Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Just Wondering WHAT IF

Expand Messages
  • usmarine1814
    It is obvious, that beside the claimed intent of Free Trade and Sailors Rights that the US invasion of Canada was an effort to expel the British presence from
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      It is obvious, that beside the claimed intent of Free Trade and
      Sailors Rights that the US invasion of Canada was an effort to expel
      the British presence from North America. Perhaps, had the US
      military been ably led and the government not so divided it may have
      just happened because of the weak state of defences in Canada in
      1812. But I was wondering a what if. It is often argued that the
      British had no intent but to defend Canada. That hey did not wish to
      grab any land from the US. Was this claim/strategy out of neccesity
      because they did not have the means to do so? Here is the what if.
      If they had the means, ie men and resources, ad just trounce the US
      in 1812 or 1813 to the point of a complete military victory is it
      wrong to supose that instead of just using conquered land
      as "bargaining chips" that they may have decided to hold on to some
      parts such as the northern half of Maine (which had always been an
      impediment to the communications between the Maritimes and Quebec and
      Montreal)or the upper peninsula of Michigan or the lower for that
      matter. Maybe New Orleans to control trade. Demand control of the
      Oregon territory. I just cant see them giving up earned land without
      reason. What do other people think? Has anyone ever ran into
      comments about keeping conquered land in their research.

      take care all
      YHOS
      Colin Murphy
      USS Con.
      1812 MG
    • Armchairadm@cs.com
      For a really good examination of British intentions in regard to the Michigan Terr, & the old Northwest check out A Wampum Denied by Sandy Antal. Aside from
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 30, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        For a really good examination of British intentions in regard to the
        Michigan Terr, & the old Northwest check out
        A Wampum Denied by Sandy Antal. Aside from taking a very good look at
        British plans for an Indian "Buffer State" in the Old Northwest it is also an
        excellent examination of the campaign in the NW from the British/Canadian
        perspective.

        Ed B.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • ebclemson
        Hi Colin, Can t help you on the what if , but did want to address your comment of claimed intent of Free trade and Sailors rights. I think it is a
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Colin,

          Can't help you on the "what if", but did want to address your comment
          of "claimed intent" of Free trade and Sailors rights. I think it is
          a documented fact that British War ships stopped US ships and removed
          sailors. "Claimed" sounds like "spin". As far as "Free trade" goes,
          the Republican policies of "Self" embargos hurt the US economy as
          much as the seizing of US ships by French and British Ships.

          The Weak US Military was a direct result of Federalists versus
          Jefferson and Madison's Republicans, and the tinkering of the Army
          from 1798 to 1808. We all tend to forget how young the US was at this
          time, and still trying to figure out two party systems, change of
          administrations, etc.

          At our 14th annual War of 1812 in the West Symposium, held last week
          in St. Louis Missouri, Professor Don Hickey gave a presentation on
          the Top Ten myths of the War of 1812. It was a thought provoking
          presentation that received a lot of discussion. These symposiums are
          free, open to the public, and no registration is needed. I encourage
          everyone who can to attend them.

          Good Luck on your Sacketts Harbor event. I noticed that "sack
          lunches" were to be served. We have had good luck at events I have
          organized issuing raw food stuffs that were accurate for the season
          and the location. Might be something you can try in the future?

          Regards, Dave Bennett
          1st US Infantry

          --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "usmarine1814" <usmarine1812@a...>
          wrote:
          > It is obvious, that beside the claimed intent of Free Trade and
          > Sailors Rights that the US invasion of Canada was an effort to
          expel
          > the British presence from North America. Perhaps, had the US
          > military been ably led and the government not so divided it may
          have
          > just happened because of the weak state of defences in Canada in
          > 1812. But I was wondering a what if. It is often argued that the
          > British had no intent but to defend Canada. That hey did not wish
          to
          > grab any land from the US. Was this claim/strategy out of
          neccesity
          > because they did not have the means to do so? Here is the what
          if.
          > If they had the means, ie men and resources, ad just trounce the US
          > in 1812 or 1813 to the point of a complete military victory is it
          > wrong to supose that instead of just using conquered land
          > as "bargaining chips" that they may have decided to hold on to some
          > parts such as the northern half of Maine (which had always been an
          > impediment to the communications between the Maritimes and Quebec
          and
          > Montreal)or the upper peninsula of Michigan or the lower for that
          > matter. Maybe New Orleans to control trade. Demand control of the
          > Oregon territory. I just cant see them giving up earned land
          without
          > reason. What do other people think? Has anyone ever ran into
          > comments about keeping conquered land in their research.
          >
          > take care all
          > YHOS
          > Colin Murphy
          > USS Con.
          > 1812 MG
        • spikeyj@crosslink.net
          ... And to a certain extent it was spin. Sailors rights may have been the official administration-provided reason for why a war was necessary, but it was more
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, ebclemson wrote:

            > Can't help you on the "what if", but did want to address your comment
            > of "claimed intent" of Free trade and Sailors rights. I think it is
            > a documented fact that British War ships stopped US ships and removed
            > sailors. "Claimed" sounds like "spin".

