[Mustang1]

angler57 wrote:

One of the most well known battles of the War of 1812 occured Jan. 8 1815 after the Treaty of Ghent was signed Dec. 24th 1814.
That battle known as the Battle of New Orlenns ended with the death of the British commander General Edward Pakenham. With 700 brits dead and 2000 wounded or captured. (These figures are disputed by some. But, are considered to be a good reflection of total losses. Jackson lost 8 dead and 13 wounded.
Defeating the British was a rag-tag group of colonial militiamen, pirates, Louisiana bayoumen and Smokey mountain back woodsmen. With men from the streets of New Orleans who volunteered.

Note; Here again some question these facts in part. But, most accounts of the battle agree on these points.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgJzxOXQMzY

What? Who disputes this? Stats? Which ones? What historians? Maybe the layperson that just stumbled across this might have questions, but doesn't mean said questions matter.

[stratos]

What many forget and those numbers quoted, falsely lead one to beleave that GB was fighting the USA and thats it. The Nepolionic wars were going on at this time and basicly this was a side effect and thus a side show of a far greater conflict going on in Europe. GB was building up it's forces to fight France not the USA. Both France and GB had inposed inport restrictions that affected the USA greatly. When the brits stopped a US ship they would pressgang the US sailors into service on british ships. The US was receiving pressure from both france and england to join in the fight. The US said who ever stopped the inport restrictions would not be deemed an enemy of the US. France dropped the inport restrictions aginst the US and England did not. Through many othere mistakes on both sides war broke out between england and the US. The burning of the US capitol was in retaliation for the US burning the canadian parliment building(or what ever its called). Neither side wanted the war but both sides felt they had to fight do to pride and prestige. In the end after almost 200 yrs later it can be seen that this war was the US's first steps that would eventualy lead it to becoming a world power. Not because they won or lost the war but because they were willing to fight and had won a famous battle. The exact opposite can be said for GB they got pulled into a side conflict that was not needed to be fought while the main enemy, France, had breathing space to enjoy dominance of eurpoe far longer then if the war of 1812 had not happened. Thus starting to show a decline in their ability to pick and chose where and when to fight and how to exert their power properly for their continued domiance. On both sides this was just the start of growth and or decline with many other factors over the years pushing each in the opposite direction of world power status.

[Mustang1]

stratos wrote:

. When the brits stopped a US ship they would pressgang the US sailors into service on british ships.

Not exactly accurate - impressment also involved BRITISH men (and the issue over the concept of "naturalized" citizenship) leaving the Royal Navy for the American merchant marine or other vessels.

It was the boarding of American ships that forced an issue of sovereignty.

[stratos]

Mustang1 wrote:

stratos wrote:

. When the brits stopped a US ship they would pressgang the US sailors into service on british ships.

Not exactly accurate - impressment also involved BRITISH men (and the issue over the concept of "naturalized" citizenship) leaving the Royal Navy for the American merchant marine or other vessels.

It was the boarding of American ships that forced an issue of sovereignty.

That works had a feeling I was using the wrong term there when I said pressgang but could not think of the proper wordage. Thanks for clearing that bit up.

[GreenTiger]

We invaded you, you kicked us in the ass (on the ground) and sent us packing.

[Mustang1]

stratos wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

stratos wrote:

. When the brits stopped a US ship they would pressgang the US sailors into service on british ships.

Not exactly accurate - impressment also involved BRITISH men (and the issue over the concept of "naturalized" citizenship) leaving the Royal Navy for the American merchant marine or other vessels.

It was the boarding of American ships that forced an issue of sovereignty.

That works had a feeling I was using the wrong term there when I said pressgang but could not think of the proper wordage. Thanks for clearing that bit up.

No prob...i was just trying to clear up a little history, but your post was spot on nonetheless.

[Zipperfish]

WE won. Suck it up, buttercup.

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish wrote:

WE won. Suck it up, buttercup.

What's this "we". Aren't you originally from Pittsburg and thus are descended from the losing side?

[Zipperfish]

DerbyX wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

WE won. Suck it up, buttercup.

What's this "we". Aren't you originally from Pittsburg and thus are descended from the losing side?

Oh...right... "WE DIDN"T LOSE IT WAS A TIE!!!!"

I was born in Pittsburgh and spent a couple of years down south, but pretty much consider myself a Canadian--so much so that I wouldn't take out dual citizenship--not because I don't love the US, but because I believe a man should pick a country and go with it.

[BartSimpson]

The war being between the US and Britain over US sovereignty, the war was then resolved in the favor of the US as Britain recognized the US flag on the high seas.

That said, neither side won because this was something that was supposedly part of the 1783 peace accords. The war was a needless waste.

[Zipperfish]

The way I see it, the US, led by Kentucky invaded with the objective of conquering Canada. Canada's objective was to repulse the invasion. Which we did. And burn down the White House for your overall bad manners. I think if Henry Clay was here today he'd say "Them Canayjuns shore opened up a can o' whupass on us."

Note--just being deliberately argumentative here.

[Mustang1]

British victory - war aims were met, whereas American invasion and occupation repelled.

[fifeboy]

Zipperfish wrote:

The way I see it, the US, led by Kentucky invaded with the objective of conquering Canada. Canada's objective was to repulse the invasion. Which we did. And burn down the White House for your overall bad manners. I think if Henry Clay was here today he'd say "Them Canayjuns shore opened up a can o' whupass on us."

Note--just being deliberately argumentative here.

Glad to see you call them Canadians.

[EyeBrock]

BartSimpson wrote:

The war being between the US and Britain over US sovereignty, the war was then resolved in the favor of the US as Britain recognized the US flag on the high seas.

That said, neither side won because this was something that was supposedly part of the 1783 peace accords. The war was a needless waste.

There were a couple of winners. The US firmly asserted itself in the face of Imperial power, making the point that the revolution was no flash-in-the-pan. The US was a country, a nation and had earned the Empire's grudging respect.

Canada was the other. The borders with the US were confirmed in the east.

The British invested in Canadian infrastructure, the Rideau Canal etc and moved one of the capitals of the Canada's inland away from the lake to Ottawa so as to enhance the defence of BNA. This cash injection was sorely needed in the tough economic times endured in the first fifty years of the 19th century.

So really, some good did come out it all.