Re: Washington burned to the ground wasn't a loss

Post #215,551 by andread 7/19/05 10:16:34 AM Reply	Re: Washington burned to the ground wasn't a loss the War of 1812 was perhaps inconclusive although I don't see any pictures of Queen Elizabeth on US currency today A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]
Post #215,552 by rcareaga 7/19/05 10:25:56 AM Reply	win some, lose some "I don't see any pictures of Queen Elizabeth on US currency today." Turn your eyes north for that. The young republic attempted in the course of that conflict to seize its neighbor, or swatches thereof, an undertaking that came to grief. Of course, the junta is slowly working to correct that historical verdict with a creeping Anschluss—only please to call it "extending our security perimeter." I do hope that as our new embassy complex goes up in the Green Zone the architects make provision for a broad, flat roof. winsomely, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Post #215,605 by ben_tilly 7/19/05 1:13:02 PM Reply	Not very inconclusive The British couldn't be bothered taking any US territory since the War of Independence had proved that the US was ungovernable. Besides it was a small deal to them, at least compared to what was going on in France at the time. But on a military level it was a very sound defeat. The US couldn't make headway in 2 years against much smaller numbers. And once British troops were free to really response, the only thing that the US had which resembled a victory happened after they sued for peace. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #215,643 by Andrew Grygus 7/19/05 4:11:37 PM Reply	At the begining of the war . . . . . it was presumed American land forces would easily handle the British but the British navy would rule the seas. In actuality American land forces couldn't get their act together and some of the leaders were out-and-out cowards, but the American navy caused a great deal of damage, especially the super frigates, a class of ship the British had never had to deal with before. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #215,677 by ben_tilly 7/19/05 7:54:14 PM Reply	Part of the reason for that... the parts of the USA that were nearest to Canada were also the least sympathetic to starting a war with Britain. Therefore local militia that warhawks were counting on did nothing, and official armed forces got much less support than they might have desired. Geographic issues like this mattered far less at sea. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #215,680 by Andrew Grygus 7/19/05 8:35:03 PM Reply	British captains complained a lot . . . . . about the super frigates because if they lost to one it went on their record as a loss to a frigate which they considered quite unfair (the American frigates were way larger and had two gun decks while British and French frigates had only one). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]

Welcome to IWETHEY!