Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Historical Archive > The War Of 1812.


Posted by: Lady of Avalon 07-May-2008, 04:27 PM
I know very little about this war that at least I know involved somehow Canada, Britain, Ireland and the United States.

I would like to know a bit more about why this war erupted during another war that was already in progress with Napoleon.

If any out there have some knowledge to share I would be interested in reading your posts and comments about it.

Posted by: Camac 07-May-2008, 04:54 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 07-May-2008, 05:27 PM)
I know very little about this war that at least I know involved somehow Canada, Britain, Ireland and the United States.

I would like to know a bit more about why this war erupted during another war that was already in progress with Napoleon.

If any out there have some knowledge to share I would be interested in reading your posts and comments about it.

LOA;
The War of 1812 was an off-shoot of the Napoleonic Wars being fought in Europe between England and her allies and France and her allies. The war was between the United States and Great Britain the only involvement of Ireland was in the fact that at that time Ireland was part of Great Britain. The war was one that neither side wanted and was brought about mainly as a result of the blockade of Europe by G.B. and the seizure of American ships by the Royal Navy looking for both contraband and deserters.The issues surrounding this war had actually been resolved in England but because of slow communictions the U.S. declared war. The U.S. was split over the war with the New England states against and Kentucky, Ohio, and the Michigan Territory all for it. The majority of land battles fought were here in Canada as a result of invasion attemps by the states . The war lasted from
1812 to 1815 with the Last Battle being fought in New Orleans 2 weeks after the peace treaty had been signed. The war ended with everything right back where it started. Neither side gained anything.
If you want to know more I would be pleased to share my knowledge of "Mr Madison's War" with you.

Camac

Posted by: Blackdog 07-May-2008, 05:10 PM
Pleased to see there is some interest on the War of 1812 from some of our community. It has been a historic event very much overshadowed by later events,but really was the cornerstone in determining the borders and later political and economic relations between Canada and the US. I personally have visited most of the sites here in Canada where the battles took place, and am ashamed to say that aside from some poorly maintained cairns and hidden plaques there is virtually no recognition of the sites and their signifigance. How typically Canadian!

Posted by: Camac 07-May-2008, 05:14 PM
QUOTE (Blackdog @ 07-May-2008, 06:10 PM)
Pleased to see there is some interest on the War of 1812 from some of our community. It has been a historic event very much overshadowed by later events,but really was the cornerstone in determining the borders and later political and economic relations between Canada and the US. I personally have visited most of the sites here in Canada where the battles took place, and am ashamed to say that aside from some poorly maintained cairns and hidden plaques there is virtually no recognition of the sites and their signifigance. How typically Canadian!

blackdog;
Yes how typically Canadian. There was a cause a while back where a 60+ year old woman in Queenston was looking after Brock's Monument herself and out of her own pocket.


Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 07-May-2008, 05:33 PM
Thank you gentlemen for your replies.
And yes I must agree that this is a war that nobody seem to care about.
And from what little I know it was very destructive and frankly since there was practically no talks of it in school, well one would not be inclined to read about it.
I just upon a book which was a romance book during that period that I started to look more about this war.

Camac, I would be more than please to know about this "Mr.Madison's war" for sure.

Blackdog, if you have more information to share about the different battles sites please do so.

Thanks,LOA

Posted by: Camac 07-May-2008, 06:36 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 07-May-2008, 06:33 PM)
Thank you gentlemen for your replies.
And yes I must agree that this is a war that nobody seem to care about.
And from what little I know it was very destructive and frankly since there was practically no talks of it in school, well one would not be inclined to read about it.
I just upon a book which was a romance book during that period that I started to look more about this war.

Camac, I would be more than please to know about this "Mr.Madison's war" for sure.

Blackdog, if you have more information to share about the different battles sites please do so.

Thanks,LOA

LOA;
Pierre Burton wrote a history of the War of 1812 in two volumes. The Invasion of Canada 1812-1813, and "Flames Across the Border 1813-1814. They should be in your local library. I have read many other works on the War and as I said I will be delighted to share that knowledge with you.

Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 07-May-2008, 06:43 PM
Thanks Camac, I'll try and find the book.

Is he the same Pierre Burton from the t.v show "Front page challenge"?

Posted by: Blackdog 07-May-2008, 06:53 PM
In terms of sites, we are all familiar with Queenston Heights,a short drive away is Lundys Lane, (now a major roadway in Niagara Falls). This was the site of what might be argued to be the bitterest confrontation of the war. Now it is a stretch hotels,fast food joints, and small office buildings. At the crest of the road however there is a small cemetery in which a cairn stands commemorating the site. There are still artifacs turned up on the surrounding hillsides whenever someone digs a new foundation or garden in the area. Also close is the site of the Chippewa Confrontation, and of course Fort Erie, where the Americans overran the Fort and occupied for a brief period nera the close of the war. An excellent book on the stage of the war is by Donald E. Graves, titled Where Right and Glory Lead, a wee bit dry but very thorough.

Posted by: Camac 07-May-2008, 07:04 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 07-May-2008, 07:43 PM)
Thanks Camac, I'll try and find the book.

Is he the same Pierre Burton from the t.v show "Front page challenge"?

LOA;

Yes he's the same. He wrote a large number of Canadian History Books; My Country, The National Dream, The Last Spike, Marching as to War, Vimy and many more. All books about the great history of the 'TRUE NORTH'


Camac.

Posted by: Rebecca Ann 07-May-2008, 07:06 PM
For the most part the War of 1812 is a forgotten war. It is rarely taught in schools even in the states. Infact it was during this war that Francis Scott Key wrote our National Anthem (The Star Spangled Banner). It is a neat and most wonderful story.
Rebecca

Posted by: Camac 07-May-2008, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (Rebecca Ann @ 07-May-2008, 08:06 PM)
For the most part the War of 1812 is a forgotten war. It is rarely taught in schools even in the states. Infact it was during this war that Francis Scott Key wrote our National Anthem (The Star Spangled Banner). It is a neat and most wonderful story.
Rebecca

Rebecca Ann;

The ironic thing about your National Anthem is that it is sung to the tune of an old English Drinking song. Possibly the War is not taught in your schools is the fact on land with the exception of The Battle of New Orleans, Monrovia and a few other minor skirmishes the U.S. Army of the day was beaten. Your Navy on the other hand did a superb job.

Camac.

Posted by: Camac 08-May-2008, 10:17 AM
LOA;

The war started on 18 June 1812 and the first military action was carried out by the British against Michilimackinac (Mackinaw) about a month later.It was a bloodless victory as the American Fort surrendered almost immediately. As you know many Aboriginal People sided with the English and this proved a great psychological advantage to them as the Americans were terrified of the Natives. The Americans guarding Mackinaw did not even know war had been declared so were totally unprepared. After this small triumph the war shifted south mainly in to the area bordering along Ontario. Detroit was tthe next engagement . Here again an American defeat.

Camac.

Posted by: Patch 08-May-2008, 08:48 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 07-May-2008, 02:42 PM)
QUOTE (Rebecca Ann @ 07-May-2008, 08:06 PM)
For the most part the War of 1812 is a forgotten war.  It is rarely taught in schools even in the states.  Infact it was during this war that Francis Scott Key wrote our National Anthem (The Star Spangled Banner).  It is a neat and most wonderful story. 
Rebecca

Rebecca Ann;

The ironic thing about your National Anthem is that it is sung to the tune of an old English Drinking song. Possibly the War is not taught in your schools is the fact on land with the exception of The Battle of New Orleans, Monrovia and a few other minor skirmishes the U.S. Army of the day was beaten. Your Navy on the other hand did a superb job.

Camac.

As I recall from the history I learned many years ago, the pirate Jeane LaFete (sp), his cannons and cannoneers really won the battle of New Orleans.

War is all about alliances.

Slàinte,     

Patch

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 09-May-2008, 04:01 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 08-May-2008, 12:17 PM)
LOA;

The war started on 18 June 1812 and the first military action was carried out by the British against Michilimackinac (Mackinaw) about a month later.It was a bloodless victory as the American Fort surrendered almost immediately. As you know many Aboriginal People sided with the English and this proved a great psychological advantage to them as the Americans were terrified of the Natives. The Americans guarding Mackinaw did not even know war had been declared so were totally unprepared. After this small triumph the war shifted south mainly in to the area bordering along Ontario. Detroit was tthe next engagement . Here again an American defeat.

Camac.

If I understand it correctly this war started very quick and ended very quick.
I know from other history books that the natives did not like the americans well.
So it probably why they sided with the english.

Maybe that is the reason why it was not spoken much! Even though it was a 2 year war it look like it was only battles fought for naught.
I'll have to go get this book you suggested and learn more.

Thanks Camac

Posted by: Camac 09-May-2008, 06:46 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 08-May-2008, 09:48 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 07-May-2008, 02:42 PM)
QUOTE (Rebecca Ann @ 07-May-2008, 08:06 PM)
For the most part the War of 1812 is a forgotten war.  It is rarely taught in schools even in the states.  Infact it was during this war that Francis Scott Key wrote our National Anthem (The Star Spangled Banner).  It is a neat and most wonderful story. 
Rebecca

Rebecca Ann;

The ironic thing about your National Anthem is that it is sung to the tune of an old English Drinking song. Possibly the War is not taught in your schools is the fact on land with the exception of The Battle of New Orleans, Monrovia and a few other minor skirmishes the U.S. Army of the day was beaten. Your Navy on the other hand did a superb job.

Camac.

As I recall from the history I learned many years ago, the pirate Jeane LaFete (sp), his cannons and cannoneers really won the battle of New Orleans.

War is all about alliances.

Slàinte,     

Patch


Patch;

Everything I have read about the Battle of New Orleans merely mentions LaFitte. He is more of a local Character than a National Hero. The main cause of the British defeat was that the Americans were barricade behind a raised pallisade and there was alot of open ground for the Brits to cross. At one point they almost made it but were thrown back by the heavy rifle and cannon fire from the U.S. It has been a while since I have read about the Battle so my memory is a little hazy. I'll do some more checking on Lafitte.


