their way was the right way. And quite frankly, if the British had beat U.S. forces in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, why is the United States an independent nation from Great Britain and not a commonwealth?

Concerning trade, Britain wasn't hurt by the embargo the United States enacted in 1807 (at least not as much as the United States was) so I doubt the British were that concerned about that issue.

However, I am willing to be convinced otherwise so I look forward to your next response.

reply

You rather miss my point- the British won battles in both the American War of Independence and The war of 1812, most of them in point of fact. Whether we eventually won the first war or not is irrelelevant in that context and as Britain had no intention of seizing the colonies back it is irrelevant in the second too.
You're suggesting that if the British forces suffered a serious defeat in battle with an opponent that they then avoided further conflict with the victor, which is clearly ridiculous as Britain's armies have suffered defeats before and since- some worse than the Battle of New Orleans- and still carried on the fight, the aftermath of the Battle of France and the evacuation at Dunkirk springs immediately to mind but there are others. Being given a good drubbing in a battle has done little over the centuries to stop the British continuing to fight and more often than not, winning it. To suggest that the Battle of New Orleans convinced the British that the Americans were too strong for them to fight against is arrogant nonsense, the British have faced far stronger foes than the Americans both before and since the Battle of New Orleans.
Trade is where you find it, the USA was a future lucrative trading prospect, the British Empire was more one based on exploiting trade wherever possible than a conquering one and having the Americans as a possible market was far better than having them a enemies, but at the time fighting the Napoleonic Wars was a somewhat more pressing matter.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

reply

Well, I don't think we are ever going to agree Hotrodder but I appreciate your point of view. Happy Holidays!

reply

Aye, Merry Christmas to you too!
Just to end this little debate (if you want!). Consider your proposal- the British were so defeated at one battle that they wouldn't consider fighting that opponent again. The history of the British armed forces disproves that theory time and again. British forces have suffered grievous defeats and then still went to battle with the same foe again. The real trick is to be the last one standing when it's all over despite losing some times! And the British have won most of their wars so that's one trick they managed often!

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

reply

Who cares if the British won battles. The resultant is the overall war. Pretty much every conflict between any two people, tribes, cities, states, nations or whatever wins some sort of battle. You're just completely overlooking the point that the British LOST.

Check out my videos! http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=FilmMiracle

reply

Who cares if the British won battles. The resultant is the overall war. Pretty much every conflict between any two people, tribes, cities, states, nations or whatever wins some sort of battle. You're just completely overlooking the point that the British LOST.




As it's the season of goodwill and stuff, I'll keep this polite....


You're a f!ckin' moron!


Well polite-ish anyway!

reply

[deleted]

That's funny. I don't think it's very nice. I think the person poster you're replying to is totally wrong, but I never think it's good to say things like that, BUT it made me laugh.


Some people are worth having the error of their thinking explained to them in detail when they're wrong and some people aren't, I judged him as the latter, so he got the simplified version.

reply

[deleted]

In what way did the British lose, Miriclemaker? I'm very intrigued to know!

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

reply

[deleted]

You were kith and kin (in those days at least) it would have been stupid flogging that particular horse. Also the American colonies were expensive to administer. Hence the tea tax etc., a perfectly reasonable request to ofset these costs. In any case, on the North American continent Canada was the real cherry on the cake, in terms of resources, as it is now! Gutted though most Yanks are when this is mentioned. No, I think overall you were better on your own, make your own mistakes etc. Mistreating all your native Americans, shooting (almost) all the buffalo etc. The British Empire was too big, our more competent men spread out thinly enough. The divestation of slavery from our system was, I have to say, much easier without George Washington and his buddies in our political system. Thats what he was fighting for! Maintenance of slavery! Liberty for the slaveowners! I still love you guys. This Internet would be boring if it was'nt for the US contribution. Live long!

reply

"on the North American continent Canada was the real cherry on the cake, in terms of resources, as it is now!"

