Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the rocket's red glare
The bombs bursting in air
Describing British rocket ships attacking Fort McHenry. A constant reminder of history - a defeat as well.
It was a defeat for the British. They were unsuccessful in reducing Ft. McHenry. The Battle of Baltimore was a victory for the Americans and stopped the British after their sack of Washington. Their fleet withdrew and set sail for New Orleans to become immortalized in song once again.
No was not. It was British victory. kitty61 got it right...
Canada's identity was already established. This thread is about history that is not taught, taught incorrectly or even just propaganda. That the war of 1812 was a draw is pure propaganda.
The British won the war of 1812. They halted the war when they achieved their aims, which was securing Canada, also being in a position to take over all of the USA. The USA failed in achieving their aims which subjugation of Canada. It was ended on the terms of the British. The British army that had just defeated Napoleon was ready to intervene which was a dismal prospect for the USA. The British did not want US territory. They probably could have secured northern New England as a part of Canada in the treaty, but were not interested.
The British were driven out. They were nearly bankrupted by the war with France and anxious to end the war with the US. We got what we wanted. Neither side gained territory. It was a draw.
No was not. It was British victory. kitty61 got it right...
Canada's identity was already established. This thread is about history that is not taught, taught incorrectly or even just propaganda. That the war of 1812 was a draw is pure propaganda.
The British won the war of 1812. They halted the war when they achieved their aims, which was securing Canada, also being in a position to take over all of the USA. The USA failed in achieving their aims which subjugation of Canada. It was ended on the terms of the British. The British army that had just defeated Napoleon was ready to intervene which was a dismal prospect for the USA. The British did not want US territory. They probably could have secured northern New England as a part of Canada in the treaty, but were not interested.
What I've seen from Canadian sources is that the war did create the Canadian identity separate from that of British colonists. It was largely local troops who stopped the American invasions with only a little help from the British.
It is just a matter of getting history right. You cannot say what never happened.
Many battles and wars don't have a clear cut winner. Historians like to call winners. It doesn't matter. If people 207 years after the fact can't agree, what difference does it make?
It is just a matter of getting history right. You cannot say what never happened.
What is right? We think of history from 200+ years ago as settled facts, but we know that there are new interpretations of the events and actors all the time. Just look at the revisionist efforts in the past 15 years. Jefferson looks like a horrific villain. Washington looks like a hapless pawn of the old slave and inheritance laws. Franklin is a famous womanizer. Adams is simply a self-righteous prig. Don't even ask about Lincoln. Wilson is a racist beast. The list goes on and on. The pendulum swings too far and the next generation of historians swing it back the other way until it goes too far. Historiography is a fascinating topic in its own right. Historians have biases and perspectives.
When we say, "taught incorrectly", even that is subjective. School boards and teachers and parents get into conflict when it comes to selecting textbooks or required reading assignments over the content and the interpretation of the subjects. Everyone has an opinion on what is correct history.
The results of the war returned the participants back to where they were prior to the war, for most parties.
The British, having pretty much reduced the US merchant fleet to a shadow of its former self, ensured that British naval ships and British merchant ships would dominate world trade. Britain also kept its policy of seizing sailors from US merchant ships for impressment (or return) into service with the British Navy.
While British colonists in Canada repulsed US invasions, British incursions onto US soil were just as unsuccessful. Additionally, US naval victories on the Great Lakes ensured that the heart of the North American continent would be dominated by the United States. A British plan to establish a permanent Native American nation in the areas of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana as a counterweight to growing US power failed.
The British Parliament didn't just decide to end the war on a whim. The United States Navy's super frigates and US privateers were starting to seriously threaten British merchant shipping. Additionally, British merchants were seeking a resumption of profitable trade with the United States. Being a maritime empire, Britain's greatest strengths (and weaknesses) were were its Navy, its merchant fleet, and its international trade - these needed to be protected and preserved above all else.
The United States retained possession of all of its land, gained complete control of the Great Lakes, and destroyed the British attempt to create a Native American nation in the Northwest Territory. The great designs that some American politicians had upon Canadian lands were at best a dream; the United States was incapable at that time of holding a vast area of land populated by British subjects who never joined the United States during the American Revolutionary War, and bolstered by expatriates who left the United States at the conclusion of the ARW. Such a move would have required a standing army. The United States not only abhorred a standing army in peacetime, it also couldn't afford one.
American sailors were still likely to be subject to impressment by the British Navy. However, as the US merchant fleet was greatly reduced, there weren't as many sailors that were subject to impressment as prior to the war.
The Madison administration also didn't just decide to end the war on a whim. It was feeling the pressure from Federalists in New England, who had been cut off from their mercantile trade upon which they depended, and was feeling the weight of the expense of keeping the US Navy operating.
Interestingly, the war caused New England states to turn from a merchant shipping economy to an industrial economy. This would become one of the factors that would lead to the United States supplanting the British Empire in global affairs.