            And to a certain extent it was spin.

            Sailors' rights may have been the official administration-provided
            reason for why a war was necessary, but it was more like the straw
            that broke the camel's back. If you'd polled the various U.S. senators
            and congressmen who voted for the war as to the motives, you'd have
            found that not all of them cared all that much for sailors'
            rights: some wanted to do something about the Indian problems
            in the old Northwest, some wanted to expand into Canada, some wanted
            to expand into Florida, some wanted to reassert the U.S.'s national
            independence ("vindicate the national character" was the phrase used
            in the House Foreign Affairs Committee), some hoped to hurt
            British trade, etc. etc.

            It should be noted that New England (where the biggest shipping
            concerns were) voted against the war, while the western states and
            representatives from western districts in other states tended to vote
            for the war despite shipping not being a major concern there.

            Spike Y Jones
          • BritcomHMP@aol.com
            ... Dear Dave, I think the expression claimed is not meant to indicate that US ships were not stoped, nor that aproximatly 1 in 4 of the seamen removed were
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 4/3/04 10:32:49 AM, ebclemson@... writes:


              >
              > Can't help you on the "what if", but did want to address your comment
              > of "claimed intent" of Free trade and Sailors rights.  I think it is
              > a documented fact that British War ships stopped US ships and removed
              > sailors.  "Claimed" sounds like "spin".  As far as "Free trade" goes,
              > the Republican policies of "Self" embargos hurt the US economy as
              > much as the seizing of US ships by French and British Ships.
              >

              Dear Dave,

              I think the expression 'claimed' is not meant to indicate that US ships were
              not stoped, nor that aproximatly 1 in 4 of the seamen removed were not British
              subjects, but rather that after the orders in council were recinded and
              before active warfare had started the US could have justly claimed a complete moral
              victory. Instead an army of invasion was sent to Canada, at this point to
              still be talking of 'free tade and sauilors rights' rang somewhat hollow in the
              ears of people having their property burned by foreign troops! :-)

              Cheers,

              Tim



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • usmarine1814
              ... I stated claimed intent because my feeling is that though many screamed for free trade and sailors rights , which I do beelieve a slight argument could
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Dave
                I stated "claimed intent" because my feeling is that though many
                screamed for "free trade and sailors rights", which I do beelieve a
                slight argument could be made for, the true intent was the expulsion
                of England from North America and conquest of Canada while removing
                the Native American threat. As for Sacketts Harbor the event went
                great. The 10th Mountain Division sent a representative and color
                guard, Gov. Pataki sent a representative along with local mayor,
                local "Battlefield Alliance" representative. Head of the park gave a
                speach and also Mr. Peter Monanhan of the Royal Neufs. Our message
                got out. Lots of TV and newspaper coverage about the importance of
                the sight and the need to preserve it and the graves it holds. The
                outcome seems favorable. If the land is saved and purchased the park
                will add 200 Acres!!! As for the maels. Those we ate in camp were
                raw materials cooked over the fire while freezing our arses off. The
                sack lunch was given to us as we were driving off to hold us over for
                the car ride. The people who run that park are reenactors best
                friends. They will bend over backwards for us and can not wait to do
                so. As the park and their events mature I am sure the entire 1812
                community will be extremely impressed with what hey are willing to do
                for and offer to those who attend their events.
                Best Regards
                Colin Murphy
                USS C 1812MG
              • ebclemson
                Good point, However, I don t think we can make a blanket statement that the Northeast voted against the war. Obed Hall and John Harper from New hampshire
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Good point,

                  However, I don't think we can make a blanket statement that
                  the "Northeast" voted against the war.

                  Obed Hall and John Harper from New hampshire voted "Yes", so did
                  James Morgan and Lewis Condict from New Jersey. Also, James Fisk,
                  Samuel Shaw, William Strong and Jonathan Robinson from Vermont. From
                  Massachuesetts, Francis Carr, Isiah Green, William Richardson, and
                  about three more voted for War, and several others from the
                  Northeast.

                  Yes, all of the legislators from Rhode Island, Deleware and
                  Connecticut voted "no".

                  But not all of the Northeastern states voted agaist it.

                  I agree that everyone perhaps had their "pet" reason for war. War
                  did not come over night, it built up over the years, when British
                  troops did not yield their positions on American soil after the Rev.
                  War had ended; when settlers were attacked in the old Northwest by
                  Indians supplied with British powder, shot and food; when US ships
                  were boarded; when US War ships were boarded; etc. etc.

                  And as far as the "theory" that the US should had "backed down" once
                  they found out after War had already been declared, that the orders
                  in council had been revoked....

