The War of 1812

[Anarchist420]

Was it a necessary war in your opinion?

Please explain your opinion.

I'd say it was not a necessary war because the U.S. could've avoided impressment of its soldiers if the U.S. had not been on the high seas. There was no reason to be on the high seas.

As for the seizing of American merchant ships, the U.S. could've either made a treaty with the British, or waited until the hostilities in Europe were over to resume international trade.

If the British really were arming dangerous Native Americans, then the state militias could go after them.

Of course, I don't think the War of 1812 was as unnecessary as any of the wars that followed, but I think it still could've been avoided without much loss to the citizens of the young republic.

 

[Matthiasa]

Was it necessary, not really... just news in those days traveled slow so they didn't get the memo in time.

 

[Jaskalas]

Was it necessary, not really... just news in those days traveled slow so they didn't get the memo in time.

I wonder how many wars that enabled, the inability to communicate.

 

[Tom]

There's not enough maple syrup to support 2 Canadas.

 

[Steeplerot]

The war of 1812 was obviously a imperialist grab as we all know early Washington DC was made of Pure Maple Syrup bricks! The syrup-thirsty killers came down from the northern wastelands and melted all the syrup off our Capitols architecture, they left happy and promised to be good neighbors. Why upset the balance of the mapley force by bringing this up again? The illumnati and fed reserve guys need to come visit again?

anarchist420 thread lulz

 

[shiner]

If it hadn't happened we would have never had this

and that would be a tragedy

 

[dennilfloss]

The War of Southern Agression...

They had tried once in 1776 and tried again then.

 

[Nebor]

You mean the British\Canadian Offensive of 1812? An insidious attempt to retake American territory after the British lost the first War of British Aggression in America. Fortunately we were able to outmaneuver and defeat the British after distracting them by burning down our own capital. :sneaky:

I spent a lot of time around British Army & Marine officers and we'd always go back and forth. Fun times.

 

[FaaR]

If the British really were arming dangerous Native Americans, then the state militias could go after them.

"Dangerous" native americans?

...As opposed to the invading europeans that stole their continent by violence and lies?

I guess you don't believe in the right to bear arms against an aggressor, in defense of your own family, property and lands?

 

[Lemon law]

Once again, Anarchist420, you ask a stupid question and and somehow get a stupid answer.

Why should this forum play your stupid games?

The war of 1812 happened, maybe if the Brits followed through the USA might be still be singing GOD Save the British king or queen, the brits did not follow through in 1812, and the rest is history.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Anarchist420, why should this forum waste a milli second on your 200 year old dead issue??

 

[Infohawk]

Stop feeding the troll everyone.

 

[Aegeon]

As for the seizing of American merchant ships, the U.S. could've either made a treaty with the British, or waited until the hostilities in Europe were over to resume international trade.

The second one clearly was not a reasonable option given what the US knew at the time.

Thomas Jefferson basically did what you suggested back in 1807 when he got Congress to pass the Embargo Act, and it was a complete disaster for the US until it was somewhat fixed in 1809. Even at the time international trade was economically important for the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act

(For that matter, the solution clearly wouldn't work given a large component of the trade between the US states at the time was done by shipping as well, and the British were literally sending warships practically right off the US coast to stop US ships and take crew members for impressment. At the time prior to railroads and the like being available, seaborne transport was simply almost always the best solution for the long ranged transport of goods.)

The war was unnecessary given the reality the US didn't wait long enough for negotiations to actually succeed in getting a treaty and word to get back with the news (although they had waited a considerable amount of time to that point.) My main criticism of President Madison though is that he should have at least better prepared and had greater armed forces mobilized and at least somewhat trained prior to actually declaring war. (Which depending could have meant news of the treaty would have arrived first. Madison also ended up having rather lousy timing on declaring war on the UK given what happened to Napoleon's Grand Army that winter.)

As I noted previously, the war could have presumably been adverted if the US had been maintaining a significantly stronger navy and a real trained standing army in the first place. Under those circumstances the British would have presumably agreed to stop impressment much earlier given the possible consequences of a conflict, very probably well before the US would have declared war in that scenario. You can argue it was a war to a significant degree caused by US military weakness at the time. (The British thought they could get away with their behavior given the US's military capabilities at that point.)

 

[Nebor]

Once again, Anarchist420, you ask a stupid question and and somehow get a stupid answer.

Why should this forum play your stupid games?

The war of 1812 happened, maybe if the Brits followed through the USA might be still be singing GOD Save the British king or queen, the brits did not follow through in 1812, and the rest is history.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Anarchist420, why should this forum waste a milli second on your 200 year old dead issue??

Great attitude. I don't expect to be hearing any more from you in Iraq & Afghanistan war threads. :thumbsup:

 

[Lemon law]

Nebor, as a serial idiot, where do you come up with, "Great attitude. I don't expect to be hearing any more from you in Iraq & Afghanistan war threads."

The war of 1812 is very much a dead issue now, Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly settled issues? Why should I be surprised that you can't tell the difference.

 

[Nebor]

Nebor, as a serial idiot, where do you come up with, "Great attitude. I don't expect to be hearing any more from you in Iraq & Afghanistan war threads."

The war of 1812 is very much a dead issue now, Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly settled issues? Why should I be surprised that you can't tell the difference.

They've already started. It doesn't matter if the reasons for starting them were right or wrong, lies or truth. The start of the wars are a dead issue. You can continue to spout off your ideas for ISAF strategy, which carry a lot of weight, considering you've never been to either combat zone, but discussing the start of those wars is pointless. What's done is done.

 

[LegendKiller]

Maybe if Jefferson had scrapped the rest of the navy the British wouldn't have impressed our citizens and left us alone.

After all, no foreign aggressor has ever invaded a country that lacked an organized military.

 

[ProfJohn]

If it hadn't happened we would have never had this

and that would be a tragedy

I would say that this thread was worthless, but that link made it all worth it.

 

[Lemon law]

Do not be an idiot, Non Prof John. At best the Battle of New Orleans was a small side issue in the war of 1812. At the same time British troops had already sacked and burned Washington DC, and President Madison had fled the capital. The only US hero was Dolly Madison. The brits had already decided conquering the USA was a bridge too far long before the battle of New Orleans new came in.

 

[K1052]

Maybe if Jefferson had scrapped the rest of the navy the British wouldn't have impressed our citizens and left us alone.

After all, no foreign aggressor has ever invaded a country that lacked an organized military.

It probably wouldn't mattered. The real damage was being done by US privateers making the British go broke. As mighty as the British Navy was it couldn't possibly cope with the hordes of privateers assaulting it's merchant fleet across the globe. That was the main reason for the British assault on Baltimore, to stop privateers from fitting out there and raiding their shipping.

Our frigates did give the Brits fits though. The idea that an American ship could best equal or better opponents was unthinkable to the British.

 

[CanOWorms]

Any war with the UK in that era was necessary for the good of the world.