[EyeBrock]

Oh I understood it alright old chap. I have a rudimentary grasp of history. Plus I can use capital letters.

[EyeBrock]

DanSC wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Er, hardly. The war of 1812, well what did the US gain over the UK?

Don't mind me asking, but what does that have to do with the writing style? As to your question, I guess one could say continued independence could be considered a victory, as I'm sure some in Britain at the time would have liked to have seen the colonial system restored.

I have no clue re the 'writing style' comment but moving along. The war of 1812 was never about the UK regaining the American colonies. The term 'hawk' comes from this period and there were a few US hawks who thought they could take the BNA colonies from the Brits. Add in the annoyance of US citizens being scooped from US flagged ships and press-ganged into RN service and you have a small war.

You should read a few books on this war, it's very interesting. God and smiting had very little to do with it.

[DanSC]

DanSC wrote:

I was going for an overly-formal Old World style. I should have thrown "smite" in there somewhere.

That's where the writing style bit was introduced. And notice that I said

DanSC wrote:

I guess one could say continued independence could be considered a victory, as I'm sure some in Britain at the time would have liked to have seen the colonial system restored.

Note that "some in Britain" is not the same as "Official Crown Policy."

[EyeBrock]

So you know this 'some' and you can provide a solid historical reference that it was a mainstream view? Or did God tell you this?

[DanSC]

Quote:

The Battle of New Orleans settled once and for all the question over the Louisiana Purchase. Neither the British nor the Spanish government had recognized the legality of the transfer, and, as such, the British planned either to retain the region or return Louisiana to Spain had they won the battle.
The Louisiana Purchase: A Historical and Geographical Encyclopedia, Junius P. Rodriguez, p. 348-349
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qs7GAwwdzyQC

By this point Napoleon had been defeated; the real war the British Empire had been fighting was over. Why keep looking to expand or regain colonial holdings in North America? (And yes expansion was the primary American motivation no one can argue against that.)

As for the whole "God" thing, lots of writing from the era invoked God. For example, "God Save the King" was written as we know it today during the Romantic era; the same era as the war (the end of it anyway.) If I was going to write my post in the style of that era, especially when writing about hurricanes, evoking God would not be out of place.

[EyeBrock]

Dan, you really should gen up on this.

The war of 1812 went from 1812 to 1814. Nappy got his arse kicked at Waterloo in 1815. As in not defeated during or at the end of the war of 1812.

"We fired our guns and the British kept a-coming....."

[DanSC]

EyeBrock wrote:

Dan, you really should gen up on this.

The war of 1812 went from 1812 to 1814. Nappy got his arse kicked at Waterloo in 1815. As in not defeated during or at the end of the war of 1812.

"We fired our guns and the British kept a-coming....."

...wasn't quite as many as there was a while ago. I do know the song.

You are correct Waterloo ended on June 18, 1815, ending Napoleon's Hundred Days. This Hundred Days, actually lasting 111 days, was his second stint as Emperor of France. His first stint ended with his abdication of the throne on April 11, 1814 following a mutiny of his generals. Afterwards the Treaty of Fontainebleau Exiled him to Elba. The Battle of New Orleans took place on January 8, 1815, and Napoleon's Hundred Days began on March 20, 1815. As far as the British were concerned in late 1814-early 1815, Napoleon had been defeated.

[Zipperfish]

The Americans ran so fast out of Canada they forgot to take their culture.

[EyeBrock]

DanSC wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Dan, you really should gen up on this.

The war of 1812 went from 1812 to 1814. Nappy got his arse kicked at Waterloo in 1815. As in not defeated during or at the end of the war of 1812.

"We fired our guns and the British kept a-coming....."

...wasn't quite as many as there was a while ago. I do know the song.

You are correct Waterloo ended on June 18, 1815, ending Napoleon's Hundred Days. This Hundred Days, actually lasting 111 days, was his second stint as Emperor of France. His first stint ended with his abdication of the throne on April 11, 1814 following a mutiny of his generals. Afterwards the Treaty of Fontainebleau Exiled him to Elba. The Battle of New Orleans took place on January 8, 1815, and Napoleon's Hundred Days began on March 20, 1815. As far as the British were concerned in late 1814-early 1815, Napoleon had been defeated.