Camac.

Posted by: Camac 09-May-2008, 07:12 AM
LOA; If you wish go to Wikipedia for a fair overview of the War of 1812. There are also many other sites on the Web to refer to. One should never rely on just one source when reading History.

Camac.

Posted by: Patch 09-May-2008, 10:26 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 09-May-2008, 01:46 AM)
QUOTE (Patch @ 08-May-2008, 09:48 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 07-May-2008, 02:42 PM)
QUOTE (Rebecca Ann @ 07-May-2008, 08:06 PM)
For the most part the War of 1812 is a forgotten war.  It is rarely taught in schools even in the states.  Infact it was during this war that Francis Scott Key wrote our National Anthem (The Star Spangled Banner).  It is a neat and most wonderful story. 
Rebecca

Rebecca Ann;

The ironic thing about your National Anthem is that it is sung to the tune of an old English Drinking song. Possibly the War is not taught in your schools is the fact on land with the exception of The Battle of New Orleans, Monrovia and a few other minor skirmishes the U.S. Army of the day was beaten. Your Navy on the other hand did a superb job.

Camac.

As I recall from the history I learned many years ago, the pirate Jeane LaFete (sp), his cannons and cannoneers really won the battle of New Orleans.

War is all about alliances.

Slàinte,     

Patch


Patch;

Everything I have read about the Battle of New Orleans merely mentions LaFitte. He is more of a local Character than a National Hero. The main cause of the British defeat was that the Americans were barricade behind a raised pallisade and there was alot of open ground for the Brits to cross. At one point they almost made it but were thrown back by the heavy rifle and cannon fire from the U.S. It has been a while since I have read about the Battle so my memory is a little hazy. I'll do some more checking on Lafitte.


Camac.

As I recall (and I have an interest in Jackson's life) He had a small group of "regulars" and a ragged assortment of local's. He had no heavy armament as there was no practical way to bring that by land to New Orleans. The alliance with Jean LaFete provided the heavy armament and expert's to man the cannons. Jackson's men built the earthen defense (grudgingly) and provided the rifle fire.

Jackson was a very controversial man.

Slàinte,     

Paste

Posted by: mainopsman 09-May-2008, 11:43 AM
I grow up in the shadow of Fort McHenry, and a short distance from Patterson Hill, an artillery position for the defense of Baltimore. Today I live on land that is part of the site where the battle of North Point was fought. Both my son and I do living history re-enactments of the period. My son does British Artillery and I portray a citizen defender. What makes this thread interesting is the fact, even those who live here, know very little of the history of the war and what a major part both Baltimore and North Point played in it. It is sad that history takes a back seat to so many other subjects.

A number of Canadian re-enactment units come to take part in the Battle of North Point recreation each year. More then a few Canadian marching bands also come to Dundalk (my community) each year to march in the 4th of July Heritage parade (one of the largest in the US). We can’t thank them enough for their interest and friendship.

God Bless both of our Nations!

JIM (mainopsman)


Posted by: Camac 09-May-2008, 02:00 PM
QUOTE (mainopsman @ 09-May-2008, 12:43 PM)
I grow up in the shadow of Fort McHenry, and a short distance from Patterson Hill, an artillery position for the defense of Baltimore. Today I live on land that is part of the site where the battle of North Point was fought. Both my son and I do living history re-enactments of the period. My son does British Artillery and I portray a citizen defender. What makes this thread interesting is the fact, even those who live here, know very little of the history of the war and what a major part both Baltimore and North Point played in it. It is sad that history takes a back seat to so many other subjects.

A number of Canadian re-enactment units come to take part in the Battle of North Point recreation each year. More then a few Canadian marching bands also come to Dundalk (my community) each year to march in the 4th of July Heritage parade (one of the largest in the US). We can’t thank them enough for their interest and friendship.

God Bless both of our Nations!

JIM (mainopsman)

mainopsman;

It has only been in the last 10 to 15 years that the school ciriculum start teaching History again as a mandatory subject. So many of the younger generation in Canada know little or nothing of our History. There is an interesting book about the War of 1812 from the American perpective, "1812 The War that Forged a Nation" by Walter R. Borneman. I envy you being in a re-enactment group. I live with in an hours drive of the Niagara Peninsula where a great many battles were fought also just 15 minutes from Stoney Creek and Burlington. And Fort York (Toronto) is about 1/2 hour away. To any and all of my fellow posters I am more than willing to share any knowledge I have about this most interesting and mostly forgotten War.

As an aside: I find it ironic that a great number of American Militiamen refused to cross the border and Invade Canada. They would defend their own state and country but would not take part in agression. Good thing for us up here or we might have ended up as part of the States.
Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 09-May-2008, 06:25 PM
Camac,
You are right about relying on more than one source when reading history.
Because history changes all the times because of new discoveries from scientists and archeologists. And of course from one historian to another some details in history can be interpreted differently thus written differently. So some times the accuracy can vary.

Patch,

This is what I found about Jean Laffitte and his connection to the war which is very little like Camac mentioned. Now with the net although maybe not as acurate as a book but all the same can be interesting. Here it is.

"Lafitte sometimes receives credit for helping defend Louisiana from the British in the War of 1812, with his nautical raids along the Gulf of Mexico."
"He commanded more than 3,000 men and provided them as troops for the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, greatly assisting Andrew Jackson in repulsing the British attack. The actual number he commanded was more likely a few dozen, although since they specialized in artillery their effect was substantial."
This pretty much it but again there maybe more in books.

Camac,
Here in Quebec,they teach a bit of history in elementary school and in some course in high school it is mandatory but they do not linger on general history or the world's history it is more like different subjects of history.In my time even then there was subjects that we did not even discussed about. One interested in more had to find it in the library school. It is sad that history and culture is not part of the schooll system.And yea it is thrue that the young generation just don't know enough about history, even me I have to admit that I read more about other countries history than mine in Quebec. I know about it I just don't cultivate it so I guess there are a few mishap in my memory of things as well because I haven't read about it enough to refresh my mind.

mainopsman,
I guess that history took a back seat because for one subject to be interesting one teacher,(in my humble opinion) has to make it interesting. And of course one must have the interest of it too. In Europe, history is tought at all school levels. They organize outings with the kids eveywhere museums, castles, mansions, palaces.
Everywhere we went we saw coaches with students and teachers explaining differents artifacts here and there and all kinds of stuff. That is interesting.
But here we rarely see outings like this. That why it is on the back seat, in my opinion.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 09-May-2008, 07:22 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 09-May-2008, 04:00 PM)
As an aside: I find it ironic that a great number of American Militiamen refused to cross the border and Invade Canada. They would defend their own state and country but would not take part in agression. Good thing for us up here or we might have ended up as part of the States.
Camac.

I think I know why Camac.

They were afraid of all the snow we had up here. Canada was referred to as the north pole. although maybe not anymore but in those days we were piled up to our eye balls in snow.Only the natives would know how to walk in that much snow and not to mentioned the bitter cold.biggrin.gif

Just tought to add a bit of humor here.Forgive me.

Posted by: Camac 10-May-2008, 06:37 AM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 09-May-2008, 08:22 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 09-May-2008, 04:00 PM)
As an aside: I find it ironic that a great number of American Militiamen refused to cross the border and Invade Canada. They would defend their own state and country but would not take part in agression. Good thing for us up here or we might have ended up as part of the States.
Camac.

I think I know why Camac.

They were afraid of all the snow we had up here. Canada was referred to as the north pole. although maybe not anymore but in those days we were piled up to our eye balls in snow.Only the natives would know how to walk in that much snow and not to mentioned the bitter cold.biggrin.gif

Just tought to add a bit of humor here.Forgive me.

LOA;

There is a story of a regiment of Militia that marched from New Brunswick to Upper Canada (Ontario) in the dead of winter. I will have to look up the details but it was quite the feat. Also as you read about the War you will come across the "Militia Myth" this was started by the Reverend Strachan (Strawn) of York (Toronto) who claimed that it was the Canadian Militia who defeated the Americans. It is exactly that a myth. The war was fought and won in Canada by British Regulars and Indian allies like the Mohawk. The Canadian Militia was involved but not to the extent that the Reverend would have people believe.

Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 11-May-2008, 07:32 AM
Hi Camac,
I will make sure to read this story.If I can find the time though.
But I take note of all you send me as information. I rest assure that when my dad will get better that I'll take more time for reading.
Keep the infos coming.

LOA

Posted by: Camac 12-May-2008, 07:21 AM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 11-May-2008, 08:32 AM)
Hi Camac,
I will make sure to read this story.If I can find the time though.
But I take note of all you send me as information. I rest assure that when my dad will get better that I'll take more time for reading.
Keep the infos coming.

LOA

LOA;
I notice some mis-information in my last posting. The 104th Regiment (New Brunswick)were British Regulars and in February 1813 set out to March to Montreal via Quebec City. This was in the dead of winter and the march was done in snowshoes. Upon arrival at Montreal they were immediately dispatch to march to Kingston. On 12 April 1813 the six hundred men of this Regiment arrived in Kingston a march of 700 miles in 52 day with out the loss of one man.There arrival thwarted the American plans to attack Kingston and caused them instead to attack York (Toronto). This is another story.


Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 22-May-2008, 05:14 PM
I've read a bit about the war and if I understand correctly this was one war that started for practically nothing and nobody won anything and the signing of the Treaty of Ghent was all about territorial concessions.

It is almost as if the Americans (no offense) had nothing to do better than to declare war because they found the Brits to slow to answer their demands!!!! I hope that I've misunderstood this because if so no wonder it is not spoken very much about.

LOA

Posted by: Camac 23-May-2008, 10:05 AM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 22-May-2008, 06:14 PM)
I've read a bit about the war and if I understand correctly this was one war that started for practically nothing and nobody won anything and the signing of the Treaty of Ghent was all about territorial concessions.