Additionally, repulsing the British forces at Baltimore and and New Orleans greatly enheartened Americans everywhere. It gave them the feeling that they had stood toe-to-toe with the world's greatest power, fought the British Empire, and held their own. And this time, the Americans accomplished this on their own, without outside European assistance.
British Canadians gained a sense of self from repelling American invaders. This, along with US dominance of the Great Lakes, would eventually lead to the rise of the Dominion of Canada in 1865, as the British Empire came to the conclusion that the United States, emerging from the American Civil War, was now powerful enough to conquer/"liberate" British colonies in North America, but not imperialistic enough to seize semi-autonomous Canada.
The British Empire regained most of the status quo, but failed to reduce the United States to a subservient position. The US lost its position as having a mercantile fleet that rivaled Britain's, but (in their own minds) waged war against the world's mightiest empire, fought it to a draw, and maintained and enhanced its hold on the North American continent. British colonials in Canada held their own, established themselves as a distinct people, and a path towards nationhood eventually opened up for them. The Native Peoples, both those who allied with the British Empire and those who allied with the United States, were the ones who lost the most.
This is an excellent post, but I do question whether the U.S. merchant marine didn't recover rapidly after the War of 1812. I don't have time to research the issue. After the Napoleonic wars finally ended, I don't think Britain continued to impress American soldiers. It would be great if you could document your statements about the U.S. merchant marine and about continued impressment of American sailors.
"The British won the war of 1812. They halted the war when they achieved their aims, which was securing Canada, also being in a position to take over all of the USA. The USA failed in achieving their aims which subjugation of Canada. It was ended on the terms of the British. The British army that had just defeated Napoleon was ready to intervene which was a dismal prospect for the USA. The British did not want US territory. They probably could have secured northern New England as a part of Canada in the treaty, but were not interested."
You are wrong. E.g., you've consistently ignored the Battle of Lake Erie and the Battle of the Thames, and their consequences, even though I, unlike you, documented my statements.
Wright brothers, Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright III
Though of perhaps of little historic consequence, I think the history of the Wright brothers, the location of the actual first flight of an airplane, and the location of that first airplane today, is among the most corrupted history of which I'm aware of in the U.S. This travel article explains what I'm talking about, but the actual contract with the Smithsonian was not with Orville Wright, but with the estate of Orville Wright.
I also wonder how much the War of 1812 boosted the Canadian sense of identity as Canadians largely learned that they were dependent on Britain to maintain their independence from the U.S.
What changed the dynamic of the relationship between the U.S., Canada, and Britain, was the Civil War. Many Canadians actually fought for the Union, especially in the U.S. Navy, and, unlike in the U.K., there was little support for a desire to see the U.S. dismantled.
At the end of the war, the U.S. had the largest, modern, battle-hardened army on the planet, but there was no desire to attack and annex Canada. Britain not only realized that the U.S. no longer was a threat to Canada, but that the U.S. most certainly would support Canadians if they decided to unilaterally declare their independence from the U.K. Britain, facing increased challenges to its naval supremacy, largely relinquished naval security in the Americas to the U.S.
Most interestingly, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the U.S. dismantled its military and until late in the 19th century, didn't invest in its navy. At the time of the Spanish American War, Germany actually was a superior naval power to the U.S., with a stronger Pacific fleet than the U.S. It also was a nominal ally of Spain.
At the Battle of Manila Bay, both the British and the German Pacific fleets were present, and there was little doubt in any of the participants' minds that if the Germans had intervened on behalf of the Spanish, that the British would have intervened on behalf of the Americans. The "special relationship" was well underway between the U.S. and Britain even before World War I, when the British graciously welcomed the American fleet and worked to improve the American navy's gunnery and other naval skills.
I've read all of this, but don't have time to document it, but I did find this article (I had forgotten about the British fleet at Manila Bay playing "The Star Spangled Banner").
The naval meeting of Roosevelt and Churchill off Newfoundland, Lend Lease, Churchill's gift of the resonant cavity magnetron to the U.S. (see posts 62 and 64 in the following thread), decisive American supplies of high octane fuel for British Spitfires, even Americans piloted the American seaplanes that found the Bismarck, all of this is important, but forgotten history, demonstrating how greatly the American and British relationship had evolved in less than a 130 years of the end of the War of 1812, little of it taught in American high schools and even universities.
The relationship between the U.K. and the U.S. is one of the most very important aspects of American and of world history, but it's not adequately taught in the U.S.
I live in Florida and watched a documentary on the state’s history, especially the establishment of St. Augustine. St. Augustine was founded by the Spanish military in 1565 while Jamestown in Virginia was founded by the British in 1607. So ironically, the US actually got it’s start as a Spanish colony (and now Hispanics are among the fastest growing group of residents here in the US—maybe we are returning to our roots?)
To me, it’s a case of emphasizing the history of the US from a northern, English perspective, rather than a southern, Spanish one.
Hispanic is a linguistic term
Spain was not in the present USA much.
They were in Mexico, the Caribbean and southward.
The Hispanic growth is Latin American in the US, not of Iberia as I'm sure you know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wright brothers, Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright III