Thanks for the wiki-quote. I spent four months on Ascension Island which is a dependency of St Helena, where Nappy was exiled after Waterloo. I have a decent grasp on this bit of history.

I'm not quite sure if you do though.

[DanSC]

EyeBrock wrote:

DanSC wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Dan, you really should gen up on this.

The war of 1812 went from 1812 to 1814. Nappy got his arse kicked at Waterloo in 1815. As in not defeated during or at the end of the war of 1812.

"We fired our guns and the British kept a-coming....."

...wasn't quite as many as there was a while ago. I do know the song.

You are correct Waterloo ended on June 18, 1815, ending Napoleon's Hundred Days. This Hundred Days, actually lasting 111 days, was his second stint as Emperor of France. His first stint ended with his abdication of the throne on April 11, 1814 following a mutiny of his generals. Afterwards the Treaty of Fontainebleau Exiled him to Elba. The Battle of New Orleans took place on January 8, 1815, and Napoleon's Hundred Days began on March 20, 1815. As far as the British were concerned in late 1814-early 1815, Napoleon had been defeated.

Thanks for the wiki-quote. I spent four months on Ascension Island which is a dependency of St Helena, where Nappy was exiled after Waterloo. I have a decent grasp on this bit of history.

I'm not quite sure if you do though.

Which part was wrong?

[Khar]

Indeed, EyeBrock is correct. The battle of Waterloo, where Napoleon was defeated, occurred about a half-year after the Battle of New Orleans (officially after the end of the War of 1812 with the Treaty of Ghent), which took place in mid-January. Indeed, the Battle of Waterloo was a close fight barely won by the Seventh Coalition.

We also certainly cannot ignore that Britain was still in an age where colonialism was ongoing -- after all, 1815 is what historians call the "imperial century" for the British Empire, and the British did attempt to make large gains in the War of 1812 like the States (although considering they were at war... ). While they had the opportunity to expand and attempted to do so, I doubt it was a driving philosophy at the time leading to conflict or exacerbating it. Rather, the resulting benefits for both sides, a growth of confidence in nationalism and other effects, bespoke of colonialism's lack of relevance in the region since the 13 colonies broke from the empire some decades previous.

Indeed, a change in the status of Canada was soon to follow (the Durham Report began this, in 1839), with more local autonomy. While we retained strong connections to our British heritage at the time, the British Empire had already largely shifted to other interests before the War of 1812. Had the British true interest in retaining and expanding their holdings across the North American continent, I am sure they would have following the Napoleonic Wars, but instead they focused their interests elsewhere as their expansion into North America and relevance here continued to wane.

I don't think that we can really state that some in Britain wanted to see it restored in the States except for a fringe group. Aside from concerns over competition from American exporters, attention for the British shifted away from the Americas into interests in Africa and Asia, the transition from the First to Second British Empire (which is contended to have begun with the split of the 13 colonies from the Empire). This was even related peripherally to the reduction of mercantilism, and some other theories of Adam Smith, so it's a topic I've read about a bit as a result.

[MaineUSAGuy]

This thread has gotten my interest. Both sides are full of bullshit, its been 199 years since that War. I think a Newfie got himself drunk on whatever alchohol he could find and accidentally lit something on fire but the Canadians told the British about the fire and agreed to say that the British burned down the White House.

[ShepherdsDog]

Quote:

I don't think that we can really state that some in Britain wanted to see it restored in the States except for a fringe group.

Why would Britain want the American colonies back? They wouldn't even chip in for the bill to cover the cost of defending them during the French Indian War. The cost of occupying the colonies would have bankrupted Britain.... and the government that had initiated this act would have been tossed out on its ear in the next election.

[Harpo]

As an American and apparent victim of the vicious attack on Washington by Canadians under British flag. I can only say it was one of the best political and tactical moves ever made. It for some reason paved the way for the friendship between our two nations and as one who has served with Canucks under fire I can say we are in fact grateful.
Grateful that Canada has proven to be or strongest ally from the trenches of France to the mountains of Afghanistan, and let’s not forget who it was who came to our rescue in Tehran; yes it has been Canada who has stood with us. It is my hope we can someday stand with you.
Frater Sine Pari

[Harpo]