Explosion 1812

B

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,049
1
0
This Sunday evening the History Channel will broadcast the first of many documentaries ove the next 1000 days on the War of 182, this one highlighting the battle for Fort York, Toronto. The program is directed by Dan Snow, who has done amazing similar shows of the Battle for Quebec City, The Battle of Britain, Battlefield Britain, the Crusades, and the D Day campaign.

I especially suggest Americanson tune in and learn something useful for a change.
 
I'm going to watch it, but the ad describing the American invasion of York is totally misleading. Most of the citizens just rolled over while their town was burned.
 
I remember my first visit to Historic Fort York where I found out that we got our asses handed to us.
 
basketcase said:
I remember my first visit to Historic Fort York where I found out that we got our asses handed to us.
Click to expand...
Yes, but thanks to it Washington was burned. (The White House is white to cover the scorch marks coming out the windows - which are still there, photographs taken during the restoration during the Truman Administration when the paint was removed show them).
 
Bobzilla said:
I'm going to watch it, but the ad describing the American invasion of York is totally misleading. Most of the citizens just rolled over while their town was burned.
Click to expand...

It was called a strategic retreat, but seriously, citizens armed or not, don't do very well against soldiers in a firefight. Taking the fort is one thing, holding it is another.
 
I'll agree to a point.

Unlike today, civilian militia was used during the War of 1812. The American invasion force weren't exactly crack troops. They could have been stopped. That being said, there were some errors committed by the British commander. The American commander got his ass blown up went the fort's powder magazine blew up.

Regardless, I have an issue with the way it's being promoted. I think it's misleading & revisionist history. Not quite as bad as the myths surrounding the American Revolution mind you, but still....
 
Bobzilla said:
I'll agree to a point.

Unlike today, civilian militia was used during the War of 1812. The American invasion force weren't exactly crack troops. They could have been stopped. That being said, there were some errors committed by the British commander. The American commander got his ass blown up went the fort's powder magazine blew up.

Regardless, I have an issue with the way it's being promoted. I think it's misleading & revisionist history. Not quite as bad as the myths surrounding the American Revolution mind you, but still....
Click to expand...


Fair enough, but when you're trying to compare not crack troops against militia and garrison troops you split hairs. As for the misleading 60 commercial it has to grab you to watch the show, so creative editing is used. I haven't really watched it that closely or critically, so can't properly comment.
 
Olde Ironsides Exposed on the History Channel.

One of the greatest ships to face the enemy was the USS Constitution which took on the best navy of it's time and won.

It had a secret that gave rise to it's name. The ship was built using a special species of tree found in only three areas of the world. The frames of the ship was built using Southern Live Oak, Quercus Virginiana, whose broad sweeping branches gave rise to fewer joints and more one piece intersections. Top this off with a wood structure that modern engineering tests fond was 40% stronger than the English White Oak. This allowed 50% larger and thicker planks to be mounted on the skeleton, adding to the strength. Even at 15 meters, considered close range, the the hulls would withstand penetration and spalling splinters, the later accounting for greater deaths than the cannonballs and shot, form all but the biggest guns and critical hits.

This story was hinted at in "Master and Commander', Russell Crowe's Napoleonic epic, although 'Olde Ironsides' was a French frigate and the British navy Surprise was Lucky Jack's ship.
 
So two hundred years ago today the US declared war on Britain, and therefore on the Canadas, Upper and Lower, which they'd always sorta thought should have joined them in the Revolution. Pretty much fully occupied fighting Napoleon in Europe, Britain more or less left things to their Governor, safe in his fortress at Quebec, their troops already here and the folks on the ground—mostly Loyalist refugees, land seeking Yankee opportunists, and First Nations—while the US, in one of its periodic tax-cutting lunacy periods had disbanded almost the entire armed forces they'd need to conduct the opportunistic conquest that'd persuaded the votes to get that Declaration through Congress.

But for the deaths to come, and the almost offhand crushing of the aspirations of the original inhabitants of the continent, it promised to be something of a low comedy. And at least for us non-First Nations folks, both countries came out the better for it in the end.
 
oldjones said:
So two hundred years ago today the US declared war on Britain, and therefore on the Canadas, Upper and Lower, which they'd always sorta thought should have joined them in the Revolution. Pretty much fully occupied fighting Napoleon in Europe, Britain more or less left things to their Governor, safe in his fortress at Quebec, their troops already here and the folks on the ground—mostly Loyalist refugees, land seeking Yankee opportunists, and First Nations—while the US, in one of its periodic tax-cutting lunacy periods had disbanded almost the entire armed forces they'd need to conduct the opportunistic conquest that'd persuaded the votes to get that Declaration through Congress.

But for the deaths to come, and the almost offhand crushing of the aspirations of the original inhabitants of the continent, it promised to be something of a low comedy. And at least for us non-First Nations folks, both countries came out the better for it in the end.
Click to expand...

Well at least they figured out where to draw the line between the USA and Canda, sort of.
 
