What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/WarOf1812

 

jurgenstrom
topic
04:31:23 PM Aug 26th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.43
It's seems this topic is ripe with anti-Americanism and Canadian historical revisionism, as well as the over-blowing of certain aspects.

It also needs a good read through for spelling and grammatical errors.

ALL the impressed were deserters from the Royal Navy? There is no conceivable way that they could prove that, and if there is, it should certainly have links to sources laying such claims.

The war was about annexing Canada? The primary figure heads of the US at the time hinted at the secondary possibility of its annexation, but was not at all the primary cause for it, it was for ending impressment upon its sailors, ending the arming of natives for striking against American settlers, and the large trade restrictions by Britain, all of which was achieved, leaving aside Canadian annexation.

"if the war had dragged on another few months and the Cabinet had deemed it worthwhile to take New Orleans back, the relatively small and over-stretched US Army would not have been able to defend the town."

That quote from the main body of text is patently false, as the US had begun to win major victories towards the end of the war and many agree that the casualties inflicted by the US onto the British eliminated any major possible invasion afterward. It becomes even more false if you add in the fact that the forced autonomy Britain pushed the US into by cutting off sea-trade, greatly increased the US's manufacturing capabilities and led to an increase in its economy and self-sufficiency.

Then it goes on again, further down, trying to minimalize the effort of the US's navy, downplaying them by making them seem like "glorified opportunists", even though the US navy distinguished itself several times in larger scale pitched naval battles.

I've also counted around 3 tropes that blatantly give the US a perceived general image of "losing" the war of 1812 even though her primary goals were met.

I'm not asking for someone to make it pro-American, but could some fact-checking and diminishing of this "pro-Canadian" view-point be established?
AmbarSonofDeshar
09:36:35 PM Sep 9th 2013
edited by 216.154.93.146
"An increase in its economy and self-sufficiency"? I took an entire course on this war, and no matter what documents you read, Canadian, British, or American, all involved agree that the USA was on the verge of economic collapse by the end of the war. The American Secretary of the Treasury was in a panic, with banks defaulting, loans not being repayed, and the government being all but out of money. The loss of trade with Europe and the BNA was devastating, and I can link you to Canadian and American books alike that will tell you that.

As to the business about the annexation of Canada...whatever their reasons for going to war in the first place, Madison and his Cabinet did put the annexation of Canada on their to-do list. There were repeated calls in Congress for the annexation, and when Hull arrived in the Canadas the first thing he did was try to convince Canadians that they should want to be part of the USA. Had the Americans won (as in achieved a smashing victory), the Canadas very likely would have been integrated into the USA.

Finally—no matter what America's goals were, the fact remains that she invaded Canada, and after two years, was ejected, saw her capital torched, and ended in, once again, near economic collapse. Calling that anything other than a defeat is really pushing it.
Jurgenstrom
05:10:06 PM Dec 10th 2013
edited by 69.249.42.65
"I took an entire course on this war, and no matter what documents you read, Canadian, British, or American, all involved agree that the USA was on the verge of economic collapse by the end of the war"

Yea well take it again: http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812

"Perhaps most importantly, the war's outcome boosted national self-confidence and encouraged the growing spirit of American expansionism that would shape the better part of the 19th century."

Waltham, Massachusetts, origin of the Boston Manufacturing Company (a textile manufacturer), which arose solely because of the War of 1812:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Manufacturing_Company

The charter of the First Bank of the United States also expired in 1811, spurring Treasury Note production:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_Note_%2819th_century%29#War_of_1812

That would set up a blueprint for the US for future Financial Crisis', while it also encouraged the creation of the SECOND Bank of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States#History

So unless all those are all WRONG, this article should be changed to mirror the historical accounts of the War of 1812 both revitalizing US industry and commerce, and encouraging the revision of US economic infrastructure.

"and I can link you to Canadian and American books alike that will tell you that. "

Ok? The US was in even more dire economic straights during the Revolution, but it's still wildly accepted that the economic problems were responsible for the formation of the economic infrastructure at the time, much like the War of 1812 did.

"whatever their reasons for going to war in the first place, Madison and his Cabinet did put the annexation of Canada on their to-do list"

Okay? And the UN aimed to dissolve North Korea in the Korean War, but we still won it on account of the fact that we retained original South Korean territory and kept their sovereignty.

"Had the Americans won (as in achieved a smashing victory), the Canadas very likely would have been integrated into the USA."

As would the US have been part of the British empire had they won, so what's your point? Are you saying that because they failed to achieve their aims, that the US lost? Well in that case, so did Britain, since they very blatantly tried to re-take the US with a three-pronged invasion attempt that we repelled.

"the fact remains that she invaded Canada"

The fact also remains that the British invaded the US as well.

"Calling that anything other than a defeat is really pushing it"

Please, I bet the only reason you're saying that is because you're either Canadian or British, since only in Canada is the War of 1812 counted as a "victory" for them and a "defeat" for the US, and Britain has very anti-american sentiment throughout their history books.

http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812

"United States celebrated the War of 1812 as a "second war of independence," beginning an era of partisan agreement and national pride."

Right there, in black and white "a second war of independence", on the History Channels website, they officially state that it was considered a victory by the US.

I've delivered more than enough evidence supporting my claims, showing that changes should be made to reflect at the very least, a more neutral point of view and that a stalemate had occurred, and not one that is so blatantly rampant with a Pro-Canadian bias.
MAI742
10:45:01 PM May 25th 2014
I state that this Useful Notes article on The War of 1812 is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and not "blatantly rampant with a Pro-Canadian bias".

