So what you're saying is...

Post #30,704 by marlowe 3/4/02 3:45:26 PM 3/4/02 3:48:51 PM Reply	So what you're saying is... Britain considered the United States enough of a threat to their war effort that it was necessary to invade? Was the United States really enough of a factor, or Napoleon really that strong at that point, that the US had to be quashed before Napoleon could be beaten? Sorry, I find that very farfetched. The US wasn't even a world power yet, let alone a superpower. If anything, it was Britain that was a credible threat to the survival of the United States, not the other way around. The US wasn't even a credible threat to Canada. So why such heavyhandedness? The fact is, Great Britain over-reacted, and that's putting the best possible face on it. So did the United States, to be fair, but to a far lesser degree. The US went in at a terrible disadvantage. Great Britain was bigger, and more powerful. Not content with securing Canada, the Brits went on to bombard and invade the United States. Most of this was in 1814, after Napoleon had been beaten, and after Canada was safe. It was gratuitous. What was the British objective at that point? Certainly not to secure the survival of Great Britain. That wasn't even an issue at this point. So it must have been something else. Such as? Well, trying to put an end to the US would fit the actual behavior quite nicely. What other theory fits the facts? Anyone? (And this, to answer the question of your post's title, is where I pull my British objectives from. By reverse engineering their actions. I've always found this to be a far more reliable method than just taking people at their word. Good grief, where would we be if we'd taken Hitler at his word in 1939?) What it all boils down to is: 1. Great Britain was the bully. 2. The United States was the underdog. 3. At the very worst, it was a draw. If an underdog can fight a much bigger bully to a draw, what can you say to that? 4. On the face of it, Britain had the ability to conquer the United States. 5. Judging from its behavior, it's obvious that Britain also had the motive. 6. What it lacked, at a minimum, was the morale. By your own admission, the Brits thought it "wasn't worth it" to follow through. And why would they decide this after all that bother? It can only be because it turned out to be much harder than they had thought it would be. It just wasn't fun anymore. The War of 1812 was Great Britain's Vietnam. Only they had the sense to get out after a few years. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage. Edited by marlowe March 4, 2002, 03:48:51 PM EST So what you're saying is... Britain considered the United States enough of a threat to their war effort that it was necessary to invade? Was the United States really enough of a factor, or Napoleon really that strong at that point, that the US had to be quashed before Napoleon could be beaten? Sorry, I find that very farfetched. The US wasn't even a world power yet, let alone a superpower. If anything, it was Britain that was a credible threat to the survival of the United States, not the other way around. The US wasn't even a credible threat to Canada. So why such heavyhandedness? The fact is, Great Britain over-reacted, and that's putting the best possible face on it. So did the United States, to be fair, but to a far lesser degree. The US went in at a terrible disadvantage. Great Britain was bigger, and more powerful. Not content with securing Canada, the Brits went on to bombard and invade the United States. Most of this was in 1814, after Napoleon had been beaten, and after Canada was safe. It was gratuitous. What was the British objective at that point? Certainly not to secure the survival of Great Britain. That wasn't even an issue at this point. So it must have been something else. Such as? Well, trying to put an end to the US would fit the actual behavior quite nicely. What other theory fits the facts? Anyone? What it all boils down to is: 1. Great Britain was the bully. 2. The United States was the underdog. 3. At the very worst, it was a draw. If an underdog can fight a much bigger bully to a draw, what can you say to that? 4. On the face of it, Britain had the ability to conquer the United States. 5. Judging from its behavior, it's obvious that Britain also had the motive. 6. What it lacked, at a minimum, was the morale. By your own admission, the Brits thought it "wasn't worth it" to follow through. And why would they decide this after all that bother? It can only be because it turned out to be much harder than they had thought it would be. It just wasn't fun anymore. The War of 1812 was Great Britain's Vietnam. Only they had the sense to get out after a few years. http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage. Collapse All History
Post #30,714 by ChrisR 3/4/02 4:04:28 PM Reply	Pressing The idea of who exactly was a British citizen and who was an American citizen was much more fluid back then. American citizens many times did not have formal documentation or papers - they weren't as big into bureaucracy back then. Also, a lot of British sailors would claim to be American in order to try to evade the draft - what with private shipping being much more profitable. I suppose the only good thing to come out of the War was that we finally got a good ~~drinking song~~ national anthem. :-)
Post #30,760 by marlowe 3/4/02 8:07:09 PM Reply	Be careful what you're excusing, there. If you accept the draft dodge excuse, then it follows that we would've been well within out right to invade Canada... in the late 1960's. Grab any likely looking young man who can't show ID. But guys, it really wasn't all about the blockade against France and the Napoleonic Wars, and Ben would have us think. It's all part of a pattern going back at least to the French and Indian War. The British ruling class looked down on the colonists. After we won the Revolution, there was much wounded pride in the Hanoverian dynasty. At first they weren't inclined to open old wounds. But a couple of other things came up that made the Brits - shall we say - touchy, neither of which were our fault: the London riot around Wilkes, and the Napoleonic Wars. England had something to prove. They were looking for a war. They as much as fought one against us with such heavyhanded actions as the Chesapeake and impressment. They weren't interested in working things out. They didn't see our sovereignty as legitimitate, and so they did as they pleased to our ships and their crew. Prior to the 1812 War, there was a sizeable party within the United States that wanted a reconciliation with the mother country. Had the latter shown even a modicum of genuine regard, who could say whether we might have joined the war against Napoleon on England's side? We weren't strong enough to make much of a difference, but it couldn't have hurt. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #30,789 by ben_tilly 3/5/02 7:11:20 AM Reply	Believe what you will For you will believe it once you have made your mind up. Which you clearly have. Britain in the middle of fighting for its life in one of the pivotal wars of the last thousand years, against a man who had proven himself the most successful conquerer born on European soil since Alexander the Great, really gave a shit about conquering the USA? A people in the middle of a war that reshaped Europe were going out looking for another? Why? Didn't they like the one they already had? Yeah. Fucking. Right. That makes no more sense than your comparison of stopping and searching ships which were running a blockade to marching an army onto foreign soil looking for deserters. And I will now proceed to allow you to achieve yet another "success" in the self-fulfilling delusion you call a belief system. We are going around in circles, and I have better things to do with my time than waste it in endless arguments on the net with people who have made their mind up and then tailor their understanding of facts to suit. The field is yours. I invite you to share notes with President Madison and Saddam Hussein on the sweet taste of victory. Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #30,795 by marlowe 3/5/02 9:20:15 AM Reply	You project your way of thinking upon them. That's why you can't conceive of their motives being anything other than what yours would be in the same situation. Yes, they were just off a major fight, and looking for another. Why not? It happens. It happens a lot in daily life, in both large affairs and small. Why, look at Microsoft. Do they ever get tired of making, and then fending off, enemies left and right? And it can happen after losing the previous fight, too. Do the Palestinians ever get tired of losing, and decide to just settle for what they have? No. Your scorn is a poor substitute for the imagination to conceive that other people think and feel differently than you would, even in other eras. Please forgive me for bringing the cultural context and the rest of the historical context into it, thus upsetting your preconceived notions. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #30,748 by ben_tilly 3/4/02 6:43:44 PM Reply	Now I understand why people treat you with disbelief You just come up with theories so far in left field that it is hard to accept that you seriously believe them... Britain considered the United States enough of a threat to their war effort that it was necessary to invade? Was the United States really enough of a factor, or Napoleon really that strong at that point, that the US had to be quashed before Napoleon could be beaten? Excuse me? Talk about the tail wagging the dog! You have everything backwards from both reality and (not entirely coincidentally) what I said. The US declared war on Britain and invaded Canada. Britain did not declare war on the US. Secondly what I said was that the US was unimportant on Britain's agenda while Napoleon remained at large. If Britain had its way, the US would have accepted Britain's blockade of the mainland, and the US wouldn't have attacked anyone. As for how strong Napoleon was, dude, the guy [link\|http://www.etsu.edu/philos/classes/rk/neoclassictoromantic/htmdescriptionpages/map.htm\|conquered Europe]. Britain was justly terrified that they would be on his menu. Compared to that, a few colonies in North America were small fry. Sorry, I find that very farfetched. The US wasn't even a world power yet, let alone a superpower. If anything, it was Britain that was a credible threat to the survival of the United States, not the other way around. The US wasn't even a credible threat to Canada. So why such heavyhandedness? I am glad you find it farfetched. It would have been better if you realized up front it was wrong and didn't invent this crap. Britain only invaded the US in 1815. This was after repeated invasions by the US into British territory (aka Canada), and after Britain finished