the british
-
mrh1000-1 — 18 years ago(March 03, 2008 09:05 AM)
Well, the British did kidnap an estimated 10,000 American citizens and forced them to work on British ships (which was an existence not unlike that of a galley slave). In 1807, they fired on an American ship, the Chesapeake, right off the American coastline. The American public was angry enough to go to war right then and there, but Jefferson and the Congress decided to impose an embargo on Britain instead. Because of the incredible ease in smuggling things in and out of America, the embargo didn't work, but when it was found that the British were inciting the Native American tribes to attack American settlements and forts, that was the last straw.
The war was ended by treaty, and while it's true that nobody won the War of 1812, it did result in Britain leaving us alone. They didn't kidnap any more of our seamen after that.
The Battle of New Orleans was actually fought after the treaty was signed, so it had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the war. But it did have significance in that it enhanced American prestige by winning such a lopsided battle, and it also emboldened the U.S. to start settling further West, as well as giving President Monroe the teeth to impose the Monroe Doctrine. We felt a bit more sure of ourselves and our national status, along with our sense of "Manifest Destiny."
The War of 1812 was really just a little side battle in the Napoleonic Wars between France and Britain. Because the United States had been providing a certain amount of support for the French, the British attempted to blockade American shipping and had, on occasion, impressed American seamen into the Royal Navy. The US finally became fed up and declared war on Britain on 18 June, 1812. Likely never having any intention to attack the British Home Islands directly, the American strategy was directed north towards the Canadas (Upper and Lower), the heart of British possessions in the Americas. The US was likely encouraged by the large population of American expatriates in the Canadas. The encouragement was misplaced, as these ex-Americans had moved north to escape the Revolution - making the choice to remain British. Having sacrificed so much in that initial choice, they were willing to fight their old homeland to remain United Empire Loyalists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1021294
The Americans thought the Canadians would side with them, but they didn't and remained loyal.
Britain was never really as committed as the Americans like to think, we made most of our money from the far east and America was not considered any where near as important. Even during the War of Independence many of the troops the British used were in fact paid German mercenaries, as British troops were committed elsewhere in the Empire. Whilst at the same time we were also fighting the French and defending a global empire.
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/americanrevolution/warindepend ence.html
The 1812 War was more to do with the French and Napoleon Bonaparte, who we later defeated. During both the 'War of Independence' and the 1812 War our main concern was in fighting the French.
The Whitehouse was burnt down and a few other famous incidents occurred during the 1812 War, but by and large it is a forgotten war, overshadowed by the Napoleonic Wars of the time. -
Stevicus-2 — 18 years ago(March 03, 2008 11:00 AM)
The War of 1812 was really just a little side battle in the Napoleonic Wars between France and Britain. Because the United States had been providing a certain amount of support for the French, the British attempted to blockade American shipping and had, on occasion, impressed American seamen into the Royal Navy. The US finally became fed up and declared war on Britain on 18 June, 1812. Likely never having any intention to attack the British Home Islands directly, the American strategy was directed north towards the Canadas (Upper and Lower), the heart of British possessions in the Americas. The US was likely encouraged by the large population of American expatriates in the Canadas. The encouragement was misplaced, as these ex-Americans had moved north to escape the Revolution - making the choice to remain British. Having sacrificed so much in that initial choice, they were willing to fight their old homeland to remain United Empire Loyalists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1021294
The Americans thought the Canadians would side with them, but they didn't and remained loyal.
Britain was never really as committed as the Americans like to think, we made most of our money from the far east and America was not considered any where near as important. Even during the War of Independence many of the troops the British used were in fact paid German mercenaries, as British troops were committed elsewhere in the Empire. Whilst at the same time we were also fighting the French and Spanish.
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/americanrevolution/warindepend ence.html
The 1812 War was more to do with the French and Napoleon Bonaparte, who we later defeated. During both the 'War of Independence' and the 1812 War our main concern was in fighting the French.
The Whitehouse was burnt down and a few other famous incidents occurred during the 1812 War, but by and large it is a forgotten war, overshadowed by the Napoleonic Wars of the time.
The U.S. was not an ally of Napoleon. In fact, we nearly went to war with France for much the same reason we went to war with Britain. We were neutral in the Napoleonic wars, but we felt we had good cause to declare war on Britain when we did.
The main focus for the U.S. was to stay independent. There were a lot of people worried that foreign powers would try to co-opt our government and make America a colony again, and we didn't want that.
I would tend to agree that the War of 1812 was probably a bigger deal for America than for Britain at the time. But it is regarded as a major step in establishing American paramountcy over the Western Hemisphere. In just a few short decades, our territory spanned the entire continent. By the end of the century, we were a world power. Of course, there wasn't much left of the world to colonize, so we grabbed a couple of Spain's colonies and called them our own. We also managed to hold hegemony over Spain's former colonies in Central and South America, even though those nations were nominally independent. Of course, Britain and France still held much of the world by then (and they were even friendly towards each other at that point). But then, the Germans got jealous about that and decided they wanted their own empire. After two world wars, the Germans didn't get their empire, and Britain and France lost theirs. -
mrh1000-1 — 18 years ago(March 04, 2008 04:03 AM)
The U.S. was not an ally of Napoleon. In fact, we nearly went to war with France for much the same reason we went to war with Britain. We were neutral in the Napoleonic wars, but we felt we had good cause to declare war on Britain when we did.
