Why US goverment did not restart fighting and did not try to conquer Canada again after Battle of New Orleans in 1814 ?

Feb 2016
4,342
Japan
#51
Lucky that
Lucky win at New Orleans? The British attacked a strongly entrenched position across open field with no naval support. How is that lucky?

Also would you consider the Battle of Chippewa, 1st and 2nd Fort Erie, and Lundy's Lane luck as well?

By the end of the war the US army was transforming into something of an elite force and was giving as good as it got.

Refer to General Drummunds account of US performance during the battle of Lundy's Lane Of so determined a Character were [the American] attacks directed against our guns that our Artillery Men were bayonetted by the enemy in the Act of loading, and the muzzles of the Enemy's Guns were advanced within a few Yards of ours".

The war ended because the US could not invade Canada and win a decisive victory and Britain could not win a decisive victory in America. The issues that started the war were dead after the defeat of Napoleon and the US had broken the Native American/British alliance in the North West.
Lucky because they didn’t have to do anything.
Lucky because they’d been routed off the the left bank already.
Lucky because green troops were chosen to lead the attack.
Lucky because despite open ground and strong entrenchments even the most shambolic British assault had managed to penetrate and breach the defencess.
Lucky that a second or third assault wasn’t tried.... this time with ladders or some cohesion (Badajoz I think the British launched 8 attacks before they could make the breach).

None of that takes away the bravery of the defenders though.
 
May 2011
13,889
Navan, Ireland
#52
If an attempt to troll, not nearly amusing enough.

If an attempt to continue discussion, not nearly complete enough.

thanks for your input, Kevin. :cool:
Sorry how on earth is this an attempt to Troll? disagreeing with you is 'Trolling'?

Saying that the invasion an acquisition of Canada was not a minor side show but a major part of American strategy/ war aims? not from I have read.

You deny that there was such a thing as manifest destiny? and this belief influenced the wish of some in the USA to invade Canada?

Or am I a 'Troll' because I say that many Americans were (as it turned out) naively of the belief that they would be welcomed with open arms by the Canadians in the belief that they were suffering under the 'terrible tyranny' of the Crown? -- which was neither tyrannical or terrible---- and that this was one of the justifications of the war?

Or am I a 'Troll' because I said that the Americans invasions of Canada were ignominious failures? ----- perhaps ignominious is slightly harsh (they were failures) and so I apologise.

Or is it the claim that the war or 1812 was actually about the Indian war (which it was partly) and that all other theatres were irrelevant---- convenient that the only one the American won is important the ones they lost mean nothing---- sure its not you that are showing Nationalistic bias?

But any way the opinions I have on the war of 1812 have been based (partly on discussions here) but also by reading articles and books by such people as Latimer, Lambert and Taylor --- all main stream and respected historians--- are they also Trolls because they disagree with you?

Oh thank you for the 'so good' sarcastic' put down (with silly smiley that people seem to think makes themselves so humorous--well done) would not sink to such a thing myself.
 
Likes: Edric Streona

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,050
#53
I would like to note that America's stated goal was the protection of sailors rights, Britain ended the Orders in Council and the impessment of sailors 2 days before the Americans declared war however the news didn't reach America in time.
Impressment of Birtish sailors continued unabated and unchallenged in the peace treaty, To say impressment ended is not accurate at all.

Sailors rights was propaganda not so much a war aim, and if was then the war was Americna defeat on that point. Teh british were just goingto be slighlty more careful. Byuut they would still stop IUS ships and Still take British sailors off them. A lot of British sailors chose to sail of US ships, they paid more. A lot of US overseas consuls blatantly sold US papers. Impressment was conscription.
'
 
Feb 2019
599
Serbia
#54
Impressment of Birtish sailors continued unabated and unchallenged in the peace treaty, To say impressment ended is not accurate at all.

Sailors rights was propaganda not so much a war aim, and if was then the war was Americna defeat on that point. Teh british were just goingto be slighlty more careful. Byuut they would still stop IUS ships and Still take British sailors off them. A lot of British sailors chose to sail of US ships, they paid more. A lot of US overseas consuls blatantly sold US papers. Impressment was conscription.
'

It is true that Impressment continued through the war, I admit that saying ''... and impressment.'' is inaccurate but Orders in Council were ended and that was a part of America's stated goal for ''sailor's rights''. By 1814 Britain began to slowly demobilise and impressment was de facto over once Napoleon was defeated as it was no longer needed, it was not challenged in the peace treaty because it effectively ended by the time it was signed. I said stated goal for a reason, it was partially a legitimate goal but it was mostly used for propaganda.

Saying impressment is conscription is not quite true. Unlike classic conscription the ''press-gangs'' that impressed sailors didn't casually recruit them but more accurately force them into the navy, There were many instances were people in Britain did some unusual things to escape impressment and many pressed sailors mutinied. Most British pressed sailors were mostly able bodied men taken from port towns and taverns and the members of the merchant marine that were forced into service. Many sailors on American ships were British born or British sailors that defected from the navy to escape the Napoleonic Wars.
 
Dec 2011
4,717
Iowa USA
#55
Sorry how on earth is this an attempt to Troll? disagreeing with you is 'Trolling'?

Saying that the invasion an acquisition of Canada was not a minor side show but a major part of American strategy/ war aims? not from I have read.

You deny that there was such a thing as manifest destiny? and this belief influenced the wish of some in the USA to invade Canada?