It is almost as if the Americans (no offense) had nothing to do better than to declare war because they found the Brits to slow to answer their demands!!!! I hope that I've misunderstood this because if so no wonder it is not spoken very much about.

LOA

LOA;
You are partly correct with the slowness of negotiation but the main causes were the New Brunswick/Maine border (See Aroostook War & Jays Treaty)), American exspansion into the Ohio valley, the blockade of French ports , and of course impressment of possible American citizens into the Royal Navy. Most disputes were settle but the slow communications of the day gave the Hawks in the U.S. the excuse they wanted to declare war. Your right, no one won and everything returned to the Status Quo Ante Bellum. (Exactly before the War started) Impressment was settled, the blockade of Neutrals partially lifted and the N.B/Maine broder would be settle after long negotiations.

Camac.

Posted by: CelticRose 23-May-2008, 02:59 PM
I am so happy to see someone bring this subject up. As an 18thc re-enactor, I must admit I know very little about this war and there are very few re-enactors here in AZ, if any, who are interested in teaching about this period of history. I have only recently been reading a wee bit about it myself, trying to get the gist of it and why and you all explained very well.

I found the comment made by Camac to be very interesting and insightful. "War is about alliances." wow! I had never thought about that before. Thanks!

I look forward to reading more here on this long forgotten part of our North American history. smile.gif

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 23-May-2008, 05:33 PM
Hi Celtic Rose,
Glad you joined us in our topic about this interesting if not popular war that we all try to understand.

If you happened to have some knowledge about it and want to share it with us please do so anytime.

LOA

Posted by: Camac 23-May-2008, 05:33 PM
As an aside to the war of 1812. The same year the Russians were establishing a colony at or near Fort Ross Northern California giving them control of all lands on the Pacific coast from the Aelutians south . They were also up to their arm pits with Napoleons Invasion.


Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 23-May-2008, 05:37 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-May-2008, 12:05 PM)
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 22-May-2008, 06:14 PM)
I've read a bit about the war and if I understand correctly this was one war that started for practically nothing and nobody won anything and the signing of the Treaty of Ghent was all about territorial concessions.

It is almost as if the Americans (no offense) had nothing to do better than to declare war because they found the Brits to slow to answer their demands!!!! I hope that I've misunderstood this because if so no wonder it is not spoken very much about.

LOA

LOA;
You are partly correct with the slowness of negotiation but the main causes were the New Brunswick/Maine border (See Aroostook War & Jays Treaty)), American exspansion into the Ohio valley, the blockade of French ports , and of course impressment of possible American citizens into the Royal Navy. Most disputes were settle but the slow communications of the day gave the Hawks in the U.S. the excuse they wanted to declare war. Your right, no one won and everything returned to the Status Quo Ante Bellum. (Exactly before the War started) Impressment was settled, the blockade of Neutrals partially lifted and the N.B/Maine broder would be settle after long negotiations.

Camac.

Camac,

In all this is a sad war, because yes war is all about alliances like Patch mentioned in one of his posts.

I will make sure to go and get some books and read more even though on the net there is some very interesting information I found it incomplete.
Books are more detailled and prefer the reading.

P.S. Out of topic...did you look up your P.M.? If so give me some news.Thanks.

LOA

Posted by: Camac 23-May-2008, 05:48 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 23-May-2008, 06:37 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-May-2008, 12:05 PM)
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 22-May-2008, 06:14 PM)
I've read a bit about the war and if I understand correctly this was one war that started for practically nothing and nobody won anything and the signing of the Treaty of Ghent was all about territorial concessions.

It is almost as if the Americans (no offense) had nothing to do better than to declare war because they found the Brits to slow to answer their demands!!!! I hope that I've misunderstood this because if so no wonder it is not spoken very much about.

LOA

LOA;
You are partly correct with the slowness of negotiation but the main causes were the New Brunswick/Maine border (See Aroostook War & Jays Treaty)), American exspansion into the Ohio valley, the blockade of French ports , and of course impressment of possible American citizens into the Royal Navy. Most disputes were settle but the slow communications of the day gave the Hawks in the U.S. the excuse they wanted to declare war. Your right, no one won and everything returned to the Status Quo Ante Bellum. (Exactly before the War started) Impressment was settled, the blockade of Neutrals partially lifted and the N.B/Maine broder would be settle after long negotiations.

Camac.

Camac,

In all this is a sad war, because yes war is all about alliances like Patch mentioned in one of his posts.

I will make sure to go and get some books and read more even though on the net there is some very interesting information I found it incomplete.
Books are more detailled and prefer the reading.

P.S. Out of topic...did you look up your P.M.? If so give me some news.Thanks.

LOA

Your post script has thrown me. I'm sorry but I don't understand.

Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 23-May-2008, 05:50 PM
Hi Camac,

This is a bit off topic but this is what I meant in my post script.

I've sent you a few private messages and got no answer and was asking how it goes with your family history.

LOA

Posted by: CelticRose 30-May-2008, 12:26 AM
Honestly, I know very little about this war of 1812. But it is my mission to learn. One has to be so careful what they read on the net as so much is sensationalism and not accurate.

I did come across this site. If any of you feel it is not accurate, let us all know. Thanks!

http://war1812.tripod.com/


Posted by: Camac 30-May-2008, 06:56 AM
QUOTE (CelticRose @ 30-May-2008, 01:26 AM)
Honestly, I know very little about this war of 1812. But it is my mission to learn. One has to be so careful what they read on the net as so much is sensationalism and not accurate.

I did come across this site. If any of you feel it is not accurate, let us all know. Thanks!

http://war1812.tripod.com/

CelticRose;

In order to get the best insight into the War 0f 1812 you have to read the histories of the three combatants American, British, and Canadian. The vast majority of land battles were fought in Ontario and Quebec. The Naval battles were mostly fought along your Eastern Sea board with a few in Lake Ontario,Lake Erie and Lake Champlain. You also have to be careful as a lot of Myths grew out of that war.



Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 01-Jun-2008, 01:06 PM
Hi Camac,

Can you be more specific in regards of the Myths you're stating in your posts?
I found it is always wise to know the real history of any kind of event that happened through times. But it is the reality of history in itself that it is sometimes written with a bit of exaggeration.
That's why sometimes some of it is re-written.

LOA

Posted by: Camac 01-Jun-2008, 02:11 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 01-Jun-2008, 02:06 PM)
Hi Camac,

Can you be more specific in regards of the Myths you're stating in your posts?
I found it is always wise to know the real history of any kind of event that happened through times. But it is the reality of history in itself that it is sometimes written with a bit of exaggeration.
That's why sometimes some of it is re-written.

LOA

LOA.

There is the Myth surrounding the Canadian Militia started and propogated by Reverend Strachan of York (Toronto) Many myths grew up around Lafite, and of course Tecumseh and Old Iron Sides.

Camac

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 02-Jun-2008, 04:55 PM
Hi Camac,

Yes I knew about Laffite that there is a lot of hot air in what he really did during that time but I had no idea about Tecumseh and Old Iron Sides much less about the Canadian Militia.

I'll try and found out what were these myths.
Do you any of them?
LOA

Posted by: Camac 03-Jun-2008, 09:50 AM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 02-Jun-2008, 05:55 PM)
Hi Camac,

Yes I knew about Laffite that there is a lot of hot air in what he really did during that time but I had no idea about Tecumseh and Old Iron Sides much less about the Canadian Militia.

I'll try and found out what were these myths.
Do you any of them?
LOA

LOA;

There are not that many myths about Tecumseh but there is a great mystery.
Tecumseh is killed in the Battle of the Thames, no one knows who killed him, although a Kentuckian , whose name eludes me just now, claims it was he who shot him,. Tecumsehs' body is spirited away by his followers and buried in a secret place. To this day no one knows where. There were stories that he did not die but escaped and travelled to the west but there is no proof of this. He had led his people in a final charge (Forlone Hope) against the Americans while the British were abandoning the field in retreat. It was the end of Tecumsehs' (He who Walks in the Sky) dream of an Indian Confederacy to hold the white man at bay.He along with the Mohawks played a large part in keeping Canada out of American hands. Another ironic thing is that he is Honoured more by his enemies, The Americans, than he is by us.

Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 03-Jun-2008, 05:11 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 03-Jun-2008, 11:50 AM)
Another ironic thing is that he is Honoured more by his enemies, The Americans, than he is by us.

Camac.

Hi Camac,

Yes a mystery indeed.I have to get into reading again because this character intrigues me and I've read very little about him. And I want to learn more.
As for the honours from Americans, well enemies sometimes comes to respect each other.
But I'm not really surprise by the lack of it from us Canadians.Are you?

LOA

Posted by: Camac 04-Jun-2008, 06:45 AM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 03-Jun-2008, 06:11 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 03-Jun-2008, 11:50 AM)
Another ironic thing is that he is Honoured more by his enemies, The Americans, than he is by us.

Camac.

Hi Camac,

Yes a mystery indeed.I have to get into reading again because this character intrigues me and I've read very little about him. And I want to learn more.
As for the honours from Americans, well enemies sometimes comes to respect each other.
But I'm not really surprise by the lack of it from us Canadians.Are you?

LOA

LOA;

We Canadians have a tendency to downplay or ignore our heroes. It is almost a National Inferiority Complex. Also to boast of ones heroes seems quiet American.

There is a poem, "Tecumseh" by John Richardson it is quiet long but you might enjoy it. Just remember that it is a poem and not necessarily historically accurate.


Camac

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 05-Jun-2008, 02:48 PM
This has been an interesting read. I helped my youngest son do a report on the War of 1812. It was pretty well covered in his 8th grade history class. I remember that Camac had raised some very interesting questions with regards to this war. PS I just saw a movie about LaFitte and Andrew Jackson, played by Yul Brynner and Charlten Heston respectively, can't recall the name though, mostly about pirates though.