dealing with a much higher priority (aka Napoleon). At that time Britain had no shortage of cause - their territory had been being invaded for 2 years and their citizens were being killed! The fact is, Great Britain over-reacted, and that's putting the best possible face on it. So did the United States, to be fair, but to a far lesser degree. The US went in at a terrible disadvantage. Great Britain was bigger, and more powerful. Great Britain did not overreact. Their territory was invaded without cause. They responded by attacking the US until the US was willing to talk peace, and then accepted peace on terms that basically said, "Let's forget this whole incident ever happened." Not content with securing Canada, the Brits went on to bombard and invade the United States. Most of this was in 1814, after Napoleon had been beaten, and after Canada was safe. It was gratuitous. What was the British objective at that point? Certainly not to secure the survival of Great Britain. That wasn't even an issue at this point. So it must have been something else. Such as? Well, trying to put an end to the US would fit the actual behavior quite nicely. What other theory fits the facts? Anyone? How about to convince the US not to do that again? Which the US didn't. The private Fenian raids excepted, the rest of their wars on the Continent were against Indians and Mexico, and they didn't threaten Canada again until the 1860's or thereabouts. (The threats never moved beyond the verbal stage, though it did result in the consolidation of the various colonies into one for mutual self-defence.) (And this, to answer the question of your post's title, is where I pull my British objectives from. By reverse engineering their actions. I've always found this to be a far more reliable method than just taking people at their word. Good grief, where would we be if we'd taken Hitler at his word in 1939?) In other words you get your shit wrong and then play mindreader to figure out what "really happened"? Perhaps you should worry about getting your history straight before talking about what people's motives were. What it all boils down to is: 1. Great Britain was the bully. Great Britain was acting within norms accepted today within international practice. A naval blockade stops, searches, and turns away ships from neutral countries. A country has a right to define who is a citizen and subject them its own laws, including conscription laws, regardless of what that citizen thinks, or any other citizenships they might have. 2. The United States was the underdog. More specifically the US was a vicious bitch of an underdog who thought it could kick Britain's puppy (aka Canada) while Britain was busy. In 2 years the US was unable to make headway against an unaided Canada (a small fraction of its own size). Which makes it an incompetent, vicious underdog. In the third year the US had its ass handed to them all over the map. 3. At the very worst, it was a draw. If an underdog can fight a much bigger bully to a draw, what can you say to that? What you are saying is about equivalent to Saddam Hussein claiming "victory" after the Iraqui war because Iraq wound up at the same borders as when it started. 4. On the face of it, Britain had the ability to conquer the United States. The US in 1815 was indeed conquerable. It was, however, no more governable than it had been in 1781 so there was no point in trying to conquer it. 5. Judging from its behavior, it's obvious that Britain also had the motive. They had the motive to send troops in and do lots of damage, yes. But did they have the motive to try to hold it? 6. What it lacked, at a minimum, was the morale. Again, I am unimpressed at your attempts to engage in mindreading. By your own admission, the Brits thought it "wasn't worth it" to follow through. And why would they decide this after all that bother? It can only be because it turned out to be much harder than they had thought it would be. It just wasn't fun anymore. They had already made their point by burning the capital to the ground, their forces had just fought a European war as significant in their day as WW 1 or WW 2 is in ours, and the US was willing to sue for peace. Again, the idea of starting a war and starting to invade was a US initiative, not a British one. The War of 1812 was Great Britain's Vietnam. Only they had the sense to get out after a few years. If you had called the US Revolution their Vietnam I wouldn't disagree. But the War of 1812 was to them a side-show to the real war, which is considered one of the pivotal events ushering in Modern European History. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. Then stop making shit up. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage. Big if. Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #30,749 by marlowe 3/4/02 6:53:13 PM Reply	Britain started it, US declared it. Everything that went before amounted to war upon the US. Shame on the US for daring to admit openly that there was already a war going on. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #30,793 by boxley 3/5/02 9:08:58 AM Reply	Truth==Blind aceptance of horseshit? As long as its your horse? thanx, bill There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW. \ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
Post #30,797 by marlowe 3/5/02 9:25:31 AM Reply	Better mine than yours. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.

Welcome to IWETHEY!