You're quite ignorant. The U.S has 10 times the population of Canada principally because of its vastly greater resources.

reply

You are sadly mistaken, friend. The Brits most certainly did not lose the War of 1812. In fact the US failed in all of it's aims except stopping the impressment of American sailors.

reply

Obviously the War of 1812 is given a little more importance in the US but the emphasis in our textbooks is on the Battle of New Orleans and how the result of that battle discouraged the British from going to war with the United States again.


Then your text books should be burned, the result of the Battle of New Orleans is more to do with a moment of insanity from Pakenham than any American Military prowess, relying on fog to hide his approach, fog which lifted, exposing the slow moving British Soldiers to heavy artillery and musket fire, anyone with any sort of common sense can see that the Battle of New Orleans was a British Military blunder, even those British Soldiers who managed to survive the onslaught and reach the City found they couldn't scale the defenses because the daft buggers forgot to carry ladders with them, if the battle had been on an open field then yes it would have been an impressive U.S victory, but as it stands, it was a U.S victory brought about by British blunders and therefore wouldn't have had the psychological effect on the British Military mind like your comic..er I mean text books are trying to imply, the War was a stalemate and the British Soldier consistently outperformed his American counterpart in open battle throughout the War, Great Britain had lost Wars to more powerful Nations (with more effecient Soldiers) than the U.S was at the time and as Hotrodder has already pointed out, didn't think twice about going to war with them again in future conflicts.

reply

I have to ask, if Packenham was so miserable a commander and strategist, why is he honored for this battle with a memorial at St. Paul's? No sarcasm; I'm truly interested in the reasoning behind that.

My conclusion on the battle of New Orleans is that the result was a combination of Packenham's blunders (I agree with you on that point) AND Jackson's preparations for the battle.

I'll take the opportunity to say that I really admire your patriotism (Hotrodder's too for that matter) and your willingness to stand up for your country. Obviously I feel the same way about mine. I sometimes think it is a dying trait these days.

Final thought about U-571 - I really did dislike this movie and my primary problem with it WAS the fact that it lied about the events concerning Enigma. In fact when I realized that was the direction the movie was taking my first reaction was, "It was the British that got the Enigma codebooks from a u-boat." Just wanted to let everyone know that not all Americans are ignorant, and hopefully you no longer want to go to war with us! :)

reply

I have to ask, if Packenham was so miserable a commander and strategist, why is he honored for this battle with a memorial at St. Paul's? No sarcasm; I'm truly interested in the reasoning behind that.


As I say a moment of insanity, Pakenham in general wasn't a bad Commander, New Orleans was definitely an off day.

My conclusion on the battle of New Orleans is that the result was a combination of Packenham's blunders (I agree with you on that point) AND Jackson's preparations for the battle.


That seems like a fair way of putting things, the fortifications that Jackson managed to erect definitely played a huge part, without them Pakenham wouldn't have needed to use the fog and the raggy army of Slaves, Pirates and Militia Jackson commanded would have been slaughtered by the Peninsular veterans facing them Which would have been well understood by both sides and therefore it's a bit daft to suggest that one battle, which was poorly planned and executed by a General who should have known better would have had such an effect on the British as to make them think "cor blimey, we best not go to War with those Yanks again" remembering that the War of 1812 wasn't a war the British wanted in the first place, the U.S declared War, not the British.

I'll take the opportunity to say that I really admire your patriotism (Hotrodder's too for that matter) and your willingness to stand up for your country. Obviously I feel the same way about mine. I sometimes think it is a dying trait these days.


Thanks, but it isn't patriotism, well not entirely, I just hate seeing things misrepresented or painted in a completely one sided way.

reply

Fair enough.

Here's a description of a class I will be taking in the next year:

MILH639 / LW514 - America's Early Conflicts (Post-Revolution)

"This course is a military history of the United States at war between 1789 and 1815 to include the social, economic, political, diplomatic, and operational aspects of the Quasi War, the Barbary States conflict, and the War of 1812. This course includes the study of the battles and campaigns, contemporary strategies and tactics, weapons and technology of the day, and the experiences of the soldier and the civilian. An emphasis is placed upon the land campaigns of the War of 1812. [ 3 Semester Hours ]"

So I may start this debate anew because no doubt I will learn exactly what happened without a doubt!!! :)

Merry Christmas!

(And as a tribute to the British I will be serving English trifle for dessert on Christmas)

reply

Merry Christmas!


To you and yours also

(And as a tribute to the British I will be serving English trifle for dessert on Christmas)


Make sure you have plenty of Custard or if you want to sound posh "La Creme Anglaise"

reply

No Francais s'il vous plait! (Maybe the US and UK should have teamed together to defeat the French in 1812)

"Make sure you have plenty of Custard or if you want to sound posh "La Creme Anglaise"

Gobs of real custard made with cream, not milk. It will be almost as good as any Brit would make it.

Also plenty of alcohol will be served so I can endure the relatives :)

reply

[deleted]

No apology necessary. Hotrodder is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. We should be thankful that both the British and the Americans live in societies where they can freely express their opinions.

Besides, even if Americans did have a problem with him (which I think only a few do), we wouldn't judge the entire British population by him. I certainly don't think every female in Britain is like Hyacinth Bouquet!

P.S. Do you know Hotrodder?

reply

[deleted]

SouthernLibrarian1992- luxurycat is a stalker, following me around the boards just in order to insult me. Ignore him please as he has nothing worthwhile to contribute, other than conspiracy theories and wild fantasies. He claims for example that Britain deliberately planned and started both WW1 and WW2 for personal gain. Loopy or what?

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

reply

[deleted]

Luxurycat=Stalker.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

reply

[deleted]

If Britain was really interested in the Americas at that time she would have forced brilliant men like Wellington to go there with seasoned troops from the European theatre and perhaps even India.

But stopping Napoleon (after all, without France America would still be British) and taking the Indian Sub-Continent with all it's resources and trade was far more interesting to Britain than the US. Even the war of independence was only won with French help and the fact that Britain had just fought a big war with France in the Americas (which the Americans were happy to join in with but not to pay for afterwards).

In Britain I was taught it was a rather pointless war that achieved very little but that we burned the US Capitol and sent a message to the US that invading Canada was out of the question.

N.


You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts

reply

XD lol yeah, when I read that in my history book I was like "dude wtf...so not cool England =P"

reply

[deleted]

Here's another American's viewpoint on the War of 1812. Yes, I did learn about the war in school in my youth but I was never clear on the outcome. A lot of years have passed since and I finally questioned it. I mean I literally questioned everyone I knew (It was actually more of a poll.) I asked around at work, queried friends and relatives, and no one knew what it was about or who won. But, everyone had learned about it. Shows you how much it blipped on our radar. So, yeah, I agree with your take on it.

Here in the U.S., I feel we have problems enough with keeping our own history consistent within our own states. Additionally having the problem of each state "reinforcing" their part in U.S. history. I live in Texas and I think we're the most guilty of "stroking" ourselves. I'm sure we look like egotistical boobs to the rest of the world.

On that note, you mentioned the Alamo. I'm curious as to what you've learned about it. It's not something I thought would be known much outside the U.S., besides the name "Alamo".



reply

[deleted]

The Brits burned the White House and the Yanks burned York (Toronto) - call it a draw.

The Yanks captured Niagara Falls and the Brits captured Detroit. Advantage Yanks.

In the end, everything was swapped back. Good trade for the Brits.

reply

To limit this to a discussion to a Britain and American war is unfair to the Canadians and the Indians such as Tecumseh who fought.

reply


America is a country with just over 200 years of history, so of course it'll be relevant more to Amercans than the British, who have nearly a 1000 years of history.

Thats what I think anyway


"We're on an express elevator to hell, going down!" - Hudson

reply

"The Brits burned the White House and the Yanks burned York (Toronto) - call it a draw."

Who cares about Toronto? Americans don't neither do the British! Americans burned on York (Toronto) first, aslong with looting and burning private homes and warehouse (which is a war crime at the time). When is British captured Washington and burned the White House,it is class still today as 'the greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms' And it was us Brits that cause the biggest disgrace to your proud Nation!

