Can the Brits Swing Ohio?

[The Mad Monk]

Since when do we ever listen to warnings?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


No, you should have shut them down before we put half our eggs in their basket.

So, let me get this straight. Americans are upset by the government of the UK not intervening enough in private enterpise?

[The Mad Monk]

Yep.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Since when do we ever listen to warnings?

Ok, no problem. Next time we'll just let the dodgy vaccine ship.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
I demand that Americans vote for Bush

Ya godammed furiner, now you got me mixed up!

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by MikeH


Ok, no problem. Next time we'll just let the dodgy vaccine ship.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Geronimo


The UK certainly didn't start that war and it is an example of a particularly pointless and inconsequential war.

The UK was boarding US vessels and impressing US citizens aboard those vessels into their navy. The UK was also enforcing an a blockade of trade between the US and the continent but that by itself would never have been sufficient to inflame passions to the point of war. The UK decided that the impressment was more trouble than it was worth so parliment acted to stop it. Before the news could cross the atlantic the US declared war. Lacking a standing army and a strong navy the US concluded that the only way to fight the war would be to send a number of state militias into canada to fight the brits there. The militias did a really piss poor job of it and the british forces stationed in canada actually managed to repel the militias and pursue them over the border into the US.

Later the british navy dropped off some small units of veterans of the Napoleonic war on the undefended US coast where they decisively defeated a hastily assembled group of militias outside washington. They then entered Washington on the heels of the fleeing government and stopped to burn down the public buildings. They got as far as burning down the white house, the capitol and the library of congress before a humongous hurricane whipped in (complete with a few nasty tornados) and did a number on the city and the british forces alike while (somewhat ironically) preventing the spread of the fires. The next day, the demoralised brits started back towards their battered ships and didn't bother with any additional burnings.

The next effort was another invasion directed against baltimore but here the british navy was unable to neutralise the fort built to guard the entrance to the port and the british forces on the shore were unable to fight their way toward the city so they retreated back to the ships.

The US won several naval engagements on the great lakes but control of the lakes failed to reverse the successful occupation by the british of some of the US forts they had captured after repelling the earlier invasion into Canada.

The UK sent diplomats indicating a desire to negotiate an end to the war and soon a decision was made to restore all conditions to the status quo antebellum. So word was sent out that the war was ended and everything would be exactly as it was (with the minor territorial concession that the US would aquire those parts of minnesota which were north and east of the mississippi, nobody knew it contained a huge iron ore deposit at the time).


However slow communications still had a role to play and a planned british invasion of New Orleans took place after the end of the war resulting in Andrew Jackson very decisively defeating a much larger force of british Napoleonic war veterans suffering only a couple dozen casualties. A huge lopsided victory that battle certainly was but since it occured after the terms of the peace had already been agreed upon I refuse to see it as evidence that the US 'won' the war of 1812.

The war of 1812 was a pointless war that ended when both sides realised just how pointles it was and the only thing the US really got out of it was the Mesabi iron range (which they didn't even know existed at the time). The only huge victory the US won was after the war was over.

Anyway I hate to see people make claims about either side kicking the others arse in that pointless muddled and badly fought conflict. Who knows who would have won had the Brits really cared to fight it to the bitter end?

You neglect to mention the effect of American Navy ships and privateers had on British shipping worldwide. We captured over 600 British ships during that war.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


He just wanted to keep the beaver coming.

Horny devil!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai

They burned the town of Niagara-on-the-lake and surrounding villages in the middle of winter leaving hundreds of families to die in the cold.


As a result of these tactics, the Brits responded by burning Washington.

Leaving hundreds of people to swelter in the heat without air conditioning!

[notyoueither]

For me, I don't buy that the sack of Washington was retaliation for the burning of York. The two simply do not compare. I would bet that York never registered in London, except maybe as a quaint 'oh look at those colonials' sort of thing.

The sack of Washington was more of a ' guess what, noobs, now we have spare troops and you're gonna get burned out' sort of thing.

It was a 'do you really want to do this?' challenge. The US decided in it's wisdom that they really didn't want to take on the British Empire when Napoleon wasn't around to distract them.

Go figure.

[MikeH]

Very sensible. We'd have kicked their arses.