[Zipperfish]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I think the whole ‘nationalist’ slant on this could be attributed to some Canadians defining their nationalism as being anti-American. The whole war and the historical facts have been glossed over in such a way that generations of Canadians believe the Canadian Army invaded Washington and burned down the Whitehouse which could not be further from the truth.

You gotta admit it's pretty funny how it gets Americans riled up.

In 1812 Madison was mad,
He was the president you know.
Well he thought he'd tell the British where they ought to go.
He thought he'd invade Canada,
He thought that he was tough.
Instead we went to Washington,
And burned down all his stuff.

And the white house burned, burned, burned.
And we're the ones that did it,
It burned, burned, burned.
While the president ran and cried,
It burned, burned, burned.
And things were very historical,
And the Americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies WaWaWa
In the war of 1812.

[Psudo]

My favorite line is "And things were very historical" Because it could apply to ANYTHING.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo Psudo:

My favorite line is "And things were very historical" Because it could apply to ANYTHING.

There's another line later on in the song talking about the Americans leaving that goes "They ran so fast they forgot to take their culture." That's my favourite line.

[eureka]

Actually, it was from the Common Law, Psudo. The "Right`existed long before te Bill of Rights. It could even be said that it was first codified in Magna Carta.


I rarely bring this up because it offends Americans who think there Constitution and Bill of Rights are some act of genius native to America, but, there are only tw items in the America Constitution that do not spring from English Common Law - and one of those may have originated in Scotland.

One is the establishing of religion and the other is the provision about contracts. Everything else is from Britain. Some of it ancient.

Hey, even Lincoln`s `government of the people...`is British. It can first be found in the introduction to the Wycliffe Bible.

[Psudo]

It was certainly not expressed in the Magna Carta; perhaps vaguely implied. It was express in the English Bill of Rights. It was also express in several state Constitutions before it was expressed in the US Constitution. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the American Revolution inherently understands that it started because established rights were violated; thus, rights must inherently have existed before independence was sought. You're imagining the "history began on July 4th, 1776" narrative of yours; it is not commonplace outside of kindergartens.

I don't suppose you read the US Supreme Court decision I linked to. It covered this same material, the origins of the 2nd Amendment, already and better.

[eureka]

Psudo Psudo:

It was certainly not expressed in the Magna Carta; perhaps vaguely implied. It was express in the English Bill of Rights. It was also express in several state Constitutions before it was expressed in the US Constitution. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the American Revolution inherently understands that it started because established rights were violated; thus, rights must inherently have existed before independence was sought. You're imagining the "history began on July 4th, 1776" narrative of yours; it is not commonplace outside of kindergartens.

I don't suppose you read the US Supreme Court decision I linked to. It covered this same material, the origins of the 2nd Amendment, already and better.

We know that it was not expressed in Magna Carta in terms that 18th. century lawmakers would use. The implication is not vague. The Rights of the Barons are very clear and it includes the Right to bear arms. That Right is what has extended to the populace.

History began`` in 1776 is not my narrative. That ought to be clear since I am writing of the roots of this. I have also, in the past, read many SCUSA decisions. I studied politics for years with a minor in US politics. That should be obvious from the little asides that I gave.

[FurTrader4]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Well we certainly didn't burn the whitehouse but Candian Militia regiments did fight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_units_of_the_War_of_1812

Charles de Salaberry, who was not a Brit, repelled the US invasion of Lower Canada with militia of local French-Canadians, who at the time, were referred to as "Canadiens".

Very true. It's bad of me to underplay the importance of the Quebec Militias defence of Lower Canada. The Militias in Upper Canada played a much lessor role. The great majority of fighting was British vs Yanks.

Militia & Native Allies in Upper Canada were very important to General Brock especially in the early going of the war units like: The Canadian Corps of Voyageurs and The Royal Newfoundland Regiment made him into "The hero of Upper Canada".
The Canadian Corps of Voyageurs Colonel William McKay, Colonel Robert Dickson and Colonel Robert McDouall of the Newfoundland Regiment were victorious in the early battles.
Here are some examples: Fort Detroit, Fort Mackinac, Fort Dearborn, Fort Prarie du Chien even Forts as far away as Fort Astoria (Portland Oregon) are included on that list.

[Psudo]

eureka eureka:

History began`` in 1776 is not my narrative.

You don't believe it, but you are the only person I know of claiming anyone believes it.