Interesting but not surprising to hear US citizens claim the US won and the Canadians claim they won. One reasonable explanation for the US thinking has been given as the first time for the USA to show it's colours as a nation, since the Revolution, they forget of course the US conflict with the Barbary Pirate ~20 years earlier under the Stars and Stripes.

My take, the US won most of the battles on the water and Canada won most of the battles on land; shake hands and go home. The US government thought it would be a walk in the park, even initially putting in positions of command men way past their prime, fixing that one later. Canada found out how much Britain cared, not, about this part of their empire and basically had to deal with the invasion almost totally by themselves.
 
blackrock13 said:
Interesting but not surprising to hear US citizens claim the US won and the Canadians claim they won. One reasonable explanation for the US thinking has been given as the first time for the USA to show it's colours as a nation, since the Revolution, they forget of course the US conflict with the Barbary Pirate ~20 years earlier under the Stars and Stripes.

My take, the US won most of the battles on the water and Canada won most of the battles on land; shake hands and go home. The US government thought it would be a walk in the park, even initially putting in positions of command men way past their prime, fixing that one later. Canada found out how much Britain cared, not, about this part of their empire and basically had to deal with the invasion almost totally by themselves.
Click to expand...
if the war was a tie, then Canada won because the yanks started the war in order to take Canada over and they clearly failed to do that . We still exist , therefore we won. Take that, Americanson!
 
My take is incompetent politicians and the anti war movement kept the Americans from winning while the Napoleon wars were still going

Lundys Lane at Niagara Falls was the deciding battle
 
basketcase said:
Exactly where it was before?
Click to expand...
It was what followed from the War, not the Treat of Ghent itself.

The Anglo-American Convention of 1818 (which set the boundary at "a line drawn from the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, [due south, then] along the 49th parallel of north latitude..." to the Rocky Mountains). Then as Blackrock mentioned the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 (which settled significantly different claims along the boundary between New Brunswick and Maine). The Oregon Boundary Treaty of 1846 (which extended the boundary at the 49th parallel from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific). While an arbitration agreement in 1871 finally settled the issue of the San Juan Islands. And treaties of 1908, 1910 and 1925 largely settled disputes in the area of Lake of the Woods and Passamaquoddy Bay.

However there still remain several unresolved Maritime Border issues between Canada and the U.S. perhaps the most notable being Machias Seal Island.

The Rush - Bagot Treaty of 1818 and its successors the Treaty of Washington of 1871 and the Canadian - U.S. diplomatic agreements of 1946 and 2004 should also be mentioned.
 
blackrock13 said:
Interesting but not surprising to hear US citizens claim the US won and the Canadians claim they won.
Click to expand...
Because both have reason to think so (as well as reason not to think so).

From the Canadian perspective, and particularly that of Upper and Lower Canada, repeated U.S. invasions were driven off. It should be remembered that a principal war aim of the U.S. (led by the Western "War Hawks") had been the addition of British North America to the American Union. It also led to the development of a true sense of self awareness.

On the myth side of things it also led to the myth of the brave militia having driven off the U.S. when in fact although militia did fight well in particular battles, it was largely British Line Infantry Regiments (Regulars) particularly in the Niagara Campaigns who drove back the U.S. Army.

From the U.S. perspective, it was seen afterwards as a "Second Revolution" that the U.S. had successfully withstood the world's mightiest military and had truly secured its independence. The single ship actions of the first part of the war U.S.S. Constitution and H.M.S. Guerriere, U.S.S. United States and H.M.S. Macedonian,U.S.S. Constitution and H.M.S. Java as well as the Battle of Lake Eire gave a sense of pride that the United States Navy was capable of holding its own against the Royal Navy the world's most powerful.

Of course this was reinforced by two actions after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed: The Battle of New Orleans and the action of U.S.S. Constitution against H.M.S. Cyane and H.M.S. Levant.

Of course largely forgotten were such inconvenient things as New England having been largely opposed to the War, the failure of the Invasions of Canada, that the U.S. Navy had been largely bottled up in port for the latter part of the War, Eastern Maine being occupied for the later half of the War, and of course the burning of Washington. Likewise perhaps most importantly that for the U.K. 1812 was a side show to the vastly more important War against Napoleonic France (the U.S. wanted to negotiate for Peace because they could foresee all those Regiments of battle hardened British Regulars being sent to North America following the Treaty of Fontainebleau 1814.

One piece of trivia the dress uniforms of the U.S.M.A. (West Point) are to this day grey in honour of the performance of the U.S. Sixth Infantry Regiment (which was in grey uniforms due to a shortage of blue cloth) in the Battle of Chippawa.
 
I think America lost the War of 1812. The test isn't whether the British occupied the US but rather if the US successfully invaded Canada. Afterall, the US declared war on us and not the other way around. Britain had already written off the colonies.

The US failed to occupy Canada so they lost. They won't admit that, but it's true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom
Back