And the British was more interested in defeating Napoleon. So if we didn't fought against Napoleon at the same time, we would most likely have made USA part of the British Empire again. And no you didn't save us from both of the World Wars!

reply

"And no you didn't save us from both of the World Wars! "

lolz, yea we did. Sorry, sometimes the truth is undesirable. That doesn't mean that the American's won it on their own, or did the most to ensure victory, that would be Great Britian, who definately showed their greatness during those two wars. The Brits fought tooth and nail, and performed brilliantly and basically carried the allies on their back for the majority of both wars. But despite how amazing the British were, they could not have carried the allies alone forever. They needed the US to become involved on their side, they needed fresh soldiers and supplies. The UK was melting down iron railings, and having people melt down their pots and pans, which is just wow. They could not have continued alone and been victorious. So while saying "We saved your butts in WWI & II" isn't the nicest way of putting it, in essence it's true. There is no shame in needing the help of an ally when fighting multiple foes, so stop being so bitter about it and treat us like the true friends we are, we could have easily kept our isolationalist policy, but we didn't. -_-


As for 1812, Who cares? Lol so minor. No one cares about it because it ended in a draw.

Only worthwhile things from that war is it gave the US it's national anthem (great poem, horrible as a song -_- thanks alot) and that after that the UK and US decided to be friends. haha nice.

"The lessons of the war were taken to heart. Anti-American sentiment in Britain ran high for several years, but the United States was never again refused proper treatment as an independent power."

-Winston Churchill

To the wacky idea that the Battle of New Orleans scared of the British, I suggest you check the time line. That battle happened AFTER the war ended. They didn't recieve word in time that the war was over.
If anything in 1812 made Britain look at us differently, it was the naval battles.

In regards to the buring of the newly built White house, being the "biggest disgrace", lol pull the other one. Instead of misquoting Wikipedia (that quote you stole directly from the Battle of Bladensburg entry *roll*) try actually opening a few books. Only thing burning the White House did was gather more support on the American side for the war. Which is why the battle directly after, is considered the turning point in favor of the Americans.


Atleast we agree that only in an imaginary world would the US have been part of the British Empire.

reply

Jesus you took that whole message to heart didn't you.
Just because you entered the First World War last doesnt mean you saved the U.K and France, Yes, you might have speeded the situation up but it doesn't mean you saved the world, matter of fact. I cant recall which battled you atteneded, was you at the Battle of the Sommes, Verdun, maybe Ypres. Thats right American was never in any of the major battle of WW1 but still claims massive credit for a war they played just as much part as the French in WW2?

WWII, I admit. America played a important role and ally to Britain. Especially, when Hitler was bombing cities in England early in the war. But even before Americans entered the war, we was turning things around with victories in Africa and the Battle of Britain (a great morale victory). When Americans first entered the war Africa was where the US first went, to gain battlefield experience. With America entering the war, the allies (UK & US in my eyes, French was finish with the Poles) could finally invade France and push the Germans back to Berlin. Americans fought the front and UK went behind enemyline for intel (S.A.S. was born). Couldn't get a better Army!

And again, you only helped to speed up the final victory. Entering the war late doesnt mean you saved the Brits. It just took the Japs to bomb you with your pants down to make you realize, you should be fighting in the war. Not pretending its a Europe war but an World War.

"To the wacky idea that the Battle of New Orleans scared of the British, I suggest you check the time line"

Who said anything about Battle of New Orleans?

"Instead of misquoting Wikipedia"

You got me with my pants down!lol

reply

[deleted]

Rubbish! Britain could have carried on, ther's no doubt of that. Probably not have been able to invade Europe but harry the Enemy? No doubt whatsoever. As to supplies the British were still trading anywhere they could outside their usual trading partners in Europe which were occupied by the Nazis They traded with many more countries than just the USA-having the largest merchant fleet in the world pre-war was proof of that. Britain had an extremely successful agricultural industry- it wouldn't have starved. It's industrial capacity was also huge but couldn't compete with the huge demands war was making on it- hence the need to supplement the armed forces by imports from the USA and Canada amongst others. Even without those imports though, Britain could have carried on, defeating the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain had made German invasion impossible, but taking the fight to the enemy through commando raids, by air and by sea was still viable.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

reply

The German invasion abilities by sea were never fully developed to take on a power like Britain, North Africa and small islands in the Med were more to Germany's liking due to the low resistance and even acceptance from French ruled Arabs. Their Military was designed for the land war with Russia on the East, Scandanavia to the North, Greece and the Slavs to South/South East and France to the West.