The main focus for the U.S. was to stay independent. There were a lot of people worried that foreign powers would try to co-opt our government and make America a colony again, and we didn't want that.
I would tend to agree that the War of 1812 was probably a bigger deal for America than for Britain at the time. But it is regarded as a major step in establishing American paramountcy over the Western Hemisphere. In just a few short decades, our territory spanned the entire continent. By the end of the century, we were a world power. Of course, there wasn't much left of the world to colonize, so we grabbed a couple of Spain's colonies and called them our own. We also managed to hold hegemony over Spain's former colonies in Central and South America, even though those nations were nominally independent. Of course, Britain and France still held much of the world by then (and they were even friendly towards each other at that point). But then, the Germans got jealous about that and decided they wanted their own empire. After two world wars, the Germans didn't get their empire, and Britain and France lost theirs.
France did not like America trading with Britain. Britain did not like America trading with France. America needed to trade so that it could grow and pay off its debts. America found itself in trouble with both Britain and France. Americans were divided on who to side with. Some felt they owed the French their country's freedom.
French warships began stopping US shipping and thus began a "Quasi-war" with France. It did not last long for the French government was itself in turmoil and could not firmly decide about the issue. Britain also began stopping US shipping. But they went a step further by taking the sailors along with the goods.
France's goverment finally stablized when an artillery officer named Napoleon Bonapart rose thru the ranks into government and then became Emperor of all France. Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon were contemporaries who came to power about the same time. Jefferson bought the huge middle section of North America from Napoleon, who needed the cash for his European wars. Napoleon may have felt if he ever wanted land in North America he could take it as he had in Europe.
America passed trade laws to hurt Britain, but most American businessmen felt the laws harmed America more. Thomas Jefferson's term as president ended and James Madison was elected. Calls for proper action continued and increased. Finally, after all else had failed, Madison declared war in June of 1812.
In the Spring of 1814, French Emperor Napoleon was defeated by the Allies in Europe. Britain, France's main enemy, had to devote most of their resources to this fight. Now they were free to turn much more military effort against America.
Britain's war with America was of secondary (if that much) importance to the Napoleon issue. It was Britain's war with Napoleon that caused the War of 1812; Britain needed more sailors to fight Napoleon, and kidnapped sailors on US ships to fill their navy. They focused on American sailors for several reasons; they spoke English, they may have been British run-aways, and made good sailors.
Frigates were the main ship in navies of the time. America had 12. Britain had about 400.
The 1812 War was the most unpopular war America ever fought, even surpassing the later war Vietnam in the 1960's, and it certainly was not some resounding victory for either side..
After the defeat of France, there was little need to continue the War as Britain no longer needed to search ships to enforce the Napoleonic blockades, and subsequently no longer needed to press gang Americans in to the Royal Navy in order to defeat the French.
If the war had continued then Britain would have been able to call upon the large forces it had devoted to fighting the French. However the war was the result of the Napoleonic Wars in the first place, and having defeated the French, peace was made between the US and Britain. -
Stevicus-2 — 18 years ago(March 03, 2008 07:47 AM)
Please ignore my double post.
Now that Ive read your post again I guess it could be taken as a statement about the end of Americas isolationist role in the world. Although its not 100% clear and could be taken as chauvinistic rhetoric, if I'm wrong I apologise.
Still, its redundant to compare or blame the actions of now to those that happened 100 years ago. Looking at every other country in the world and saying none of them have had their hands clean at some point or another makes no sense. That was then, this is now, we should have learnt from the mistakes and we should know better.
Well, to be honest, I was sort of joking. My comments were somewhat tongue-in-cheek, at least in the way I expressed them.
But my point was that America/Americans did not create the world situation. Sometimes, I get the impression that when people (particularly Europeans) talk about America, they speak as if our entire national existence is one big conspiracy theory, as if this is all something that we planned. But there's still a great deal of dissent in America. Many Americans are not happy with what their government is doing in their name, and they speak out about it.
Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are also easily led and lied to. They genuinely believe that America is like a knight in shining armor, freeing the world from tyranny and making it "safe for democracy." Just as the Brits were told that they were "civilizing" the world through their Empire.
I don't think we learned from our mistakes, and to be honest, they should have known better "back then," too. But it should also be noted that our current world situation is, in a very real sense, dealing with mistakes that were made decades or even centuries ago. Greed is still the overriding force in world politics, so in that sense, none of us have learned a damn thing. -
debrecenisrac38 — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 10:45 AM)
As individuals, no you have not, and nobody should blame individual Americans for it.
Sadly I have to agree with you, the people in key positions don't learn from previous mistakes, heavily evidenced by a great deal of complacency, like trusting and arming people who constantly turn on you. Drug cartels from the Iran-Contra Affair (because of the War on Drugs), the Mujahedeen (because of supporting Israel and local Afghan groups more loyal to surrounding countries, than Afghanistan aka The War on Terror).
