America's 18th & 19th century wars

chairman bill · #1 by **chairman bill** » Jun 24, 2011 8:24 am

I've long had an interest (piqued by schoolboy study of the US Civil War) in the wars fought in North America, principally the conflict between Britain & France for North America, the War of Independence/Revolution, the US invasion of Canada & resultant war with Britain from 1812 to 1815, and of course, the Civil War. I'm also fascinated by the mythologising of various parts of all this, in particular the War of Independence/Revolution, with various people (like Paul Revere) given hero status for no good reason, proper heroes going unrecognised, and of course the downplaying of the French & Spanish roles in support of the US, and demonisation of Britain (see for example that complete bollocks of a film, The Patriot).

There's a considerable US presence on this forum, so seems like a good opportunity for this Brit to get a wider perspective on these topics, and maybe offer the same to some degree.

Who's interested?

Hugin · #2 by **Hugin** » Jun 24, 2011 8:52 am

chairman bill wrote:and demonisation of Britain (see for example that complete bollocks of a film, The Patriot).

What do you expect from a movie? Ever watched Braveheart?

Kain · #3 by **Kain** » Jun 24, 2011 8:59 am

I never really got the point of demonising the UK or England with lies, when you can easily do that with truth. We were a nasty little expansionist piece of shit. But then so was everyone else, we just did it better. No excuse but at least we're not trying to control the flow of capital these days at the barrel of a gun. There are plenty of nasty little movements that have replaced colonialism though. American imperialism (or rather the neo con crazies), Zionism, apartheid, communism, fascism. We never really were very good people us humans were we.

I still chuckle when I think about us burning the white house down though, how very excessive. But man if you want to make a political statement that'd be a good start, it would be akin to blowing up Parliament. Another fun thing to plan if you like a challenge. Lucky the French were there to save your asses really by proxy. Wars stupid these days, costly and impractical, that is at least one thing we have science and weapons of mass destruction to thank for, have we learnt to love the bomb yet.

chairman bill · #4 by **chairman bill** » Jun 24, 2011 9:10 am

The burning of the White House is an interesting event. Many people assume it was somethinto do with the revolution, but it was actually in 1814 & part of the British response to Madison's invasion of Canada. The US troops had entered York (now Toronto) and burned private buildings, warehouses & legislative buildings, as well as widespread looting. Military convention was that non-military targets were out of bounds, and the burning of private homes didn't go down too well. The British entered Washington, burned the White House & other public buildings, but burned nothing else, & didn't loot. It was in part a pointed comment on the US behaviour in York, which was seen as ungentlemanly & unbecoming of the military.

Also of note is that the only resistance the British troops met was when a party of soldiers, under a flag of truce, were fired upon.

Having raised the Union flag over the Capitol, they left.

Kain · #5 by **Kain** » Jun 24, 2011 9:14 am

chairman bill wrote:The burning of the White House is an interesting event. Many people assume it was somethinto do with the revolution, but it was actually in 1814 & part of the British response to Madison's invasion of Canada. The US troops had entered York (now Toronto) and burned private buildings, warehouses & legislative buildings, as well as widespread looting. Military convention was that non-military targets were out of bounds, and the burning of private homes didn't go down too well. The British entered Washington, burned the White House & other public buildings, but burned nothing else, & didn't loot. It was in part a pointed comment on the US behaviour in York, which was seen as ungentlemanly & unbecoming of the military.

Also of note is that the only resistance the British troops met was when a party of soldiers, under a flag of truce, were fired upon.

Having raised the Union flag over the Capitol, they left.

Interesting stuff.

Correspondingly It's kind of like punching the queen in the face isn't it.

jamest · #6 by **jamest** » Jun 24, 2011 10:34 am

chairman bill wrote:The burning of the White House is an interesting event. Many people assume it was somethinto do with the revolution, but it was actually in 1814 & part of the British response to Madison's invasion of Canada. The US troops had entered York (now Toronto) and burned private buildings, warehouses & legislative buildings, as well as widespread looting.

I never knew any of this. Why did they invade Canada?

Evolving · #7 by **Evolving** » Jun 24, 2011 10:47 am

I too know very little about the thread's topic.

I attended a rather conservative, English school, where it was a self-evident part of perceived reality that nothing we had done in history, whether it was in Europe, India, the Americas or anywhere else, was in the least worthy of criticism. Including being in India etc in the first place.

Memories of "I vow to thee, my country", "Jerusalem" and "Let us now praise famous men" (sic).

So when I borrowed an American book from the school library that recounted the war of 1812, it was an eye-opener, because it was the first time I had ever read anything about our history that was other than from a British, patriotic, uncritical point of view.