Donitz never had enough U-Boats to defeat the Royal Navy, he could give them dark hours but never a defeat. If they couldn't defeat the Royal Navy they would never stop Britain's vital war (not just food) supplies coming in or clear a path for the invasion force.

reply

Yeah, and the US and its huge industrial capacity made it impossible to, even in best of conditions, sink enough ships to win a tonnage war when they got in gear close to the middle of the war.

reply

And again, you only helped to speed up the final victory.


Pfft, the USSR only became an effective offensive fighting machine after US supplies, money and food came through, American Spam was a deciding a factor according to 4 time Hero of the Soviet Union Field Marshall Zuhkov.

I seriously doubt the war would have been won without American power in forms of military and economy. Hell, we made so many propaganda films like Mrs Miniver trying to convince them.

we was turning things around with victories in Africa


The final victory was won becuase of a British Offensive in the East and the American/British Offensive from the West, surrounding Rommel.

Americans fought the front and UK went behind enemyline for intel (S.A.S. was born).


The American and Commonwealth forces had shared responsibilities for front line fighting in North Africa, Normandy, Italy and Germany. The SAS were created in North Africa originally to blow up enemy planes and supplies with explosives, gun battles or co-ordinates for the RAF.

It just took the Japs to bomb you with your pants down to make you realize, you should be fighting in the war. Not pretending its a Europe war but an World War.


Why should America have gotten involved with another War that mainly started in Europe (116,000 Americans died in WW1) to stop Nazism was not a big enough excuse for the American public who didn't want to see America fight someone else's war and have its sons, fathers and brothers killed in foreign lands whose people (Germany and Japan) had not threatened them.

reply

"The USSR only became an effective offensive fighting machine after US supplies, money and food came through"

Biggest loads of sh!t, I have heard. Russia was isolated, they was alone fighting by theyselves as both Britain and America kept them in the dark and fed them not accurate information because Roosevelt (however you spell the damn name) did not trust Stalin.

"The final victory was won becuase of a British Offensive in the East and the American/British Offensive from the West, surrounding Rommel"

Yes and like I said, American soldiers was in Africa for experience. Like Sir Alex Ferguson plays a inexperience young team against team he knows he should win. The battle in Africa was won.

"The SAS were created in North Africa originally to blow up enemy planes and supplies with explosives, gun battles or co-ordinates for the RAF"

Like I said, you just proved my point and was it the British that capture the Enigma machine? A VITAL code-breaking intel for not only for the Africa victory but for the whole war.

"Why should America have gotten involved with another War that mainly started in Europe (116,000 Americans died in WW1)"

No disrespect to the Americans fallen heros in WW1 but what battle did they actually fought in because I would not know US fought in WW1. They wasn't in the major battles.

reply

Biggest loads of sh!t, I have heard. Russia was isolated, they was alone fighting by theyselves as both Britain and America kept them in the dark and fed them not accurate information because Roosevelt (however you spell the damn name) did not trust Stalin.


Why did Zuhkov say what he said, why were the Germans using horses to pull out of Russia and Russians using thousands of American trucks to advance, recieved $200 billion in today's money from the USA, about 4,000 Sherman tanks. Germany didn't keep a large Garrison force and army in France and Italy to keep thepublic in order he was worried about Allied attacks, if America or Britain weren't invovled in the war alot more troops would have been sent to the Russia Front.

Numerous dangerous convoys got to Russia via the Baltic

The Americans also caputed their own engima machine because codes change.

I hate this "America turned up late" sh!te

The most vocal opponents against American intervention were veterans of WW1, Vietnam War, Iraq War generally some of the most vocal opponents are veterans of those wars or previous wars.