Posted by: Camac 05-Jun-2008, 03:56 PM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 05-Jun-2008, 03:48 PM)
This has been an interesting read. I helped my youngest son do a report on the War of 1812. It was pretty well covered in his 8th grade history class. I remember that Camac had raised some very interesting questions with regards to this war. PS I just saw a movie about LaFitte and Andrew Jackson, played by Yul Brynner and Charlten Heston respectively, can't recall the name though, mostly about pirates though.

USN;

The movie was "The Buccaneer"

Camac.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 05-Jun-2008, 04:36 PM
Yes, thats it the Buccaneers, entertaining.

The War of 1812 is a fairly politically complicated war that didn't accomplish much at the time as far as tangible results. But remember it in context of a nation less than 50 years old, with little international experience, still in formation, still divisive and in the process of gel-ing. This war may very well have been more of a crucible for a nations identity both for the US and later Canada.
Yes, I agree with you Camac, when little tangible results can be seen from a war, many myths are created to give it more meaning.
USN

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 05-Jun-2008, 04:49 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 03-Jun-2008, 10:50 AM)
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 02-Jun-2008, 05:55 PM)
Hi Camac,

Yes I knew about Laffite that there is a lot of hot air in what he really did during that time but I had no idea about Tecumseh and Old Iron Sides much less about the Canadian Militia.

I'll try and found out what were these myths.
Do you any of them?
LOA

LOA;

There are not that many myths about Tecumseh but there is a great mystery.
Tecumseh is killed in the Battle of the Thames, no one knows who killed him, although a Kentuckian , whose name eludes me just now, claims it was he who shot him,. Tecumsehs' body is spirited away by his followers and buried in a secret place. To this day no one knows where. There were stories that he did not die but escaped and travelled to the west but there is no proof of this. He had led his people in a final charge (Forlone Hope) against the Americans while the British were abandoning the field in retreat. It was the end of Tecumsehs' (He who Walks in the Sky) dream of an Indian Confederacy to hold the white man at bay.He along with the Mohawks played a large part in keeping Canada out of American hands. Another ironic thing is that he is Honoured more by his enemies, The Americans, than he is by us.

Camac.

It is said Colonel Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky shot and killed Tecumseh but that does have its controversy.

Posted by: Camac 05-Jun-2008, 05:14 PM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 05-Jun-2008, 05:49 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 03-Jun-2008, 10:50 AM)
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 02-Jun-2008, 05:55 PM)
Hi Camac,

Yes I knew about Laffite that there is a lot of hot air in what he really did during that time but I had no idea about Tecumseh and Old Iron Sides much less about the Canadian Militia.

I'll try and found out what were these myths.
Do you any of them?
LOA

LOA;

There are not that many myths about Tecumseh but there is a great mystery.
Tecumseh is killed in the Battle of the Thames, no one knows who killed him, although a Kentuckian , whose name eludes me just now, claims it was he who shot him,. Tecumsehs' body is spirited away by his followers and buried in a secret place. To this day no one knows where. There were stories that he did not die but escaped and travelled to the west but there is no proof of this. He had led his people in a final charge (Forlone Hope) against the Americans while the British were abandoning the field in retreat. It was the end of Tecumsehs' (He who Walks in the Sky) dream of an Indian Confederacy to hold the white man at bay.He along with the Mohawks played a large part in keeping Canada out of American hands. Another ironic thing is that he is Honoured more by his enemies, The Americans, than he is by us.

Camac.

It is said Colonel Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky shot and killed Tecumseh but that does have its controversy.

USN;

Thanks for the name. I was to lazy to look it up must be sign of getting older or just senile.


Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 05-Jun-2008, 05:39 PM
QUOTE
It is said Colonel Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky shot and killed Tecumseh but that does have its controversy.
USN; 



QUOTE
Thanks for the name. I was to lazy to look it up must be sign of getting older or just senile.

Camac.



Thanks Ulster glad you join in our little thread of this intriguing war.

And Mr.Camac please don't ever say that to me that you're getting older or senile.
I won't hear it. Not an intelligent man like you.

Now back to business, I don't know if you can call this war complicated because in my eyes it seems complicated because I don't think anybody knew what they were really doing. Or is it me that misunderstand the whole thing.
Maybe it seems this way because too many were involved...

LOA

Posted by: Camac 05-Jun-2008, 06:23 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 05-Jun-2008, 06:39 PM)
QUOTE
It is said Colonel Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky shot and killed Tecumseh but that does have its controversy.
USN; 



QUOTE
Thanks for the name. I was to lazy to look it up must be sign of getting older or just senile.

Camac.



Thanks Ulster glad you join in our little thread of this intriguing war.

And Mr.Camac please don't ever say that to me that you're getting older or senile.
I won't hear it. Not an intelligent man like you.

Now back to business, I don't know if you can call this war complicated because in my eyes it seems complicated because I don't think anybody knew what they were really doing. Or is it me that misunderstand the whole thing.
Maybe it seems this way because too many were involved...

LOA

LOA;

The following is taken from Official American Military History:

"To Great Britain the War of 1812 was simply a burdensome adjunct of its greater conflict against Napoleonic France. To the Canadians it was clearly a case of naked American aggression.But to the Americans it was neither simple nor clear. The United States entered the War with confused objectives and divided loyalties and made peace without settling any of the issues that had induced the Nation to go to War."

This is one of the better description of what the combatants at the time felt.

Camac.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 06-Jun-2008, 07:39 AM
With the death of Tecumseh, it pretty much ended the hopes of Natives to rid themselves of the white man and allowed the major settlement of the Ohio Valley and what was known as the Connecticut Western Reserves. This is about when my ancestors then headed out to the Ohio territories from Massachusetts and settled on the frontier.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 06-Jun-2008, 07:45 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 05-Jun-2008, 07:23 PM)
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 05-Jun-2008, 06:39 PM)
QUOTE
It is said Colonel Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky shot and killed Tecumseh but that does have its controversy.
USN; 



QUOTE
Thanks for the name. I was to lazy to look it up must be sign of getting older or just senile.

Camac.



Thanks Ulster glad you join in our little thread of this intriguing war.

And Mr.Camac please don't ever say that to me that you're getting older or senile.
I won't hear it. Not an intelligent man like you.

Now back to business, I don't know if you can call this war complicated because in my eyes it seems complicated because I don't think anybody knew what they were really doing. Or is it me that misunderstand the whole thing.
Maybe it seems this way because too many were involved...

LOA

LOA;

The following is taken from Official American Military History:

"To Great Britain the War of 1812 was simply a burdensome adjunct of its greater conflict against Napoleonic France. To the Canadians it was clearly a case of naked American aggression.But to the Americans it was neither simple nor clear. The United States entered the War with confused objectives and divided loyalties and made peace without settling any of the issues that had induced the Nation to go to War."

This is one of the better description of what the combatants at the time felt.

Camac.

HI My Lady!!!!!

The following is taken from Official American Military History:

"To Great Britain the War of 1812 was simply a burdensome adjunct of its greater conflict against Napoleonic France. To the Canadians it was clearly a case of naked American aggression.But to the Americans it was neither simple nor clear. The United States entered the War with confused objectives and divided loyalties and made peace without settling any of the issues that had induced the Nation to go to War."

This is one of the better description of what the combatants at the time felt.

This is a great summary, in fact the simpliest and to the point I have read on The War of 1812.

Just the divisions in New England alone were enough to make this war a complicated matter.
Within the historical context, no nation had been created like the US before, with states rights, individual rights, national rights so still undefined and universally excepted within the nation itself.

Posted by: Camac 06-Jun-2008, 09:03 AM
USN.

There were divisions here in Canada because a great many of the new settlers were American and it wasn't known how they would side. There was also the Quebec question for here again there were families on both sides of the border. Also unrest against the British government was starting to forment and after this war there would be two rebellions here in Canada one in Upper Canada and one in Lowere Canada. Both were crushed by Military force.



Camac.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 06-Jun-2008, 11:05 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 06-Jun-2008, 10:03 AM)
USN.

There were divisions here in Canada because a great many of the new settlers were American and it wasn't known how they would side. There was also the Quebec question for here again there were families on both sides of the border. Also unrest against the British government was starting to forment and after this war there would be two rebellions here in Canada one in Upper Canada and one in Lowere Canada. Both were crushed by Military force.



Camac.

So true, this is one of the many reasons the New England states were against this war. Many of the new settlers to the north country were New Englanders with family still in the NE states. Many of these settlers simply wanted to be left alone and wanted no part of any nations bickerings.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 06-Jun-2008, 05:31 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 05-Jun-2008, 08:23 PM)

LOA;

The following is taken from Official American Military History:

"To Great Britain the War of 1812 was simply a burdensome adjunct of its greater conflict against Napoleonic France. To the Canadians it was clearly a case of naked American aggression.But to the Americans it was neither simple nor clear. The United States entered the War with confused objectives and divided loyalties and made peace without settling any of the issues that had induced the Nation to go to War."

This is one of the better description of what the combatants at the time felt.

Camac.

Camac,
What you are quoting here is pretty similar to one of my comments on this war that I posted previouly on this topic.At least where the Americans were concerned.

Here it is.

QUOTE
It is almost as if the Americans (no offense) had nothing to do better than to declare war because they found the Brits to slow to answer their demands!!!! I hope that I've misunderstood this because if so no wonder it is not spoken very much about.


I found it sad that a war like this only brought destruction on the new land for what? Like Camac said war is all about alliance but this one brought nothing in the end. It's almost as if the people then declared war just to declare war because it was the "in" thing to do. And without really thinking of the aftermath.

It is in fact a complex war!

LOA

Posted by: Camac 06-Jun-2008, 05:34 PM
USN;

An anecdote I read somewhere about feelings in Canada about the war was that before the Battle of Cryslers' Farm an British Officer was exhorting a Canadian Militia unit about fighting for God and King. A voice rose out of the formation shouting "Yeah lets throw these Yankee Bastards out. A great cheer rose up and after it had died down another voice called out "Yeah then its you Bastards turn" Whether this actually happened is hard to say as they is no real proof that it did. If it did happen it must have been a Scotsman.


Camac.


Posted by: Lady of Avalon 06-Jun-2008, 05:42 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 06-Jun-2008, 07:34 PM)
USN;

An anecdote I read somewhere about feelings in Canada about the war was that before the Battle of Cryslers' Farm an British Officer was exhorting a Canadian Militia unit about fighting for God and King. A voice rose out of the formation shouting "Yeah lets throw these Yankee Bastards out. A great cheer rose up and after it had died down another voice called out "Yeah then its you Bastards turn" Whether this actually happened is hard to say as they is no real proof that it did. If it did happen it must have been a Scotsman.


Camac.


lol.gif Yes Camac it surely must have been. So typical of Scots.

LOA

Posted by: Camac 06-Jun-2008, 05:49 PM
LOA; Why Thank You My Lady.

thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 07-Jun-2008, 11:35 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 07-May-2008, 08:42 PM)
QUOTE (Rebecca Ann @ 07-May-2008, 08:06 PM)
For the most part the War of 1812 is a forgotten war.  It is rarely taught in schools even in the states.  Infact it was during this war that Francis Scott Key wrote our National Anthem (The Star Spangled Banner).  It is a neat and most wonderful story. 
Rebecca

Rebecca Ann;

The ironic thing about your National Anthem is that it is sung to the tune of an old English Drinking song. Possibly the War is not taught in your schools is the fact on land with the exception of The Battle of New Orleans, Monrovia and a few other minor skirmishes the U.S. Army of the day was beaten. Your Navy on the other hand did a superb job.

Camac.

Another funny song is Yankee Doodle Dandy. It was meant to be a British insult to the Americans, but they took a liking to the tune and words and now it is a classic ditty that well represents the States and New England especially.

Posted by: Camac 08-Jun-2008, 09:37 AM
ausn;

I came across a book review in Google Scholars entitled "War of 1812, A Forgotten Conflict" by Donald R. Hickey, seemed very interesting what little I read. In 2012 it will be the 200th anniversary and there are petitions galore going around for the boys in Ottawa to mark it. This nasty unwanted little spat brought about many changes in both Countries and it should be celebrated with all due pomp and circumstances. A while back while excavatiing for a building in Niagara Falls they came across the grave of quite a few American Soldiers and they were disinterned and returnd to the states with full Military Honours.


Camac.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 09-Jun-2008, 10:33 AM
Camac, It has been awhile since I read anything about the war. Last time I reviewed it was when I worked with my son on his project and that was 4 years ago. I will add another book to my list.
Thx,
USN

Posted by: Camac 09-Jun-2008, 11:44 AM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 09-Jun-2008, 11:33 AM)
Camac, It has been awhile since I read anything about the war. Last time I reviewed it was when I worked with my son on his project and that was 4 years ago. I will add another book to my list.
Thx,
USN

USN;

I just ordered three (3) more books on the War:

1. Don't Give up the Ship; Myths of the War of 1812.

2. Field of Glory; The Battle of Crysler's Farm

3. The Battle of Lundy's Lane.

This will bring my collection up to an even dozen. Lots of reference material and differing points of view. thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif

Camac.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 09-Jun-2008, 12:05 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 09-Jun-2008, 12:44 PM)
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 09-Jun-2008, 11:33 AM)
Camac, It has been awhile since I read anything about the war. Last time I reviewed it was when I worked with my son on his project and that was 4 years ago.  I will add another book to my list.
Thx,
USN

USN;

I just ordered three (3) more books on the War:

1. Don't Give up the Ship; Myths of the War of 1812.

2. Field of Glory; The Battle of Crysler's Farm

3. The Battle of Lundy's Lane.

This will bring my collection up to an even dozen. Lots of reference material and differing points of view. thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

Camac.

Camac, Ok, now you're pushing it!!! laugh.gif
I can't read this fast!!
To many good books so little time.
USN

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 09-Jun-2008, 06:25 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 09-Jun-2008, 01:44 PM)

I just ordered three (3) more books on the War:

1. Don't Give up the Ship; Myths of the War of 1812.

2. Field of Glory; The Battle of Crysler's Farm

3. The Battle of Lundy's Lane.

This will bring my collection up to an even dozen. Lots of reference material and differing points of view. thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

Camac.

"War of 1812, A Forgotten Conflict" by Donald R. Hickey



I'll certainly look them up myself, thanks for the titles Camac.

Posted by: DesertRose 09-Jun-2008, 06:31 PM
I have so enjoyed reading all this 1812 history...thanks all!

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 11-Jun-2008, 05:16 PM
QUOTE
It is said Colonel Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky shot and killed Tecumseh but that does have its controversy


USN,

About the death of Tecumseh I went to look on Wikipedia and try to find more about this hero and this is the only little paragraph that was written about it. And if you read at the complete bottom it confirms what you stated in your posts about Colonel Richard M.Johnson being the killer.



War of 1812
Tecumseh joined British Major-General Sir Isaac Brock to force the surrender of Detroit in August 1812, a major victory for the British. Tecumseh's acumen in warfare was evident in this engagement. As Brock advanced to a point just out of range of Detroit's guns, Tecumseh had his warriors parade from a nearby wood and circle around to repeat the maneuver, making it appear that there were many more than was actually the case. The fort commander, Brigadier General William Hull, surrendered in fear of a massacre should he refuse.[5] Among the Detroit residents imprisoned by the British was Father Gabriel Richard, but due to the high esteem in which the priest was held by the Native Americans among whom he ministered, Tecumseh refused to continue fighting for the British until they freed Richard.

This victory was reversed a little over a year later, as Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry's victory on Lake Erie, late in the summer of 1813, cut British supply lines and forced them to withdraw. The British burned all public buildings in Detroit and retreated into Upper Canada along the Thames Valley. Tecumseh followed, fighting rearguard actions to slow the US advance.


The next British commander, Major-General Henry Procter did not have the same working relationship with Tecumseh as his predecessor and the two "disagreed over tactics." Procter failed to appear at Chatham, Ontario as expected by the Native Americans. Harrison crossed into Upper Canada on October 5, 1813 and won a victory over the British and Native Americans at the Battle of the Thames near Chatham. Tecumseh was killed, and shortly after the battle the tribes of his confederacy surrendered to Harrison at Detroit. Certain eye-witness sources state that Tecumseh was killed by Colonel Richard M. Johnson, future vice-president of the United States under Martin Van Buren, although it has not been proven
.
LOA

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 22-Jun-2008, 11:57 AM
Ok, June 18th was a date associated with the War of 1812. Anybody?

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 22-Jun-2008, 12:51 PM
Ulster,

Are you referring to the fact that the US declared war to the British while they were already involved with Napoleon?

Posted by: Camac 22-Jun-2008, 01:06 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 22-Jun-2008, 01:51 PM)
Ulster,

Are you referring to the fact that the US declared war to the British while they were already involved with Napoleon?

LOA

You are absolutely correct as to the date. The sad thing is that because of the slow communications of the day Madison did not know that progress had been made between Great Britain and the U.S. towards finding a satisfactory resolution to their dispute. G.B was at the time quiet willing to exempt the U.S. from the blockade on Neutral Shipping. The real sticking point on Maritime issues was impressment and this would not be resolved until well after the War was over. In a great many instances the Brits were right and deserters from the Royal Navy were hiding out in the U.S. Navy claiming American citizenship, which by the way was very easy to obtain.


Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 22-Jun-2008, 03:22 PM
Camac & Ulster,

Here is a brief paragraph from author Pierre Burton that I found on the net from the Canadian Encyclopedia this is quite interesting in regards of what happened on june 18th and the following days.


On 18 June 1812, at the height of the Napoleonic conflict , the US declared war on Great Britain and struck at the only British possession on the continent: Canada. Most of the battles that followed took place along the international border. The war ended in stalemate. The Treaty of GHENT, signed 24 Dec 1814, solved nothing, since the reasons for the war - British high-handedness on the high seas, including searching American ships during the Napoleonic blockade and impressment - had been rendered academic by France's defeat. Yet Canada owes its present shape to negotiations that grew out of the peace, while the war itself - or the myths created by the war - gave Canadians their first sense of community.


Isaac Brock was long remembered as the fallen hero and saviour of Upper Canada (The British and Canadians were badly outnumbered by the Americans but better prepared for war, thanks to the prescience of Maj-Gen Isaac BROCK, administrator of UPPER CANADA. If the enemy could move up the traditional Champlain-Richelieu invasion route, seize Montréal and cut the lifeline between Upper and Lower Canada, the war would be as good as over. Brock thought this impossible because his Indian allies, under the Shawnee war chief TECUMSEH, had the American NW frontier in a ferment. The Americans would thus first try to secure their left flank. The bloodless British capture of a key US post at Michilimackinac I in Lk Huron, on July 17, and of Detroit, Aug 16, frustrated that strategy and gave the British control of Michigan territory and the Upper Mississippi.
At this point Thomas Jefferson's remark that the capture of Canada was "a mere matter of marching" returned to haunt Washington. Having lost one army at Detroit, the Americans lost another at Queenston Heights , Oct 13, after their militia stood on its constitutional guarantee and refused to cross into Canada. But Brock was killed - an irreparable loss. A new American army under William Henry Harrison struggled up from Kentucky to try to retake Detroit. One wing was so badly mauled at Frenchtown, 22 Jan 1813, by a force of British, Canadians and Indians under Lt-Col Henry PROCTOR, that further attempts at invasion that winter were abandoned. The only Americans in Canada were prisoners of war.

British strategy was to act defensively and allow the invaders to make mistakes. Gov Sir George PREVOST husbanded his thin forces carefully, a sensible precaution given the US's overwhelming numerical superiority. As the campaign of 1813 opened, the invaders determined to seize Kingston to cut the link between the Canadas. But a weakness of resolve diverted the attack to the lesser prize of York [Toronto]. The Americans briefly occupied the town, burning the public buildings and seizing valuable naval supplies destined for Lk Erie; but the British, by burning their half-completed warship, frustrated the enemy's plan to appropriate it and change the balance of naval power on Lk Ontario. Neither side totally controlled that lake for the balance of the war.

Tecumseh allied his forces with those of the British during the War of 1812, and his active participation was crucial.

The Americans abandoned York and on 27 May 1813 their fleet seized FT GEORGE at the mouth of the Niagara R. The British army escaped, however, repulsing the advance of the enemy up the Niagara peninsula by winning the battles at Stoney Creek and Beaver Dams , and driving the Americans back into the enclave of the fort. For all of that season the Niagara peninsula was a no-man's-land of marauding parties. Finally, worn down by sickness, desertion, and the departure of short-term soldiers, the American command evacuated Ft George on Dec 10 and quit Canada. On leaving, the militia burned the town of Newark [ NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE ], an act that drove the British to brutal retaliation at Buffalo. These incendiary reprisals continued until Washington itself was burned the following Aug.
The US fared better on the western flank. The British tried and failed to take Harrison's stronghold at Ft Meigs on the Maumee R. A struggle for control of Lk Erie followed. The 2 rival fleets, both built of green lumber on the spot, met Sept 10 at PUT-IN-BAY. The British were hampered by the American seizure of naval supplies at York the previous spring and by the loss, early in the battle, of several senior officers.

American commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, a bold seaman, used unorthodox tactics to turn defeat into victory and become the first man in history to capture an entire British fleet. Erie became an American lake, Detroit was abandoned, and the British retreated up the Thames R. At Moraviantown , Harrison defeated Proctor. Tecumseh died in the battle, an event signalling the end of the northwestern Indian alliance. But Harrison, his lines extended, could not follow up his victory; his Kentuckians were eager to get back to their farms at harvest time.

Meanwhile, the US was mounting a 2-pronged attack designed to take Montréal, but this was so halfhearted that it was foredoomed to failure. On the Châteauguay R on Oct 26, a handful of French Canadian VOLTIGEURS under Lt-Col Charles de SALABERRY drove an American army of 4000 back across the border . At CRYSLER'S FARM (near Morrisburg, Ont) on Nov 11, Lt-Col Joseph Wanton Morrison's regulars won a resounding victory over James Wilkinson's superior force, which also quit Canada. Thus the 1813 campaign ended with the Americans in possession of Ft AMHERSTBURG on the Detroit R, and the British holding the 2 American forts, Niagara and Michilimackinac.

The following year the Americans again crossed the Niagara, seized Ft Erie on July 3, and defeated the British at Chippawa on July 5, but failed to retake Ft George. The bitter battle of LUNDY'S LANE followed on July 25 within earshot of the Niagara cataract. Fought in the pitch dark of a sultry night by exhausted troops who could not tell friend from foe, it ended in stalemate. The Americans withdrew to Ft Erie. Here they badly mauled the forces of the new British commander, Lt-Gen Gordon Drummond, when he attempted a night attack (Aug 14-15). With both sides exhausted a 3-month standoff followed. Finally, on Nov 5, the Americans again withdrew. Meanwhile, NS Lt-Gov Sir John SHERBROOKE led a force from Halifax into Maine, capturing Castine on Sept 3. By mid-month British forces held much of Maine, which was returned to the US only with the signing of the peace treaty.

In the west, the Canadian voyageurs took Prairie du Chien on the Upper Mississippi and beat off an American attack on Michilimackinac I, capturing 2 warships on Lk Huron. In the east, the story was different. With Napoleon defeated, the British army now outnumbered the thin American force at Plattsburgh on Lk Champlain. Prevost marched S with 11 000 of Wellington's veterans but his hesitancy to attack - he was no Brock - together with the Sept 11 defeat of the hastily built British fleet in Plattsburgh Bay by the American commodore, Thomas Macdonough, caused Prevost to abort the ground attack and withdraw.

That single action tipped the scales, forcing the British peace negotiators at Ghent to lower their demands and accept the status quo. Had Prevost succeeded, much of upper NY state might be Canadian today. On the other hand, if the Americans had won the battle of Stoney Creek, or taken Montréal, much of Ontario and Québec - perhaps all - might now be under the Stars and Stripes.

Washington had expected the largely American population of Upper Canada to throw off the British yoke as soon as its army crossed the border. This did not happen. Lured northwards by free land and low taxes, the settlers wanted to be left alone. Nor was it wise after such a bitter war to advocate American political ideals, such as democracy and republicanism. Thus the British and LOYALIST elite were able to set Canadians on a different course from that of their former enemy. And the growing belief that they, the civilian soldiers, and not the Indians and British regulars, had won the war - more mythic than real - helped to germinate the seeds of nationalism in the Canadas.

Author PIERRE BERTON

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 22-Jun-2008, 03:24 PM
Camac,

You were right about M.Burton. If this is from one of his books which I presume it is;he is very acurate in his writings and interesting to read also.

LOA


Posted by: Camac 22-Jun-2008, 05:21 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 22-Jun-2008, 04:24 PM)
Camac,

You were right about M.Burton. If this is from one of his books which I presume it is;he is very acurate in his writings and interesting to read also.

LOA

LOA;

When Pierre Burton was alive he was called "Mr. Canada". for having written so many books about our History.


Camac.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 23-Jun-2008, 09:27 AM

Washington had expected the largely American population of Upper Canada to throw off the British yoke as soon as its army crossed the border. This did not happen. Lured northwards by free land and low taxes, the settlers wanted to be left alone. Nor was it wise after such a bitter war to advocate American political ideals, such as democracy and republicanism. Thus the British and LOYALIST elite were able to set Canadians on a different course from that of their former enemy. And the growing belief that they, the civilian soldiers, and not the Indians and British regulars, had won the war - more mythic than real - helped to germinate the seeds of nationalism in the Canadas. ~~ Pierre Burton

A good paragraph.


June 18th was the anniversary of the start of the War of 1812. The US knew it had do do something to impress its' soveriegnty to the British Empire and Canada was about all this new nation of United States could find within its' abilities.

PS Did you read about the discovery of the HMS Ontario??!! Too Cool!!!
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/443161

USN

Posted by: Camac 23-Jun-2008, 09:49 AM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 23-Jun-2008, 10:27 AM)
Washington had expected the largely American population of Upper Canada to throw off the British yoke as soon as its army crossed the border. This did not happen. Lured northwards by free land and low taxes, the settlers wanted to be left alone. Nor was it wise after such a bitter war to advocate American political ideals, such as democracy and republicanism. Thus the British and LOYALIST elite were able to set Canadians on a different course from that of their former enemy. And the growing belief that they, the civilian soldiers, and not the Indians and British regulars, had won the war - more mythic than real - helped to germinate the seeds of nationalism in the Canadas. ~~ Pierre Burton

A good paragraph.


June 18th was the anniversary of the start of the War of 1812. The US knew it had do do something to impress its' soveriegnty to the British Empire and Canada was about all this new nation of United States could find within its' abilities.

PS Did you read about the discovery of the HMS Ontario??!! Too Cool!!!
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/443161

USN

USN;

The leading proponents of the Canadian Militia Myth was the "Family Compact" A group of so called "Elitist from York (Toronto) and Montreal led by the Anglican Minister Rev. John Strachan. It wasn't till the 1840s' that their power was broken.

Yeah, HMS. Ontario still belongs to the Royal Navy and has already been designated an offical War Grave. I saw some underwater shots on the news and she is in Pristine condition. Good old Lake Ontario its so cold that it will preserve anything.

Camac.

PS. The copy of the Battle of Lundys' Lane I ordered just arrive. You know what I'll be reading.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 23-Jun-2008, 10:12 AM
From Donald E. Graves on the Battle of Lundy's Lane.

In respect to the effect of the battle on the War, the British may claim a strategic victory since they had driven the American army away from Fort George and inflicted so many casualties that the Americans could no longer mount a major attack.

However, the battle has been claimed as an American tactical victory on the grounds that they captured the Hill and foiled all attempts to recapture it. Yet the last attack of the day was by Winfield Scott's 1st U.S. Brigade - and it was repulsed. What counted in the end was that the American invasion of Canada was turned back.

Posted by: Camac 23-Jun-2008, 11:08 AM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 23-Jun-2008, 11:12 AM)
From Donald E. Graves on the Battle of Lundy's Lane.

In respect to the effect of the battle on the War, the British may claim a strategic victory since they had driven the American army away from Fort George and inflicted so many casualties that the Americans could no longer mount a major attack.

However, the battle has been claimed as an American tactical victory on the grounds that they captured the Hill and foiled all attempts to recapture it. Yet the last attack of the day was by Winfield Scott's 1st U.S. Brigade - and it was repulsed. What counted in the end was that the American invasion of Canada was turned back.

USN

In one respect it is a good thing that Lundys' Lane ended as it did. The Napoleonic War was over and Wellingtons' battle harden troop were starting to transfer to Canada. Who knows what might have happened if both Wellingtons' Army and the Royal Navy excerted their fill might. We might have ended up the Dominion of North America, or for that matter the United States of North America. I like Dominion better it has a nicer ring. laugh.gif laugh.gif


Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 24-Jun-2008, 06:46 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 01:08 PM)

We might have ended up the Dominion of North America, or for that matter the United States of North America. I like Dominion better it has a nicer ring. laugh.gif laugh.gif


Camac.

Camac,

Frankly, I don't like neither and prefer by far my Canada,what say you. wink.gif

LOA

Posted by: Camac 24-Jun-2008, 08:18 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 24-Jun-2008, 07:46 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Jun-2008, 01:08 PM)

We might have ended up the Dominion of North America, or for that matter the United States of North America. I like Dominion better it has a nicer ring. laugh.gif  laugh.gif 


Camac.

Camac,

Frankly, I don't like neither and prefer by far my Canada,what say you. wink.gif

LOA

LOA.

What can I say we live in the greatest country in the world. thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif



Camac.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 25-Jun-2008, 07:00 AM
My Lady & Camac,

Yes, you can say things worked out pretty well the way they did.