Looking forward to some illumination.

chairman bill · #8 by **chairman bill** » Jun 24, 2011 1:24 pm

There's plenty of sources for the 1812-15 war, but a brief synopsis might include: US expansionist tendancies included a desire in some quarters to invade Canada & add it to the Union; the US being a pissed off with British support for the establishment of a free Indian nation in land the US wanted as its own; concern over Royal Navy ships trawling US shipping for British citizens to be pressed for service in the RN (Britian didn't recognise naturalised citizenship, so some of those pressed regarded themselves as US citizens, but were pressed anyway). As with the Revolution, where the US relied heavily on French, & later Spanish forces, the UK was heavily engaged in the Peninsular War, & then the war in France, so British forces were stretched pretty thinly. There was no doubt some expectation that it would be an easy war.

HughMcB · #9 by **HughMcB** » Jun 24, 2011 1:53 pm

Kain wrote:I never really got the point of demonising the UK or England with lies, when you can easily do that with truth.

Weaver · **#10** by **Weaver** » Jun 24, 2011 1:54 pm

I'm interested in this discussion, but I'll be away from keyboards for the next few days - I'll check back in then and stick my oar in.

HughMcB · **#11** by **HughMcB** » Jun 24, 2011 1:56 pm

chairman bill wrote:The burning of the White House is an interesting event. Many people assume it was somethinto do with the revolution, but it was actually in 1814 & part of the British response to Madison's invasion of Canada.

Believe it or not Canadians are quite proud of this (they must teach it in high school), also was the only invasion of US home soil.

Kain · **#12** by **Kain** » Jun 24, 2011 2:09 pm

HughMcB wrote:
Kain wrote:I never really got the point of demonising the UK or England with lies, when you can easily do that with truth.

Hehe I didn't realise that was funny. Most English people have some honesty about history though, me included. A lot of the horrors we indulged in get lost in the agrandizement of what we achieved. It's quite sad really that history gets more rose tinted as time goes by. People forget the forced slavery and the massacres and the millions of dead.

chairman bill · **#13** by **chairman bill** » Jun 24, 2011 2:22 pm

HughMcB wrote:
chairman bill wrote:The burning of the White House is an interesting event. Many people assume it was somethinto do with the revolution, but it was actually in 1814 & part of the British response to Madison's invasion of Canada.

Believe it or not Canadians are quite proud of this (they must teach it in high school), also was the only invasion of US home soil.

Not quite. Mexican cavalry destroyed a US cavalry patrol north of the Rio Grande during the Mexican-US war, which counts as an invasion of sorts.

HughMcB · **#14** by **HughMcB** » Jun 24, 2011 2:27 pm

I like the English honesty, it's very refreshing. More countries guilty of oppressive expansionist campaigns could learn a lot.

Mazille · **#15** by **Mazille** » Jun 24, 2011 2:30 pm

chairman bill wrote:
HughMcB wrote:
chairman bill wrote:The burning of the White House is an interesting event. Many people assume it was somethinto do with the revolution, but it was actually in 1814 & part of the British response to Madison's invasion of Canada.

Believe it or not Canadians are quite proud of this (they must teach it in high school), also was the only invasion of US home soil.

Not quite. Mexican cavalry destroyed a US cavalry patrol north of the Rio Grande during the Mexican-US war, which counts as an invasion of sorts.

I remember. That was about two weeks ago, wasn't it?

:shifty:

Uhm.... Consider it a silly bookmark.

chairman bill · **#16** by **chairman bill** » Jun 24, 2011 2:40 pm

Then there's the wetback invasion that's been on-going for years </Redneck mode>

Mazille · **#17** by **Mazille** » Jun 24, 2011 2:40 pm

That's what I was aiming at. Nevermind. :shifty:

HughMcB · **#18** by **HughMcB** » Jun 24, 2011 2:45 pm

chairman bill wrote:
HughMcB wrote:
chairman bill wrote:The burning of the White House is an interesting event. Many people assume it was somethinto do with the revolution, but it was actually in 1814 & part of the British response to Madison's invasion of Canada.

Believe it or not Canadians are quite proud of this (they must teach it in high school), also was the only invasion of US home soil.

Not quite. Mexican cavalry destroyed a US cavalry patrol north of the Rio Grande during the Mexican-US war, which counts as an invasion of sorts.

Ah didn't know that one, cheers!

Kain · **#19** by **Kain** » Jun 24, 2011 3:03 pm

HughMcB wrote:I like the English honesty, it's very refreshing. More countries guilty of oppressive expansionist campaigns could learn a lot.

Now that's a backhanded compliment if ever I heard one.

I apologise for nothing. Personally obviously.

Evolving · **#20** by **Evolving** » Jun 24, 2011 3:14 pm

It's all Kain's fault.