                  Think of two kids on the play ground. One is new in school, the other
                  is an old hand, and a bully. After getting knocked to the ground,
                  made fun of, mocked, and kicked in the stomach....the new kid finally
                  has enough, throws off his coat, rolls up his sleeve and steps toward
                  the bully and says "enough is enough" "you may be stronger than me
                  but I'm going to make you bleed".

                  The bully then says (in front of the entire class, and with a
                  smirk) "Oh,
                  I'm sorry little buddy, didn't really mean it"

                  Well, any new kid with any pride will not run chicken again, they
                  have to stand up and show the bully they meant what they said. That
                  their word means something.

                  Regards, Dave Bennett.

                  --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, <spikeyj@c...> wrote:
                  > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, ebclemson wrote:
                  >
                  > > Can't help you on the "what if", but did want to address your
                  comment
                  > > of "claimed intent" of Free trade and Sailors rights. I think it
                  is
                  > > a documented fact that British War ships stopped US ships and
                  removed
                  > > sailors. "Claimed" sounds like "spin".
                  >
                  > And to a certain extent it was spin.
                  >
                  > Sailors' rights may have been the official administration-provided
                  > reason for why a war was necessary, but it was more like the straw
                  > that broke the camel's back. If you'd polled the various U.S.
                  senators
                  > and congressmen who voted for the war as to the motives, you'd have
                  > found that not all of them cared all that much for sailors'
                  > rights: some wanted to do something about the Indian problems
                  > in the old Northwest, some wanted to expand into Canada, some wanted
                  > to expand into Florida, some wanted to reassert the U.S.'s national
                  > independence ("vindicate the national character" was the phrase used
                  > in the House Foreign Affairs Committee), some hoped to hurt
                  > British trade, etc. etc.
                  >
                  > It should be noted that New England (where the biggest shipping
                  > concerns were) voted against the war, while the western states and
                  > representatives from western districts in other states tended to
                  vote
                  > for the war despite shipping not being a major concern there.
                  >
                  > Spike Y Jones
                • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                  ... Ah but remember Dave, sometimes its the new kid who is the bully, even if he doesn t think of himself as such. :-) Cheers Tim [Non-text portions of this
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 6, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 4/6/04 2:25:45 AM, ebclemson@... writes:


                    >
                    > Well, any new kid with any pride will not run chicken again, they
                    > have to stand up and show the bully they meant what they said. That
                    > their word means something.
                    >

                    Ah but remember Dave, sometimes its the new kid who is the bully, even if he
                    doesn't think of himself as such. :-)

                    Cheers

                    Tim




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • ebclemson
                    Tim, True, somtimes the new kid is the bully, but we all know it was the big kid who was the bully in this case. Now I didn t say that the new kid can t grow
                    Message 9 of 10 , Apr 6, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tim, True, somtimes the new kid is the bully, but we all know it was
                      the big kid who was the bully in this case. Now I didn't say that
                      the new kid can't grow up into a Bully later. Some say Bully, others
                      say protector. Did you like my Missoura folksy analogy?

                      The Best,

                      Dave B.

                      --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, BritcomHMP@a... wrote:
                      >
                      > In a message dated 4/6/04 2:25:45 AM, ebclemson@w... writes:
                      >
                      >
                      > >
                      > > Well, any new kid with any pride will not run chicken again, they
                      > > have to stand up and show the bully they meant what they said.
                      That
                      > > their word means something.
                      > >
                      >
                      > Ah but remember Dave, sometimes its the new kid who is the bully,
                      even if he
                      > doesn't think of himself as such. :-)
                      >
                      > Cheers
                      >
                      > Tim
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                      ... All of us Dave? :-) Actualy I think the analogy would be like a precoutious if not obnoxious youngster kicking the shins of someone far bigger and shouting
                      Message 10 of 10 , Apr 6, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 4/6/04 5:00:41 PM, ebclemson@... writes:


                        >
                        > Tim, True, somtimes the new kid is the bully, but we all know it was
                        > the big kid who was the bully in this case. 
                        >
                        All of us Dave? :-) Actualy I think the analogy would be like a precoutious
                        if not obnoxious youngster kicking the shins of someone far bigger and shouting
                        'What'cha goin to do about it' and then shouting about how unfair it all is
                        when the big kid smacks him round the ear, at which point the little kid
                        forgets how obnoxious he has been and starts shouting about being bullied!


                        >   Now I didn't say that
                        > the new kid can't grow up into a Bully later. Some say Bully, others
                        > say protector.     
                        >

                        Just like they did at the time! In fact most of the rest of the world saw
                        Britain as their protector (against the little Corsican). Or the American
                        loyalists just accross the border who were having their homes burned, again! Twice in
                        30 years is a bit much you know.

                        > Did you like my Missoura folksy analogy? 
                        >
                        >

                        Love it Dave, just love it!!!!

                        Cheers

                        Tim



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.