When you think about it, the War of 1812 really accomplished nothing or barely at the time, but very well was a defining moment for a very young and naive nation on one side and a soon to be nation on the other. Later, both nations saw much more commonality than difference and to this date share a most unique and worldly admired relationship. If only all nations shared this peace.

USN

Posted by: Camac 25-Jun-2008, 07:13 AM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 25-Jun-2008, 08:00 AM)
My Lady & Camac,

Yes, you can say things worked out pretty well the way they did.

When you think about it, the War of 1812 really accomplished nothing or barely at the time, but very well was a defining moment for a very young and naive nation on one side and a soon to be nation on the other. Later, both nations saw much more commonality than difference and to this date share a most unique and worldly admired relationship. If only all nations shared this peace.

USN

USN;

We do have a most unique relationship kind of like across the fence friends (without the fence). We have our difference but thankfully they have never gone past the yelling at each other stage. Hell we usually kiss and make up after a while.
It must be hard for those living below the border to know that they are right next door the the Best place on Earth rolleyes.gif laugh.gif .


Camac.

PS. I know no more zings.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 25-Jun-2008, 07:44 AM
Camac, Yes, but we have greener grass and much more of it!!!!
USN

Posted by: Camac 25-Jun-2008, 07:47 AM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 25-Jun-2008, 08:44 AM)
Camac, Yes, but we have greener grass and much more of it!!!!
USN

USN.

OK. I quit :: notworthy.gif



Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 25-Jun-2008, 04:44 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 25-Jun-2008, 09:47 AM)
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 25-Jun-2008, 08:44 AM)
Camac, Yes, but we have greener grass and much more of it!!!!
USN

USN.

OK. I quit :: notworthy.gif



Camac.

What's this???As the war started again??? tank.gif

Guys!Guys! USN your grass maybe greener but ours is of better quality and Camac what's this "giving up".

Back to war here. I read about another hero that not much is written about him and it is Major-General Isaac Brock.

Do you know any kind of story in regards of his involment during this war?

Posted by: Camac 25-Jun-2008, 06:12 PM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 25-Jun-2008, 05:44 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 25-Jun-2008, 09:47 AM)
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 25-Jun-2008, 08:44 AM)
Camac, Yes, but we have greener grass and much more of it!!!!
USN

USN.

OK. I quit :: notworthy.gif



Camac.

What's this???As the war started again??? tank.gif

Guys!Guys! USN your grass maybe greener but ours is of better quality and Camac what's this "giving up".

Back to war here. I read about another hero that not much is written about him and it is Major-General Isaac Brock.

Do you know any kind of story in regards of his involment during this war?

LOA

Major General Sir Issac Brock was Military Commander of all British forces in Upper Canada (Ontario) at the outbreak of the War. He was responsible the early defeat of the American Invasion and died leading his troops at the Battle of Queenston Heights. He has been called the Saviour Of Canada.I will go into more detail later as I am off to bed right now.


Camac.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 27-Jun-2008, 10:31 AM
laugh.gif Ahhh, Canadiens thumbs_up.gif smile.gif

Your number 1 fan,

USN beer_mug.gif note.gif thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Camac 27-Jun-2008, 11:18 AM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 27-Jun-2008, 11:31 AM)
laugh.gif Ahhh, Canadiens thumbs_up.gif  smile.gif

Your number 1 fan,

USN beer_mug.gif  note.gif  thumbs_up.gif

USN;

The rest of the books I ordered on the War just arrived to-day and when I'm finished with Lundy's Lane I start reading "Don't give up the Ship" Myths ot the War of 1812, by D.R. Hickey. Should be interesting. I've always been a Habs fan myself. thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif



Camac.



Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 27-Jun-2008, 02:02 PM
Do you have any books by Donald E. Graves?

USN

Posted by: Camac 27-Jun-2008, 02:27 PM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 27-Jun-2008, 03:02 PM)
Do you have any books by Donald E. Graves?

USN

USN;

Yeas I have three. "The Battle of Lundy's Lane, Field of Glory, The Battle of Crysler's Farm, and Guns Across the River the Battle of the Windmill.1838. So far I"m reading Lundy's Lane. Have you read Bruce Cattons Trilogy on your Civil War?
thumbs_up.gif Good Reading.



Camac.

PS. I think the war of 1812 was one of the few wars that the participants ended up the best of Allies.

PPS. How come you didn't bite on Define celt.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 30-Jun-2008, 07:36 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 27-Jun-2008, 03:27 PM)
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 27-Jun-2008, 03:02 PM)
Do you have any books by Donald E. Graves?

USN

USN;

Yeas I have three. "The Battle of Lundy's Lane, Field of Glory, The Battle of Crysler's Farm, and Guns Across the River the Battle of the Windmill.1838. So far I"m reading Lundy's Lane. Have you read Bruce Cattons Trilogy on your Civil War?
thumbsup.gif Good Reading.



Camac.

PS. I think the war of 1812 was one of the few wars that the participants ended up the best of Allies.

PPS. How come you didn't bite on Define celt.

I have not read Bruce Cattons Trilogy, add more to the list.

Hmm, I must have missed it. unsure.gif

Posted by: Camac 30-Jun-2008, 07:53 AM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 30-Jun-2008, 08:36 AM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 27-Jun-2008, 03:27 PM)
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 27-Jun-2008, 03:02 PM)
Do you have any books by Donald E. Graves?

USN

USN;

Yeas I have three. "The Battle of Lundy's Lane, Field of Glory, The Battle of Crysler's Farm, and Guns Across the River the Battle of the Windmill.1838. So far I"m reading Lundy's Lane. Have you read Bruce Cattons Trilogy on your Civil War?
thumbsup.gif Good Reading.



Camac.

PS. I think the war of 1812 was one of the few wars that the participants ended up the best of Allies.

PPS. How come you didn't bite on Define celt.

I have not read Bruce Cattons Trilogy, add more to the list.

Hmm, I must have missed it. unsure.gif

USN;


The three books are The Coming Fury, Terrible Swift Sword, and Never Call Retreat. You might have to get them from a used book store (where I got mine) as they were printed back in the early 60s' for the Centennial of the Civil War.


Camac.

Posted by: DesertRose 30-Jun-2008, 06:06 PM
Ok, back on topic all! The war of 1812! What it was about and why?.

I am sure we are all proud Canadians or Americans. This is not the issue in this topic. We are here to educate others what the war was about, why and what it accomplished past, present and future.

Peace! smile.gif


Posted by: Lady of Avalon 30-Jun-2008, 06:10 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 25-Jun-2008, 08:12 PM)

Do you know any kind of story in regards of his involment during this war? [/QUOTE]
LOA

Major General Sir Issac Brock was Military Commander of all British forces in Upper Canada (Ontario) at the outbreak of the War. He was responsible the early defeat of the American Invasion and died leading his troops at the Battle of Queenston Heights. He has been called the Saviour Of Canada.I will go into more detail later as I am off to bed right now.


Camac.

Camac,

If you have any more on this General that was considered a hero during that war
or if you have any title to give me I'd appreciate it very much.

LOA

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 30-Jun-2008, 06:15 PM
QUOTE (DesertRose @ 30-Jun-2008, 08:06 PM)
Ok, back on topic all! The war of 1812! What it was about and why?.

I am sure we are all proud Canadians or Americans. This is not the issue in this topic. We are here to educate others what the war was about, why and what it accomplished past, present and future.

Peace! smile.gif

Thank you for the concern Desert Rose.

smile.gif LOA

Posted by: Camac 30-Jun-2008, 06:21 PM
QUOTE (DesertRose @ 30-Jun-2008, 07:06 PM)
Ok, back on topic all!  The war of 1812!  What it was about and why?.

I am sure we are all proud  Canadians or Americans. This is not the issue in this topic.  We are here to educate others what the war was about, why and what it accomplished past, present and future.

Peace!  smile.gif

DesertRose;

The War was fought between the U.S. and Great Britain. The land battles were mainly fought in Canada when the U.S. invaded hoping for a quick victory and forcing G.B. to the Treaty table. The U.S. had grievences against G.B. in the form of embargoes and impressment. The War ended in 1815 with nothing of concequesnce achieved in fact everything went right back the way it was.. What it did bring about in the years following was a close friendship between Canada and the U.S. and the worlds longest undefended open border.


Camac

PS To this day neither side can have ships of war stationed on the great lakes. Naval vessels are allowed only to visit and must have permission from both sides.








Posted by: DesertRose 30-Jun-2008, 06:34 PM
Dearest Camac!

Our dear LOA is in charge here and I stepped out of line in my recent reply.

I find this topic to be of so much interest and have really enjoyed each and everyone's posts. I find it hard to keep my blasted mouth shut..please forgive me, LOA and others!

Keep on, keep on! Terrific topic!

Posted by: Camac 30-Jun-2008, 06:35 PM
QUOTE (DesertRose @ 30-Jun-2008, 07:34 PM)
Dearest Camac!

Our dear LOA is in charge here and I stepped out of line in my recent reply.

I find this topic to be of so much interest and have really enjoyed each and everyone's posts. I find it hard to keep my blasted mouth shut..please forgive me, LOA and others!

Keep on, keep on! Terrific topic!

DesertRose;

There is nothing to forgive.

Camac.

Posted by: DesertRose 30-Jun-2008, 06:51 PM
Camac, you are a very kind soul as is LOA.

I look forward to reading and learning much more in this topic!

Posted by: Camac 30-Jun-2008, 07:05 PM
QUOTE (DesertRose @ 30-Jun-2008, 07:51 PM)
Camac, you are a very kind soul as is LOA. 

I look forward to reading and learning much more in this topic!

DesertRose;

I would be very pleased to share any knowledge I have concerning the War of 1812,I have read a great deal about it from both sides and have endeavoured to keep an unbiased approach to it and all History I read about. I must admit though sometimes a little devil in me pops up and takes a shot at Americans. This usually only happens when America starts to meddle in our affairs then I can't resist saying "We whupped you Once wanna go for Two."As I said it only happens on rare occassions. Very Rare. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif wink.gif


Camac.