Or am I a 'Troll' because I say that many Americans were (as it turned out) naively of the belief that they would be welcomed with open arms by the Canadians in the belief that they were suffering under the 'terrible tyranny' of the Crown? -- which was neither tyrannical or terrible---- and that this was one of the justifications of the war?

Or am I a 'Troll' because I said that the Americans invasions of Canada were ignominious failures? ----- perhaps ignominious is slightly harsh (they were failures) and so I apologise.

Or is it the claim that the war or 1812 was actually about the Indian war (which it was partly) and that all other theatres were irrelevant---- convenient that the only one the American won is important the ones they lost mean nothing---- sure its not you that are showing Nationalistic bias?

But any way the opinions I have on the war of 1812 have been based (partly on discussions here) but also by reading articles and books by such people as Latimer, Lambert and Taylor --- all main stream and respected historians--- are they also Trolls because they disagree with you?

Oh thank you for the 'so good' sarcastic' put down (with silly smiley that people seem to think makes themselves so humorous--well done) would not sink to such a thing myself.
I expected better than the "woe is me" tactic, frankly.

You brought "American history is wrong".... flat out invitation to a fight right at the outset of this thread. And now you are portraying yourself as Kevin the Virtuous. So damn virtuous. Right.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,050
#56
I

Saying impressment is conscription is not quite true. Unlike classic conscription the ''press-gangs'' that impressed sailors didn't casually recruit them but more accurately force them into the navy, There were many instances were people in Britain did some unusual things to escape impressment and many pressed sailors mutinied. Most British pressed sailors were mostly able bodied men taken from port towns and taverns and the members of the merchant marine that were forced into service. Many sailors on American ships were British born or British sailors that defected from the navy to escape the Napoleonic Wars.
Impressment was targeted conscription aimed at getting experienced sailors. The vast majority of people impressed happened at Sea, where sailors could be found on merchant ships.
Conscription is beng forced into service.

You do not "defect" form the Navy. You desert. As such you are liable to be hung.

ordinary conscription also tried to take pains to get able bodied men.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,050
#57
I expected better than the "woe is me" tactic, frankly.

You brought "American history is wrong".... flat out invitation to a fight right at the outset of this thread. And now you are portraying yourself as Kevin the Virtuous. So damn virtuous. Right.
Well American history is wrong, in this case As regards the popularist history of the war of 1812. Some Americna posters have posted a fair bit of tripe.
The War of 1812 is repeatedly seen in distorted American nationalist terms. Mostly the British just don't care about it

People get tired of correctly popular US misconceptions about history, (lok all nations suffer from this, the Americans tend to be louder, more brash and more wrong)

.
 
Dec 2018
89
Cheyenne
#58
Well American history is wrong, in this case As regards the popularist history of the war of 1812. Some Americna posters have posted a fair bit of tripe.
The War of 1812 is repeatedly seen in distorted American nationalist terms. Mostly the British just don't care about it

People get tired of correctly popular US misconceptions about history, (lok all nations suffer from this, the Americans tend to be louder, more brash and more wrong)

.
Its the exact opposite to me. Seems Brits get a bit chaffed if Americans don't admit to being completely trounced up and down the continent (instead of the close run thing the whole bit actually was in Canada, and the parity of fighting in 1814) in an insidious war forced on Britain whilst she was defending all that was good in the world from Napoleonic tyranny, and that in the end America lay prostrate and defeated and only reason America wasn't conquered was because of the magnanimity of his majesty.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,050
#59
Its the exact opposite to me. Seems Brits get a bit chaffed if Americans don't admit to being completely trounced up and down the continent (instead of the close run thing the whole bit actually was in Canada, and the parity of fighting in 1814) in an insidious war forced on Britain whilst she was defending all that was good in the world from Napoleonic tyranny, and that in the end America lay prostrate and defeated and only reason America wasn't conquered was because of the magnanimity of his majesty.
Canada was part of it, a lot more than sailor's rights. It was an opportunistic war forced on Britain.

USA Lost the war at sea, despite the constant American posters claims to the country.

Britian never attmepted to conquer the USA.

Americnas have more national illusions about this war.

Do you wnat to go back over this thread and look at the exaggerated cliams by each side. The Majority of them are American. It would be relatively easy process.
 
Dec 2011
4,717
Iowa USA
#60
Well American history is wrong, in this case As regards the popularist history of the war of 1812. Some Americna posters have posted a fair bit of tripe.
The War of 1812 is repeatedly seen in distorted American nationalist terms. Mostly the British just don't care about it

People get tired of correctly popular US misconceptions about history, (lok all nations suffer from this, the Americans tend to be louder, more brash and more wrong)

.
No.

That is not the sort of discussion that I have been having on this topic for eight years. I don't post populist history.

So sorry, dear Pugsville, I don't know what you are talking about now.

Is it British or American academics that have easy access to the key locations of the conflict?

Is it British or American academics that have access to contemporary writings of the civilians in Baltimore, New Orleans or other larger cities?

Is it British or American academics who have the primary documents to appreciate the Adams/Jefferson (Federalist/Republican) rift about ship building?

But... of course... the loud Americans. What a croc. You are a pretty well read guy, as is Kevin, and I don't think your superior attitude advances discussion a whit. Just stick to the discussion.

Now.... "Manifest Destiny", OKAY, I will send three hundred US dollars to the first person that shows me a legitimate reference to "Manifest Destiny" in a primary source dated to the decade 1810-1820.
 
Likes: Spartakus X