It's not your entire national existence that is a conspiracy, not even your public foreign policies, rather for what goes on behind closed doors. I give this answer like we're still in 2008, so I won't talk about things we didn't know then, but what we did know was still damaging. For starters, only hubris can suggest to a group of people in the Pentagon and the White House, that it's wise to open a second front in Iraq, when the current war isn't even won in a country that could never be occupied by anyone. Furthermore, bombings are strategic, but far from surgical precision. It's obvious, that through the military presence, and the general ignorance shown toward locals, regardless where people live, they'll think all Americans are like that. It's only being made worse, when yur military doesn't do what they did in Vietnam, and pull out local helpers. Leaving them there to die antagonizes even the strongest of allies. The question is, how on Earth can soldiers, who've been to Vietnam simply forget, that a war can only be won with local support. The appointed prime minister of Iraq proved to be a puppet of Iran, and the other guy feeding intel was grossly corrupt, and a pathological liar. Smaller allies of the Axis powers made such rookie mistakes, a superpower shouldn't. Many people hate the American military presence, because America is not subject to the International Criminal Court, their punishment (and it does happen) rely on internal investigations, offering little ailment to those, who have been robbed and/or raped by American soldiers. Then there are companies like Blackwater, who have private interests. In actuality most of the time the actual military has to escort private soldiers doing the job they should be doing.
Yet none of it excuses British conduct in Northern Ireland, Europe's on War on Terror (along with ETA and the PLA), as the British military did little to not antagonize locals.
I live in the Gordius Apartment Complex, my interior designer was M.C. Escher. -
The_Proprietor — 17 years ago(April 08, 2008 08:20 PM)
by
Stevicus-2
But I do have to admit that the movie "In the Name of the Father" does rile up some rather raw emotions. It does cause people to get mad at the British legal system. Moreover, even if it may sound chauvinistic, an American might see a movie like this and be glad that we kicked the British out over 200 years ago. This is how threads like this get started on the IMDb message boards, and I agree that, in many ways, it is laughable.
But don't forget that Hollywood does a lot of trashing of America as well, so don't get the idea that it's all one-sided trashing of the whole world.
Seems the Americans of late are the proponents of getting involved in matters that don't concern them. The troubles in Northern Ireland being a prime example. Thanks to many 'Irish' Americans, courtesy of NORAID plenty of arms, munitions and finance made its way into the hands and pockets of the IRA. So that they could kill, maim and bomb their way where they saw fit. Sure the loyalist factions were/are just as bad but luckily they confined their actions to NI.
Let's not forget how Hollywood pictured the armed struggle as a fight for liberation before 9/11. Whilst these thugs were bombing women and children. For what? That's why they call you Americans Septics. "Just like a septic tank, no one likes them" heh.
If impersonating a Police Officer is an offence, shouldn't actors be imprisoned? -
Stevicus-2 — 17 years ago(April 14, 2008 01:26 PM)
Seems the Americans of late are the proponents of getting involved in matters that don't concern them. The troubles in Northern Ireland being a prime example.
Not at all. I'm not involved in it, nor do I advocate anyone interfering in this whatsoever. Someone commented on the fact that an American started this thread, and all I was doing was trying to explain why. You can either take it or leave it, but you shouldn't interpret as a proposal to get involved in the Northern Ireland situation. You're taking this far too seriously.
Besides, I thought most of the troubles were over anyway. Didn't they sign a peace agreement or something? So, what is there left to get involved in? Nothing. The whole issue is moot at this point.
Thanks to many 'Irish' Americans, courtesy of NORAID plenty of arms, munitions and finance made its way into the hands and pockets of the IRA. So that they could kill, maim and bomb their way where they saw fit. Sure the loyalist factions were/are just as bad but luckily they confined their actions to NI.
That has nothing to do with me or most Americans. Even the Irish-Americans I know are not involved in it.
I do know that if caught trying to send arms to the IRA, they will be charged in U.S. Federal court. They had a court case here in Tucson several years ago. They chose Tucson because it was out of the way, but even then, they still had tightened security due to the IRA.
Let's not forget how Hollywood pictured the armed struggle as a fight for liberation before 9/11. Whilst these thugs were bombing women and children. For what? That's why they call you Americans Septics. "Just like a septic tank, no one likes them" heh.
Well, I'm an American, and I have lots of friends. Lots of people like me, because I'm such a nice guy.
I realize that, around the world, America has a poor reputation, but here's some news for you: Britain also has a poor reputation around the world.
But prior to World War II, America had a great reputation. Everyone loved America around that time and before. It's just that we ended up having to prop up what was left of the shaky world order which came about due to Anglo-French colonialism and their greed in World War I which led to the rise of both Hitler and Stalin.
It's easy for you to sit back and call us "Septics" (which is pretty juvenile and immature anyway), but just know that it's only because we had to clean up the mess left by YOUR greed and tyranny over on your side of "the pond." You make America the scapegoat for your own sins. I know it, and you know it. So get off your high horse.