Given their entanglements in Spain, Europe and India, that was the goal of the British. They were trying for an effective tie. It was to their advantage. Throughout that stage of the Napoleonic Wars very few British troops were available. If I remember right at the start of the war there were no more than 5 or 6 thousand soldiers scattered from Halifax through Sault Ste. Marie, with most of those concentrated in Quebec and Halifax. It wasn't until the resolution of the Penninsular War (Spain and Portugal) that the British were able to reinforce their forces in North America. In comparison the US started with over twice that, and expanded their regular army to 35,000. This does not include the state militias. Mind you it did not hurt that the Americans made it much easier for the British by having such generals as Hull and Rensselaer, and a thoroughly incompetent and untrained militia.
The impressment was stopped in 1811. The reason why most American merchant vessels were stopped was to prevent them from delivering war goods to France. But the Americans fell for some very slick French propaganda. While the British merely turned back the American ships, the French were seizing American ships and imprisoning the sailors and blaming it on the British. You mention DC, but not the other battles in Ontario, or the occupation of Maine, or the Chesapeake campaign, Fort Mackinac, Chateaugay, Lacolle Mill I and II, Battle of Montreal, Chrysler's Farm, Detroit, Ft. Dearborn (Chicago), Lewiston, New York. Buffalo, Lundy's Lane, the Bladensburg Races, or the blockade of the East Coast etc etc. You get the idea. There was far more to the War of 1812 than the propaganda taught in the American school system. On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:42 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > The war is widely held to have been a tie by most historians. > > Yes the British burned DC, but lost in New York, Baltimore and New Orleans. > > We did however stop the British from creating western outposts, and from > impressing Americans into British military service. They also stopped > going after our naval and merchant vessels. > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> they did fight a war a few decades later and the americans got their >> butts collectively handed to them. >> >> The revolutionary war could have been resolved possibly. But the issue >> was taxes. the american colonists really objected to paying for a war >> that they had agitated for. They were also pissed off that the >> Quebecois were granted religious freedom or at least freedom to >> practice Catholicism - read some of the American newspapers of the day >> and you'd think you're back in the Reformation. Another major issue >> was that the fur trade was not opened up as the American colonists >> wanted, or that the American merchants were not granted special >> privileges over the Quebec mercantile classes. (Sounds very familiar >> in a way to the US right wing these days - only political comment I'll >> make). >> >> But really the Revolutionary War was a close run thing. If the French >> were defeated at the Battle of the Capes or did not land almost 10,000 >> soldiers under Rochambeau then its very possible that the American >> Revolution would have failed. One possible result would have been very >> different treatment of the colonies. The British after the war had >> made changes to the colony structure in Canada - a more authoritarian >> system under the Governor-General for instance. I remember one >> speculation the prof gave in my intro to Canadian history class is >> that independent legislatures in the colonies would have developed >> much more rapidly than it did subsequent to the war. Another big >> change would have been the treatment of the Indian tribes in the north >> west. The pattern of westward expansion would have been very different >> less in the Ohio Valley and more to the south. >> >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:04 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I think the new colonies wanted their independence from Britain, and were >> > going to always eventually find an excuse to fight for it. >> > >> > Even if Britain had won the war of the late 1700's...they would have >> fought >> > another one a few decades later...and then another one..and another one, >> > until the colonies eventually won. >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Well given that the colonials paid far less in taxes than those in >> >> Britain did, it probably would have made things worse. Giving the >> >> colonials seats in Parliament again may not have done a lot of good - >> >> there were far fewer colonials than people in Britain. The few seats >> >> representing the colonials would have been like a drop in a bucket. >> >> >> >> Remember we're looking at it through the lens of our modern viewpoint. >> >> Things were considered far different then. For instance the governing >> >> attitude at the time was mercantilism (see >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism). I really don't know >> >> whether the conflicting views could have been reconciled. While, >> >> including Burke and Franklin were willing to compromise, radicals on >> >> both sides wanted blood. >> >> >> >> At the same time France was looking at any way it could to revenge its >> >> humiliating defeats in Europe, the Caribbean, North America and India >> >> during the Seven Years' War. As far as I could see the conflict would >> >> have been inevitable. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I don't know. >> >> > >> >> > Could the King have allowed the colonists members of Parliament? >> Brought >> >> > the tax situation in line with the rest of Great Britain? >> >> > >> >> > Maybe? >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:45 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:32 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > There had been many complaints levied against the King and his >> >> >> > representatives, but it was the attempt to seize arms that lead >> from >> >> >> > petitions and protests to open rebellion. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Don't you think war was inevitable by that point? >> >> >> >> >> >> I just finished with this episode of the "Story of Us". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:350128 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
