Having only worked through half of the show, but two things stick out. About 2/3 of the population of Upper Canada were soft loyalist having come from the US as UEL. This was not comforting to the Canadians. The main reason the US forces didn't just attack Montreal or Quebec City, thus cutting off supplies and reinforcement, instead choosing a multi prong attack across a broad front, was that the American citizen who was for all intense and purposes, financing the campaign, was a major landowner all along the St Lawrence Valley. I'll flit the bill but don't attack across my land was the deal.
Explosion 1812
- Thread starter blackrock13
- Start date
Ironically the one Battle entirely fought by "the brave Canadian Militia," without any British Line Infantry was Châteauguay.
What you write of is generally termed "late loyalism”: people who migrated from the U.S. to Upper Canada starting in the late 1780's principally for economic rather than political reasons (hence they were not loyalists at all). However, there are at least some incidences of honest to gosh Loyalists who after fleeing to the Maritime Provinces subsequently returned to the U.S. and then decided that they had left for good reasons the first time, and now removed to Upper Canada. An unanswered historical question is quite how widespread this phenomenon was (a tremendous amount of research for a very thin monograph).
A fairly even-handed article from Time Magazine: http://world.time.com/2012/06/18/th...invaded-canada-and-failed/?xid=rss-topstories
There is a book I've seen titled something like the Civil War of 1812.
I also saw a show called bloodlines which was talking about the Coloured Corps, mostly Black UEL or escaped slaves that fought as a part of the British Militia in the war.
Hmmm... The TV show portrayed the US troops as being regulars and the guys in the green uniforms in the woods were "Rifles", the equivalent of Airborne Elite for that era. Don't see militia making much of a dent somehow.
As mentioned the Battle of Châteauguay was the only one where the Canadian/British forces were entirely (or even mostly) Militia.
And they were French Canadians.
You gotta figure some of those guys' grands-peres had fought against the Americans in the French and Indian War and they had been brought up on stories of picking off Anglos in the woods - which was pretty much what Chateauguay was, IIRC. Old habits die hard in La Belle.
Yes Châteauguay was very much a ranger type action rather than the typical Napoleonic battle.
By the way there is a large statue of Colonel Sir Charles de Salaberry on the National Assembly Building in Québec City.
And let's remember that the engagement that started that previous war involved British troops commanded by an junior officer named George Washington. That was the shot heard round the world, in which the French and English faced off for Seven Years. Although the Brits acquired India and New France, for the habitants it made little difference, and they had to keep repelling their acquisition-minded neighbours, under Washington and his successors, for decades.
Wow, just wow :frusty:
By the way tomorrow is the anniversary of the first naval engagement of the war the engagement between the U.S.S. Constitution and H.M.S. Guerriere.
Constitution is going to make one of her very rare passages under sail in commemoration.
Sure, rub salt in the wound Aartie, why don't you, hehe. You just wait until we get the lates edition of the Bluenose. She'll leave you in her dust, oh wait, never mind.
Have been on a sail on the last edition of the Bluenose, and look forward to the new one.
Exactly as I see it.
The Americans declared war on Canada in order to annex the territory and failed miserably to achieve their goals. Therefore, the Americans lost.
If anything, 1812 was the war that forged the nation of Canada. Up until then, even the British were not entirely sure where the local inhabitents' loyalty lay - with the Crown, or with the Americans. The Americans attacking us in 1812 answered that question. If they (the Americans) had just left well enough alone, it is arguable that Canada may have become part of the United States. But by attacking a peaceful dominion without provocation, the Americans demonstrated to the local poplulace just what they were all about.
The Americans got their asses handed to them in 1812.
And, once Napolean was dealt with in Europe, the British turned their full attention on the United States and unlike the American Revolutionary war - the British were not going to fuck around this time half heartedly. It took about a week for the Americans to completely change their tack and sue for peace.
Easy James, as outlined in an earlier post, it was pretty well a draw as the US won most of the sea/lake battles and the Brits won most of the land battles, and with only a few small tweaks, the boundaries remained the same. The Us didn't get what hey thought they would, support from supposed ex americans, but that pretty well was where they failed. The militias on both side weren't that keen on being on the other side of the water.
One thing is for sure.....
The only losers in 1812 were the Aboriginal people. They had fought on the side of the British on the promise of winning territory of their own. And even though the British controlled most of present day Michigan by War's end, the British gave it back to the Americans at the end of the war and Aboriginals got nothing.
Everything went back to the status quo as it existed prior to 1812.
The only losers in 1812 were the Aboriginal people. They had fought on the side of the British on the promise of winning territory of their own. And even though the British controlled most of present day Michigan by War's end, the British gave it back to the Americans at the end of the war and Aboriginals got nothing.
Everything went back to the status quo as it existed prior to 1812.