Posted by: DesertRose 30-Jun-2008, 07:14 PM
Camac, I am alway ready to be educated.

Keep it coming!

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 01-Jul-2008, 04:28 AM
Desert Rose,

Like I said to another member this is not about "getting educated".We are not in a classroom here. We are discussing a subject and exchanging knowledge either by what one know or pass along some good books about the subject on hand.
And it doesn't mean that all in between this; jokes and teasing cannot happened.
No offense taken or intended. Peace LOA

Now Mr.Camac, if you would be so kind as to tell me more about this Isaac Brock!!! thumbs_up.gif

LOA


Posted by: Camac 01-Jul-2008, 07:34 AM
QUOTE (Lady of Avalon @ 01-Jul-2008, 05:28 AM)
Desert Rose,

Like I said to another member this is not about "getting educated".We are not in a classroom here. We are discussing a subject and exchanging knowledge either by what one know or pass along some good books about the subject on hand.
And it doesn't mean that all in between this; jokes and teasing cannot happened.
No offense taken or intended. Peace LOA

Now Mr.Camac, if you would be so kind as to tell me more about this Isaac Brock!!! thumbsup.gif

LOA

LOA;

If you go to google www.warof1812.ca/brock you will find two sites about him. There are many other sites that mention him and the one thing they seem to share in common was that he was an excellent officer if somewhat foolhardy. A good example of this is his death. A Major General in full uniform does not lead his men in a charge, this makes him the prime target for every rifleman on the other side. The men he was leading carried the day and won the Battle of Queenston Heights. Brock moved into the realm of Legends.


Camac

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 01-Jul-2008, 08:39 AM

I pulled this Q & A from another forum topic, Camac asked me this awhile ago and I thought it would fit in here as well as where it was, under Time Travel

QUOTE (Camac @ 14-Apr-2008, 01:53 PM)
UlsterScotNutt;

A question if I may. What would your stance be on New Englands oposition to the War of 1812 and its' continuing trade with British Canada.?


Well lets see, The War of 1812 was a messy war based on alot of different things, some true alot false, still a very messy undertaking with mixed political causes.
For New England, it was part economic, part territorial, part historical and part cultural. I will try and address each of those.

Economics, NE was still suffering economically and felt over taxed for what they were getting in return and benefiting tremendously with trade with GB. They sold alot of goods to GB to support their campaigns in Spain and in their war with France. The merchant shipping was huge in NE and the war would distoy this commerce. The bankers of NE were greatly opposed to disturbing this commerce and were very good at marketing this to the industrious NEnglander. Believing their neutrality and willingness to trade with anybody and special treatment by the British who did not blockade NE ports in the beginning of the war. Some say NE was divided in actually talking secession from the union in order to continue trade, though this was not really an issue nor probably true at all. So economics, unfair taxes, disruption of commerce all played a part.

Territorially NE was very separate from the rest of the union and was upset at a central government taking up alot of the states rights and NE states were very upset with this. They were most susceptible to occupation by the British, ex: Maine and were at the forefront of hostilities again. NE felt they should have more control of their own militia and should be supported with more monies and troops.

Historically NE still was populated by fellow Englishmen and felt a brotherhood though independent and as long as older brother GB allowed younger brother to be. Many felt that GB monarchist trying to reestablish the monarchy in France was a good thing since it was the French monarchy that had helped the US become independent. They saw many US supporters in France executed , like the French Admiral who blockaded Charleston, the king and even LaFayette was in exile.

Culturally, many of the now Canadians were actually from NE originally and there were many many family ties cross border. So NEnglanders did not want to go to war again with their brothers. Many also saw an opportunity to teach the southern states that slavery was an abomination. Britain was offering freedom to southern slaves who fought for GB. Bermuda and Trinidad are settled with alot of these slaves who served for GB.

NE was still a very independent minded group, still had ties to GB for commerce and culture and was pissed off at the central government at this time, so some of this was a temper tantrum. This war and NE stance also caused the collapse of the Federalist party which favored trade and industry and banking to the detriment of agricultural and rural needs.

What a messy time, part of the reason I would like to live it. It was a time of new ways of thinking, changes, growth, debates, concepts, so much was on a tipping point. NE must have been very frenetic and alittle shizophrenic at this time.

I probably would have been a typical NEnglander, no war , continue trade.

Posted by: Camac 01-Jul-2008, 09:25 AM
QUOTE (UlsterScotNutt @ 01-Jul-2008, 09:39 AM)
I pulled this Q & A from another forum topic, Camac asked me this awhile ago and I thought it would fit in here as well as where it was, under Time Travel

QUOTE (Camac @ 14-Apr-2008, 01:53 PM)
UlsterScotNutt;

A question if I may. What would your stance be on New Englands oposition to the War of 1812 and its' continuing trade with British Canada.?


Well lets see, The War of 1812 was a messy war based on alot of different things, some true alot false, still a very messy undertaking with mixed political causes.
For New England, it was part economic, part territorial, part historical and part cultural. I will try and address each of those.

Economics, NE was still suffering economically and felt over taxed for what they were getting in return and benefiting tremendously with trade with GB. They sold alot of goods to GB to support their campaigns in Spain and in their war with France. The merchant shipping was huge in NE and the war would distoy this commerce. The bankers of NE were greatly opposed to disturbing this commerce and were very good at marketing this to the industrious NEnglander. Believing their neutrality and willingness to trade with anybody and special treatment by the British who did not blockade NE ports in the beginning of the war. Some say NE was divided in actually talking secession from the union in order to continue trade, though this was not really an issue nor probably true at all. So economics, unfair taxes, disruption of commerce all played a part.

Territorially NE was very separate from the rest of the union and was upset at a central government taking up alot of the states rights and NE states were very upset with this. They were most susceptible to occupation by the British, ex: Maine and were at the forefront of hostilities again. NE felt they should have more control of their own militia and should be supported with more monies and troops.

Historically NE still was populated by fellow Englishmen and felt a brotherhood though independent and as long as older brother GB allowed younger brother to be. Many felt that GB monarchist trying to reestablish the monarchy in France was a good thing since it was the French monarchy that had helped the US become independent. They saw many US supporters in France executed , like the French Admiral who blockaded Charleston, the king and even LaFayette was in exile.

Culturally, many of the now Canadians were actually from NE originally and there were many many family ties cross border. So NEnglanders did not want to go to war again with their brothers. Many also saw an opportunity to teach the southern states that slavery was an abomination. Britain was offering freedom to southern slaves who fought for GB. Bermuda and Trinidad are settled with alot of these slaves who served for GB.

NE was still a very independent minded group, still had ties to GB for commerce and culture and was pissed off at the central government at this time, so some of this was a temper tantrum. This war and NE stance also caused the collapse of the Federalist party which favored trade and industry and banking to the detriment of agricultural and rural needs.

What a messy time, part of the reason I would like to live it. It was a time of new ways of thinking, changes, growth, debates, concepts, so much was on a tipping point. NE must have been very frenetic and alittle shizophrenic at this time.

I probably would have been a typical NEnglander, no war , continue trade.

USN;

Good concise article.
The Jay Treaty of 1794, though still a subject of contentious arguement did provide 10 years of peace and profitable commerce between the States and G.B. more so for New England. Two of the main issues that the war was fought over,impressment and the boundray between Canada and Maine were not settle until years after the war was over.


Camac.

Posted by: Camac 03-Jul-2008, 03:49 PM
LOA/USN;

I just watch a program on our History Channel (not the same as the US.) about Black Loyalist troops who fought in the War. Seems they were decendant from slaves who got their freedom from the Brits by fighting during the American Revolution. I'll have to look into this and get more details.


Camac.

Posted by: Lady of Avalon 03-Jul-2008, 07:21 PM
Yes please let us know your findings.

Meanwhile I have to say that this is a sad fact that they used these people for fighting their wars while it is practically not even mentionned of their bravery and sacrifice in history books.

LOA

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 07-Jul-2008, 07:48 AM
LOA,
I don't know if I would call it a sad fact that many slaves from the British colonies in the Americas, and from the USA later on, had an opportunity to escape their slavery and in return become free men.

Slavery was a sad tale, the war and those it caused suffering to is sad. Sad is the lost lives and tales of many brave and honorable men and women who lived and died anonomously within the bigger pictures.

On another slightly side note, many of these freemen of colour also owned slaves. Slaves included African, Native American, Caribs and Arawaks, some even Irish and Scots, rebels sold into slavery.

The war of 1812 was smack in the middle of when the slave trade was being abolished but the ownership of slaves had not been abolished as of yet.

USN

Posted by: Camac 07-Jul-2008, 09:10 AM
LOA;

Most of the working class colonist in British North America were orignally Indentured Servants. Selling themselves for seven years servitude in order to pay for their passage. The Cherokees (Friendly Tribes )had many slaves as they tried to emmulate the whiteman. The Early history of both the US and Canada is interwoven with slavery and indenture. Slavery was not abolished by the Brits till around 1840 I believe.


Camac.

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 07-Jul-2008, 09:40 AM
Indentured servitude was practiced in various forms and in some cases was used as another legal form of slavery. The British and French abolished the slave trade at about the same time, 1807 and abolished slavery again about the same time 1833 1834. By 1840 full legal emancipation for slaves, in the British colonies remaining, was in affect. This is the paramount period of indentured servants as the means of replacing the former slave labor and of the most abusive practices.
There were 3 year periods, and 7, with 7 being the most common. Former slave owners even tried to use a 99 year servitude clause. Many indentured servants, regardless of their original terms of 3 or 7 year indenture, never were released from their masters. The poor, freemen, rebels, criminals, emigrants, indigenous peoples all suffered. False and corrupt charges, billings and claims were used against the servants to keep them as the virtual slaves they were. For the first decades of the 1800 up to and thru the Civil War , labor was in such high demand, many business commercial operations resorted to all types of shady, illicit and down right criminal means of supplying their labor requirements.

USN

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)