Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

1812: America's 2nd war of Independence?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952 		  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 1812: America's 2nd war of Independence?
    Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 22:26
The US at the time called it the 2nd War for Independence. I'm not sure how many people actually genuinely believed it. Most of the state militias didn't turn up. And the Canadians both French and English fought hard against the Americans.
 
On the subject of disproving a US victory. In both the UK and Canada it is regarded as a British and Canadian victory. Year one US invades Canada, year three, half the US is British occupied and the US sues for peace.
 
To decide the real result of the war, you must ask a person from a neutral country. French, German, Mexican and so on and see what their historians write of the war. For a less biased view.
 
1. The US entered the war unprepared. 200,000 troops on paper and only 30,000 mustered for the invasion of Canada. The US military was a shambles, militia ranks carried over to regular. So a militia general outranked a regular colonel. IE: the  local mayor raising 200 soldiers in his town could dub himself Generalissimo and when a regular regt came to town assume command over the regimental commander. In the British army all regular ranks outranked militia. If a regular lieutenant bumped into a militia field marshal the regular outranked him and assumed command.
 
2 Britain was pre-occupied in Spain without that no-war. The same had occured with the invasion of Florida and the Louisiana puchase.
 
 
 
 
Britain was able to send a major army but chose not to. The Carribean was Britain's main outpost. More troops were there than India. But was considered too important to deplete the garrison in both 1776 and 1812. However the Navy was fully available and blockaded the US for 3 years. It was trade bankrupcy, not military action that caused the US to sue for peace.
 
In the US defence, it took a mauling. It attacked a country far more powerful than itself even if occupied in Spain and survived. It established the US as a country rather than a temporarily rebel province.
 
 
 
 


Edited by Paul - 23-Aug-2007 at 22:31
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
what_is_history View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 23-Aug-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote what_is_history Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 21:53

In recent years, a large amount of historical writing on the War of 1812 has been devoted to proving the assumption that the War of 1812 (between the U.S. and Britain) was essentially a second war for American independence, which America bravely won.  Many authors even make the claim that it was the War of 1812 that added a sence of legitimacy and cohesiveness to the infant United States.  Such claims, however, negate a few important factors:

#1.) The United States entered a war that they were completely unprepared for.  American military might was in a pathetic state and not prepared for war with a world power.

#2.) Great Britain was already preoccupied with Napoleon on the European continent. 

#3.) Great Britain was able to occupy a good portion of American territory (including burning the national capitol).
 
 
#4.) U.S. leaders of the time (mainly James Madison) never showed the pride or excitement that is typical of a nation that is victorious in war.  Instead they breathed a sigh of relief at the war's conclusion.
 
What I'm trying to get at is the fact that the War of 1812 was anything but a smashing victory for the U.S.  Had it not been for Napoleon's advances in Europe, Britain would have been able to devote much more to the fight in America.  Of course we all know that the war ended with the Treaty of Ghent in 1815, which declared Status Quo Antebellum.  This treaty, however, was more of an escape for the United States, which had endured extreme hardships as a result of the conflict.  
 
So, I am curious to know what you think.  Was the War of 1812 really a
SECOND war of U.S. independence?  Who really won the war (if anyone)?  How would the outcome of the war been different if Napoleon was never a factor?  Why does the War of 1812 gain the reputation as America's second war of independence? 
"It aint what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
-Mark Twain
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.114 seconds.