US War of Independence

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I may ask, if the "thrist for the conquest of Canada" was not the primary cause of the revolution or War of 1812, then how can you, with the straight face, say there was a 'thirst for the conquest'? When, where, did this thirst manifest itself to make it so apparent to the Canadian mindset?

Let's see... invaded during the Revolution... invaded multiple times during the war of 1812... presidential election fought with a major issue being war with the Empire over the border with Canada... sabre rattling during the Civil War, and raids launched from American territory...

The second mentioned is seen as an important set of events in Canada's history. We fought to remain part of the Empire. The last mentioned is a large part of the drive for Confederation. The Brits wanted to unload the expense of defending Canada and some Canadians saw some wisdom in gaining a status that might forestall another American invasion. It is no coincidence that Confederation was being pushed during the war and was concluded shortly after.

These things may be footnotes in American and British history texts, as well they should be. They do not merit a lot of attention for Yanks and Brits.

To us they are central events in the evolution of our country and how it is constituted. The friction didn't stop with Confederation. A transcontinental RR was built to unite British Columbia with the rest of the nation, and to assert sovereignty over the vast plains between.

So, while you are correct that the War of 1812 had American aims that merely included the possible conquest of the Canadas, to us that is the central event of the conflict.

[notyoueither]

It is sort of similar to your 'French and Indian War'. To the British it is a much larger conflict and events in Canada and along the frontiers of the Thirteen Colonies form a sort of side show in the larger picture of the struggle for dominance in Europe.

To Americans the war on your frontiers is of central importance, the conquest of Quebec almost ignored, and the rest of little or no importance.

In Canada 'the Conquest' (of Quebec) is the central, and to this day divisive, issue.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Actually it has been put forth by many on your sides on the previous times we've had such a debate. The War of 1812 was intended for the conquest of Canada and such claptrap. So, no, no strawman at all.

Here is a recent example:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136482&highlight=1812

Where tecumseh seems to say the US lost the War of 1812 because the US didn't conquer Canada. Which would imply that such conquest was the primary cause of such a war.

Actually, I saw him mention that the conquest of Canada is a prominent part of the records of your Congress.

Is he wrong? I don't know. Perhaps he can show us some of it.

[notyoueither]

Oh geez, he's already started...

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course what the War Hawks (all 12 or so of them in the entire Congress) wanted has no bearing on anything. Since in the Congressional reasons for going to war, annexation of Canada was not stated and, most importantly, under the US Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief and determines every aspect of a war after it has been declared (aside from ratification of the peace accord).

And perhaps you and nye better get together and compare notes. Apparently he thinks that no one is seriously asserting that invasion of Canada was an objective of the war, but here you are doing so.

nye, I submit to you my evidence that I was not engaging in strawmen arguments (though I never asserted it was your specific view in this fallacy)

It's worth noting in this regard that one of the major causes of the war, the infamous Orders in Council, were rescinded by Britain 5 days after the American declaration of war.

Why? You think it would have been allowed for the US to say... ooops. Never mind that part. Then again, there was still the whole impressment issue and the Brits not only staying in the Ohio River Valley, but building forts in it.

S**t! I had a lengthy, documented reply and I used the back button and lost it all!

Anyway, here's the gist of it:

Imran, you're confusing the CAUSES of the war with the OBJECTIVES. And the fact that the US didn't list the conquest of Canada as a war aim shouldn't surprise anyone, least of all anyone as intellegent as you.

Here's JB Calvert, of the University of Denver:

The aim of the War of 1812 was the annexation of Canada. It would have been embarrassing to avow this aim openly, but its importance was clear to everyone at the time. Arguments over trade policy, especially the British Orders in Council, and impressment of seamen, both results of the Napoleonic Wars, had festered for years. Subsequent to the Chesapeake affair of 1807, the impressment issue had been more or less worked out by diplomacy.

Secondly, your attempt to minimize the influence of the War Hawks is unworthy. In order to win renomination, Madison had to placate the demands of the War Hawks in order to gain support from the western and southern states. Britannica Online:

Madison, threatened with a loss of renomination, was urged to action by a group of fiery young congressmen led by Henry Clay—the “war hawks.” Madison finally sent a strong message to Congress reviewing the British aggressions and recommending war. Accordingly, on June 18, 1812, by a vote of 79 to 49 in the House and of 19 to 13 in the Senate, war was declared.

Finally, let's compare the application of "Manifest Destiny" to Florida, controlled by weak Spain, as opposed to Canada, controlled by powerful Britain. By 1819, the US had aquired control of Florida, which Spain was unable to defend. It's passing strange that the US was uninterested in owning Canada despite repeatedly invading it, while it invaded and stole Florida from Spain. All I can say is thank God we had Britain and not Spain to protect us.

[Sikander]

Re: Re: US War of Independence

Originally posted by Frankychan


Yes, the British were at least a little more farsighted than the colonists were. When America first used germ warfare against a people, then tend to gloss over that in most history books.

Yea, if we'd only listened to the Brits our great nation would have a border along the Allegheny mountains and the Mexicans / Spanish would have had the greater part of what is now the U.S. Brilliant, a fistful of new North American wars between more tightly competitive foes and the indians would have still been wiped out.

You second sentence seems to be a non-sequitor as written.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe


Molly,

We don't talk about WWII and how the US was prepared to utterly ignore Europe once the Japanese attacked, but took the Nazi's to declare war upon them before they'd even consider fighting in Europe.

On that we could gloat. Better I think to be an American gloating over the stupity of Europeans who once again were at war with each other.

The Yanks simply didn't think that "democracy was at stake" in 1939, it's still a relatively modern concept.

Us British, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwi's and Indians etc pretty well held the line until the US and Russia were forced to join, until that point, for every one male 18 year old we produced, Germany, Italy and Japan alone produced 3, Ignoring India, which was breaking away more or less at the time in recruitment terms. The Nazi's also raised large amounts of European soldiers within the occupied nations.

We all suffer Hollywood telling us how "they" won the war, whilst in fact the 4 1/2 million Empire troops actually outnumbered US troops, but were dispersed worldwide- but that is entirely missed by the simple fact that Russia won the war, and the Cold War was a result.

Toby

We were already fighting an undeclared naval war against Germany in 1940, a fact that no doubt contributed to Germany's willingness to declare war on us in 1941. We sent a majority of our military strength to the European theatre of operations during the war, and a vast majority of our production of resources and war material went there throughout the war.

Also, our army alone had over 4 million members in 1944 with our total forces being about 7 million so it's hard to see where your 4.5 million Empire troops outnumbered us at that point.

While I agree that the Soviets did a majority of the heavy lifting against the Germans it was the Anglo-Americans who did in the Italians and the Japanese, the latter being mostly an American operation. The Soviets prevailed in WW2, but the enormous losses they suffered make the concept of having won the war a bit hollow. To denote them as the soul victors is ridiculous.

[Ecthy]

Why did Canada not WANT to join the US?

[techumseh]

Oh, please!

[Ecthy]

Yes? There were the freest nation at the time. Didn't you feel oppressed by Britain as did the yankees?

Also, with being a part fo them you would have had your say just as well. It was all about the idea of a free American continent. I mean they didn't get it done in South America (Greater Columbia, huh?), but those are spics anyway.

[techumseh]

[Chemical Ollie]

Re: US War of Independence

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
---
Two million Americans voted with their feet and went elsewhere once the war was won, meaning that at best, the war was won with a maximum support of 40-50% at best, and at all times.
---

Wasn't this the case in all American wars, except perhaps WW2?

[Ecthy]

I understand now. Canada is a little kid that needs guidance from it's mommie, Britain.

[Ecthy]

Re: Re: US War of Independence

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Wasn't this the case in all American wars, except perhaps WW2?

And the middle east invasions of 1991 and 2003?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Ecthy
I understand now. Canada is a little kid that needs guidance from it's mommie, Britain.

P**s off, racist.