War of 1812

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#1
Today is the 207th anniversary of the outbreak of the War of 1812.

During which the Royal Navy
  • fought the USN to a standstill
  • blockaded the Right Coast to the point where grass grew on the quay in Baltimore
  • behaved a little ungraciously around the White House after causing the US president to depart in some haste.

War of 1812 | Causes, Facts, & Significance


United States Marine Corps battle honour

London Division Royal Naval Reserve HMS President bears the name of an American vessel taken at sea to this day .

London - HMS President | Royal Navy

Capture of USS President - Wikipedia

1560852672684.png

Huzza!

- and God Save Her Madge, arBrenda :-D
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#2
I wasn't on that op although Auld Yin may have been.
 
#4
YouTube channel InRange, which has the part-time participation of Ian from Forgotten Weapons does the occasional historical piece. In a very recent one which Karl did by himself he was at a War of 1812 battlefield.

In the introductory segment he tried to give the background to the war in order to give the battle context. However, he claimed that it was Britain who started the war because they were still hung up on the American independence war and wanted to continue what they saw as unfinished business. He started getting quite worked up while describing this.

At this point I stopped watching the video and closed the tab, because he had things completely backwards, as it was the US who saw 1812 as the chance to take care of "unfinished business" and to drive Britain from the North American continent and take over their remaining colonies there. Britain was too tied up with Napoleon to want to get into pointless scraps with third parties in remote places.

It does make you wonder how these sorts of myths get perpetuated in the US, even apparently with someone who claims to have done enough research into the subject to be able to present a supposedly educational video on a regular YouTube channel with a large number of viewers.

And people laugh at the Russians when they spout similar historical guff.
 
#6
YouTube channel InRange, which has the part-time participation of Ian from Forgotten Weapons does the occasional historical piece. In a very recent one which Karl did by himself he was at a War of 1812 battlefield.

In the introductory segment he tried to give the background to the war in order to give the battle context. However, he claimed that it was Britain who started the war because they were still hung up on the American independence war and wanted to continue what they saw as unfinished business. He started getting quite worked up while describing this.

At this point I stopped watching the video and closed the tab, because he had things completely backwards, as it was the US who saw 1812 as the chance to take care of "unfinished business" and to drive Britain from the North American continent and take over their remaining colonies there. Britain was too tied up with Napoleon to want to get into pointless scraps with third parties in remote places.

It does make you wonder how these sorts of myths get perpetuated in the US, even apparently with someone who claims to have done enough research into the subject to be able to present a supposedly educational video on a regular YouTube channel with a large number of viewers.

And people laugh at the Russians when they spout similar historical guff.
Always fun when you run into the odd deluded Septic who insists that they won the War of 1812. A strategic victory, apparently.

Mugs.
 
#7
Never understood how the yanks version of the 1812 unpleasantness, either?

They invade Canada so it will revolt against the King?
It doesn’t go to plan.
They get their arses kicked inside their own state Capital!?
The President runs away and Bladensburg/D.C. get torched.

But they won?
 
#8
That's an "Arab victory" in that they weren't all slaughtered, so therefore they "won".
 
#9
Never understood how the yanks version of the 1812 unpleasantness, either?

They invade Canada so it will revolt against the King?
It doesn’t go to plan.
They get their arses kicked inside their own state Capital!?
The President runs away and Bladensburg/D.C. get torched.

But they won?


It WaS a StRatEgIc ViCtOrY!!!
 
#10
That's an "Arab victory" in that they weren't all slaughtered, so therefore they "won".
Much the same as (some) people writing about the British Army today, we didn't kill everyone or raze the capital so therefore we lost.
 
#12
Much the same as (some) people writing about the British Army today, we didn't kill everyone or raze the capital so therefore we lost.
That's the general principle looked at from the other angle. The Palestinians, for example, have "won" tens of thousands of "victories" against the Israelis.
 
#13
Well, it kind of was a strategic victory for the US, in as much as the peace treaty resulted in the British discontinuing their logistical support to Native Americans, and thus making the colonisation of the "west" much easier.
 
#14
Well, it kind of was a strategic victory for the US, in as much as the peace treaty resulted in the British discontinuing their logistical support to Native Americans, and thus making the colonisation of the "west" much easier.
Not disagreeing but how and why did we logistically support the Indians?
 
#15
Ah, but after the war was officially over and a treaty concluded in Britain's favour they defeated a British army at New Orleans so they get to say they won. Aapparently.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#17
Ah, but after the war was officially over and a treaty concluded in Britain's favour they defeated a British army at New Orleans so they get to say they won. Aapparently.
Jackson was an all round **** tbf
 
#18
A daft war.
Nobody really wanted it. It buggered up trade between UK and the US no end, cost everyone too damn much and left everything the same.
The only people to gain were the Canucks who proved they could punch as well as the next bloke and led to a growing "Canadian" identity. The French canucks fought well too, so paving the way for healing a few old wounds.
 
#19
A daft war.
Nobody really wanted it. It buggered up trade between UK and the US no end, cost everyone too damn much and left everything the same.
The only people to gain were the Canucks who proved they could punch as well as the next bloke and led to a growing "Canadian" identity. The French canucks fought well too, so paving the way for healing a few old wounds.
Not according to Morrison and Commager, a standard 'A' text book in my time, who claimed that it was the US's coming of age.
They had in their opinion beaten the worlds first superpower.
I agree with you however, one of the most stupidly unnecessary wars ever.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#20
Ah, but after the war was officially over and a treaty concluded in Britain's favour they defeated a British army at New Orleans so they get to say they won. Aapparently.
and sing songs about it

Wish we had one that included the lines

' Hello Dolly
This is Jack, Dolly
It was so nice of you
To have us all to tea.'
:-D


This book on the splashy,cold,wet side of life is worth a read:

1560864054281.png


According to the blurb on the (American) bookseller's site ( which betrays the mindset)

No-one is better placed than CS Forester to dramatize the sea battles of the War of 1812, to characterize the heroes more skillfully, or to comprehend more shrewdly the world unrest that made it possible for an infant republic to embarrass a great nation rich in one hundred years of sea triumphs .

The book was originally published in UK by Michael Joseph as

' The Naval War of 1812 '

American edition had to have a title change because apparently some chancer called Teddy Roosevelt had already written a book with the same title over there....


The bulk of the infant USN seapower revolved around fast large frigates, of which the USS Constitution is the last surviving example. She is still (just) afloat in Baltimore harbour.

Ships of 44 guns, they outgunned and outsailed their 32 gun British counterparts. But the Admiralty routinely expected the RN to overpower larger stronger opponents.

1560864845733.png

Bit of a hoo-hah over not much really, referred to at the time in large parts of New England as
'Mister Madison's War'.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top