[EyeBrock]

FurTrader4 FurTrader4:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Well we certainly didn't burn the whitehouse but Candian Militia regiments did fight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_units_of_the_War_of_1812

Charles de Salaberry, who was not a Brit, repelled the US invasion of Lower Canada with militia of local French-Canadians, who at the time, were referred to as "Canadiens".

Very true. It's bad of me to underplay the importance of the Quebec Militias defence of Lower Canada. The Militias in Upper Canada played a much lessor role. The great majority of fighting was British vs Yanks.

Militia & Native Allies in Upper Canada were very important to General Brock especially in the early going of the war units like: The Canadian Corps of Voyageurs and The Royal Newfoundland Regiment made him into "The hero of Upper Canada".
The Canadian Corps of Voyageurs Colonel William McKay, Colonel Robert Dickson and Colonel Robert McDouall of the Newfoundland Regiment were victorious in the early battles.
Here are some examples: Fort Detroit, Fort Mackinac, Fort Dearborn, Fort Prarie du Chien even Forts as far away as Fort Astoria (Portland Oregon) are included on that list.

What a load of old bollocks. It's pretty well recorded that the Canadian militia was less than useful. I'd like to see you present a founded historical record to back up your post.

Brock on the militia;

$1:

Given his druthers, Brock — a tall, robust man of 42 and no fan of life in the colonies — would have returned to England to be assigned to service with the British army fighting in Spain. In fact, his deployment to the continent had been authorized near the end of January 1812. But quitting Upper Canada had become impossible as the warlike temper between England and the United States continued to rise.

What a box his sense of duty had put him in. He had few trained troops, the “dubious characters” of a ramshackle militia and few resources to equip them. Moreover, Brock had no good opinion of the fighting spirit in the society he led.

“A full belief possesses them that this Province must inevitably succumb . . . Most of the people have lost all confidence. I however speak loud and look big.”

It's well known that the militia were no use against US regulars and basically were used as skirmishers. Brock had little use for them and Prevost had a similar view.

The Natives, on the other hand were well regarded.

[FurTrader4]

What a load of old bollocks. It's pretty well recorded that the Canadian militia was less than useful. I'd like to see you present a founded historical record to back up your post.

There is a painting of a mortally wounded General Brock at Queenston Heights the caption reads: "Push on, brave York Volunteers".
Major General Roger Sheaffe won this battle mate!

[EyeBrock]

I'm aware of what Brock was supposed to have said. Looked good in the local newspapers though and perked up a scared populace who just lost the only guy who had his act together in Upper Canada. The Royal Artillery saved the day.

It's not difficult to see the validity of the argument that the militia of the day were not up to much. Barely trained, poorly equipped and lacking decent junior officers or NCO's. It's amazing they actually got to any of the battles really.

[eureka]

I think, EB, that you are painting with too wide a brush. There were many aspects to the various militias and you are correct in general. However, there were other groups such as the Marines who did good service.

[EyeBrock]

Which Marines? Royal or US? Both were around. However, the majority of heavy lifting was done by regiments of foot. As in regular British Army units supported by RA canons. Amphibious assaults, such as the attack on Washington also had support from RN artillery.

From this discussion and previous ones it's obvious that most Canadians have a very poor grasp of this subject. It has been 'amemded' to suit changing ideology.

Trudeau and his followers have been re-writing the Brits and the Imperial links out of mainstream Canada's history to be replaced with something more palatable to his ilk.

This presents a quandry on the war of 1812 where most of the fighting and dying was done by Brits in the defence of Canada. Overtime the minimal impact of Canadian raised militia units has been tarted up to assume a pivotal role in the fighting which just isn't backed up with historical sources.

What's wrong with just telling it as it is? It was a war between the UK and the US that took place in terroritory which is now Canada. The occupants of the provinces/colonies at the time did little to assist the British war effort, politically or practically.

Even the Preace Treaty excluded Canadian Colonies. It was the US and UK at the table.

Now we all need to accept the facts.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

As in regular British Army units supported by RA canons.

They had photo techs in those days?

[eureka]

If I recall correctly, the "Provincial Marines" who performed quite well in the Battle of Lake Erie were Canadian Militia units. I am no expert in this but I have read things that suggest you are being too harsh.

The total of the Militia at the start was only ten thousand or si very short term volunteers. Those who performed well at Lundy's Lane and a couple of other battles waived their right to discharge and were somewhat more experienced.

I know very well that the British forces did most of the heavy lifting but, given the very small local populations at the time, the militia was not all that bad in its performance.