Can't blame them for not wanting to send their children to die on the murderous battlefields of Europe.

reply

Can't blame them for not wanting to send their children to die on the murderous battlefields of Europe.


That's right, they were too busy sending them to murder and be murdered in Latin America, SE Asia and the Middle East.

I hate this "America turned up late" sh!te


Get there on time for the next one then.

Fact is, most of Europe would be speaking German still if it weren't for all the U's ; USA USSR and the UK so everyone put your e-peens back in your holsters and agree it was a team effort. Go Team!

reply

Uh aren't you forgetting the Soviet union?

reply

"If anything in 1812 made Britain look at us differently, it was the naval battles."

So true. The US Navy really came into its own during the War of 1812. Stephen Decatur, Thomas MacDonough, Oliver Hazard Perry, Charles Stewart, and even William Bainbridge - HEROES!

But I do think the Battle of New Orleans was significant - it proved Wellington's point that there was nothing to gain by the British continuing to fight the United States.

reply


All you Brits and Americans are missing the main point here about the War of 1812. The real winners were the Canadian farmers of both Upper and Lower Canada. The majority of them did not want to be Americans and fought to stay part of the British crown. At the end of the war they were still British citizens living in Canada. Invasion stopped...US didn't gain anything (except some naval confidence) and either did the Brits. End of discussion


"Someday I think you and I are going to have a serious disagreement"

reply

There has been one book on the War of 1812 written by a Brit, this alone is the reason the war is not seen as British victory. The rest are written by chest thumping Americans who look to the contemporary propaganda of 1814 for all their inspiration.

British North America was saved, this was a primary British war aim.

The US failed utterly to take any part of Lower or Upper Canada - this was their PRIMARY WAR AIM. At the battles of Queenston Heights, Cryslers Farm and others the British Army attacked and routed numerous US Armies. Remember, they attacked here.... no hiding behind barricades or forts like the Americans so earnestly did.

Americans see the British incursions on US turf as invasions.... hardly... the best form of defence is attack and because the British took the war to the Americans they pretty much guaranteed the safety of Canada.


Added to that, the Americans were very quick to sue for peace (they did it twice, the first appeal was rejected) once Napoleon is out of the picture knowing that the Royal Navy had totally crippled US sea commerce.






reply

There has been one book on the War of 1812 written by a Brit, this alone is the reason the war is not seen as British victory. The rest are written by chest thumping Americans who look to the contemporary propaganda of 1814 for all their inspiration.


There has been more than one British author tackled the War of 1812, but unfortunately they all seem to just parrot earlier American work, with very little independant research done.

The two most honest accounts I've read of the war come from (suprisingly) an American author/historian by the name of Donald Hickey and the Canadian author Donald Graves.

Hickey sums it all up by claiming the war as a military victory for Great Britain but due to weak British diplomats at Ghent a political victory for the U.S.

reply

Queenston Heights and Cryslers Farm were the most important battles of the war by a long LONG margin.


In either case.... I don't remember reading about any Americans burning London down.

I doubt the English militia would abandon their capital and flee so earnestly like the Americans did.


reply

Why are we arguing over a war which really, served no real purpose? As a Brit I didn't know about the war of 1812 until I started researching it. If anything good comes out of it, it made America and Britain allies in future wars and I for one hope we continue this relationship.

reply

The War of 1812 was essentially a draw and could feasibly be regarded as an American defeat as they failed in their stated intention to capture British North America.

The Battle of New Orleans only occurred after the Treaty of Ghent was signed (despite Americans clinging to the fantasy that it somehow won the war) and the British defeat was the direct result of the gross incompetence of one of the commanders, who literally forgot to bring the scaling ladders and fascines required to overcome the earthworks and marsh.

Numerous dangerous convoys got to Russia via the Baltic


The BALTIC???

reply

According to Doctor Benjamin Carson, the right's "genius" Uncle Tom Du Jour, the Brits were trying to reconquer the US in the War of 1812, lol. He also said there was a US lighthouse by where the Titanic sank.

reply