I wrote the stuff you're taking objection to, Jurgenstrom, and I'm no Canadian nationalist (though I hear it's a lovely country) - just a history major.

I don't know about Ambar Sonof Deshar, but we had a harvard-guy in to do our revolution+1812 US history course. I don't remember everything I learned, but the course materials made it pretty clear that the annexation of Canada was a/the primary US war-goal, and that the war devastated the US's trade-dependent economy.

I don't recall those raids being attempts to conquer the USA so much as attempts to encourage their government to the negotiating table. I don't remember any talk of conquering the USA... but I can always be convinced with a good show of evidence! ; ) ^_^

Anyhow, from what I remember of British school textbooks their writers are actually quite fond of the USA and other English-speaking countries, but I've never read one on 1812 - it usually takes a decade or two for the latest academic stuff to filter down into them. 'shrugz'
FishType1
topic
03:42:47 PM Jun 20th 2012
Why does this war have a page anyway? It wasnt a very important war and is only remembered in the USA and Canada. It was practically a small sideshow to the Napoleonic wars where the USA declared war on the UK for next to no reason other than patriotism, and ended with no change except a few burnt down cities and a failed invasion of Canada.
TheFellMind
11:55:32 PM Aug 5th 2012
One could make the same charge about The American Civil War — only remembered in the USA, practically a small sideshow to anyone outside of North America where Americans declared war against each other for next to no reasons other than pride and slavery, and ended with no change from before save for a few burnt-down towns and battlefields and failed invasions of each others' territory.

I mean, really, if you're going to have a Wall Of Text on the Civil War page, it's unjustifiable not to have something on the War of 1812. It was a crucial point in the development of North America as it is today, and is pretty much Canada's "War of Independence" (only it was from American aggression rather than the British) in that country's cultural and national development.
Jurgenstrom
05:15:09 PM Dec 10th 2013
edited by 69.249.42.65
The American Civil War was about far more than just "pride and slavery", it was about the structuring of the government, where the south wanted a more limited government. The "slavery" aspect was just motivation for the North to encourage war effort and dehumanize the south and make their efforts seem morally wrong and unjustifiable.

The War of 1812 is also called the "second war for America's independence" as well. Why? Look at the Battle of Baltimore, where the British were literally trying to invade and re-capture portions of the US. That's not the only example either, there's also the Battle of New Orleans and the Battle of Plattsburgh, all of which were invasion attempts by Britain that were repulsed by the US, showing that annexation of the US was a goal for Britain.
MAI742
10:52:20 PM May 25th 2014
Simple answer: There Is No Such Thing As Notability. ^_^

WOAH wait, hold on...Jurgenstrom, are you saying that slavery is morally right and justifiable (unless someone tries to make it seem otherwise)!? o_0
AzureSeas
topic
09:17:36 AM Feb 27th 2012
Moving this from main. I'm sure there's a better trope for it.

  • Beyond the Impossible: The shipbuilding in Lake Erie. At one point the largest naval vessels in the world were being built in and duking it out over control of that one lake. At the same time as the Napoleonic Wars.
PopishFrenzy
topic
05:09:04 PM Jun 1st 2010
Wow this piece is jam packed with wrong, i know we're not on the other wiki but daaaaamn!
SpectreAgent
12:39:21 PM Jun 6th 2010
Yeah, I'm detecting a major case of Canadian-itis here...
MindGamerShogun
08:48:52 PM Aug 14th 2010
Where? Any actual thing that is wrong?
Scardoll
08:48:39 AM Dec 14th 2010
As said above, this doesn't really show the American view of the war well, and the disclaimer at the top just sounds disjointed ("TRUTHFULLY the second Revolution...").

It also under-represents the role of British troops and the major role of the navy, other than in the actual tropes section.

I'm not a historian, though, so please correct me if I am wrong or these factors are adequately represented on the page.
Joesolo
06:13:02 PM Oct 12th 2011
The whole "second revolution" Thing is over rated. We didn't revolt against British control, we got pissed that they were raiding our shipping and stealing our sailors so we fought the strongest nation in the world to a draw. Canadians, It might be remebered another way to you but we rember it as the US VS Britain, round two. the only thing we learn about candian involvment is trickery to make your army look huge and british(Well played, I must admit) and our militia refusing to leave the country as the only reason your not part of us. Oh, and us burning down a few of your cities.
MAI742
03:23:35 PM Oct 27th 2011
I am giving it a once-over. It should be fairly neutral after I'm done. Let me know if you have any gripes, 'cos what's left'll be my fault.
Jordan
09:19:17 AM Feb 27th 2012
Blame Canada.
jatay3
08:08:38 PM May 30th 2013
All of the impressed really were deserters from the Royal Navy is more then a bit much. Every single one? Were there any audits? Does anyone seriously believe that captains whose lives and careers depend on a full crew are going to be that scrupulous?

And what the heck does "war profiteering" mean? Are neutral countries perhaps supposed to shut their whole commerce down just because English and French take it into their heads to kill each other again?
MAI742
11:03:04 PM May 25th 2014
I thought the idea was they were given special tattoos so, like branded cattle, you could tell whose navy they 'belonged' to? : /

Is 'war-profiteering' really such a bad term? It's Exactly What It Says on the Tin, nothing more and nothing less. Surely the thing that matters is who you're trading with (e.g. Sweden-Nazi Germany) rather than the fact that you're trading with a country that's at war...
jasontaylor
topic
07:39:20 PM Mar 19th 2010
That is how it is remembered in Canada. In America it is remembered as the fight against Impressment and the naval war is remembered better then the land war.
back to Main/WarOf1812

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy