LOL - Denmark to reemerge as a global naval power?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Let's see: the US starts a war in which most of their major moves are aimed at complete conquest of Canada

They fail miserably

British & Canadian forces launch punitive raids across the border with mixed success, British fleet blockades the East Coast

After Britain's done dealing with Napoleon they start to arrive in force, allowing a couple of raids on the midatlantic coast

The British have no appetite for a protracted war to reconquer the US (which would almost certainly fail) and the US has had its hand singed, so the two sides agree to peace

A British force lands at NO and is routed after peace has been signed

= AMERICAN VICTORY BECAUSE KING GEORGE DIDN'T CONQUER U.S.

I'm glad to see you also scored a fabulous victory against the forces of North Vietnam by avoiding conquest at their hands.

Let's see....

Before War:

British Impressment of sailors, had several forts in our territory, armed the Indians.

After War:

No more impressment, British troops left our soil, and they stepped arming the Indians.

W00t.

[KrazyHorse]

When the King needed money from Parliament to attack the French, what do you think his request went like?

"Let it be known that today we, the lawful King etc etc do hereby request the sum of half a million golden guineas in order that we may conquer the French sugar islands in the Caribbean and thus gain a steady stream of revenue from them. We will probably grant royal monopolies on their exploitation to the richest people in the realm, some of whom are seated before me today..."

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lonestar
British Impressment of sailors

Not so necessary after Nappie's on Elba, huh?

had several forts in our territory

Forts were all over the place, dude. Nobody knew where one territory ended and another began

armed the Indians

This might be the biggest overstated "threat" of them all. Indians had no problem getting small arms, and they weren't exactly getting siege guns from the Brits.

Nope, Lonestar, these all fall under the category of "minor concessions" I mentioned earlier. Read the speeches in the Senate at the time. They wanted Canada. Any reputable historical text accepts that. Revisionism won't change that.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not so necessary after Nappie's on Elba, huh?

Bah, but they stopped! And it could have continued had he not screwed the pooch at Waterloo

Forts were all over the place, dude. Nobody knew where one territory ended and another began

The Treaty of Paris clearly marked the territorial boundaries(East of the Mississippi)

This might be the biggest overstated "threat" of them all. Indians had no problem getting small arms, and they weren't exactly getting siege guns from the Brits.

Still getting weapons, which makes them hostile

Nope, Lonestar, these all fall under the category of "minor concessions" I mentioned earlier. Read the speeches in the Senate at the time. They wanted Canada. Any reputable historical text accepts that. Revisionism won't change that.

Stooping the kidnapping of sailors, and evicting foriegn troops are "minor concessions"?

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, when you wanted to conquer the largest piece of land in the Americas.

[Lonestar]

I reject your reality, and replace it with my own.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Nope, Lonestar, these all fall under the category of "minor concessions" I mentioned earlier. Read the speeches in the Senate at the time. They wanted Canada. Any reputable historical text accepts that. Revisionism won't change that.

Yeah, and Doug MacArthur wanted Korea up to the Yalu. Yet you argue that the we "won" in Korea based on stated war aims. Well the stated war aims of the US did NOT involve the conquest of Canada. Any reputable historical text considers Korea a draw. Cause like, neither side beat the other. Which is how people tend to judge these things, NOT based on stated war aims, which are often mendacious. Based on the same approach, the war of 1812 was a draw.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yes, when you wanted to conquer the largest piece of land in the Americas.

So now youre saying the US war aim wasnt just Upper and Lower Canada, but all of what was to later become the Dominion of Canada, including the NWT?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


OMFG 40 years before they hadn't been able to. The French had whipped their asses at sea, and they couldn't support the smallest of expeditions.

That would have come as something of a surprise to the people of New York City, which was occupied by British troops for two years AFTER Yorktown.

AFAIK Britain was quite capable of projecting power in North America after 1781. The Battle of the Capes was a fine thing, which trapped Cornwallis in the Chesapeake, but it hardly gave the French Navy complete control of 1000 miles of coastline. Rather Britain, having now lost a SECOND army to the ragged rebels (the first at Saratoga) and facing not only France but an increasingly hostile Europe, simply decided it wasnt worth it any more. However I seem to have missed the part where in 1782 the French reconquered Quebec due to Britains inability to project force in North America. Again, AFAICT that is as incorrect as the notion that the US couldnt project force into Southeast Asia in, say, 1975, or that the US will be unable to project force in the Persian Gulf after President Obama redeploys US troops out of Iraq. Unwillingness to pursue a cause that no longer seems worthwhile is not inability to project power.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
They gained no leverage through their military actions, because their position relative to the British was weaker during negotiations to end the war than it had been to start it.

they lost leverage in large part through the fall of Napoleon. That was offset by the fall of Nappy removing one of the key causes of the war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
But in general the war did not achieve the lofty ambitions the Americans had when they started it, and it was a lesson they learned well enough to leave us pretty much alone (minor outrages like the Fenians and rap music excepted) from then till today.

We didnt leave the Canadians alone. We left the British Empire alone. Any war with Canada up to 1939 would have meant a war with the UK.

And the UK was always ready to compromise when our vital interests were at stake. On the Maine and related border issues in 1819. On Oregon. They refrained from trying anything stupid when we were at our most vulnerable, 1861 to 1863 (nothing big, anyway - minor outrages) . They compromised the Venezuala-Guyana thingie. They dumped the Japanese alliance when we asked, making war plan Red superflous. And after that you were more on your own, and have proven no problem.

Of course you can drag out some idiot American jingoist saying something like 54' 40" or fight, to try to show that WE compromised. Well of course. We're reasonable people.

[Zoid]

lotm overload