[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

A US flag ship is US territory and the British had no right to stop them to search for anyone.

Ummmm...major world power at that time, if not the sole world power. It was the equivalent of what the US does nowadays..... no fly lists and demanding to know passenger manifests are a couple of examples of what the US does today, that and demanding foreigners be extradited to the US because they broke US laws while outside of US jurisdiction(Emery). Those who can serve the biggest can of whoop ass make the rules.

[FurTrader4]

The American loss of the War of 1812 can be attributed to three factors:

1. The poor road infrastructure in America at the time.
2. The American failure to control the Great Lakes.
3. A series of incompetent & inept American Generals.

1. The poor road infrastructure in America did not easily facilitate the movement of men, arms and supplies required for the quick victory as anticipated.

2. The Americans failed to control the Great Lakes.HMS St Lawrence never even saw action because her mere presence on Lake Ontario deterred the American fleet from even setting sail.Commodore Oliver Hazzard Perry may have captured lake Erie but this did not stop the North West Co from operating from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The North West Co used an alternate route through the Trent/Severn system to Penetanguishene on Lake Huron. The North West Co formed the Canadian Corps of Voyageurs and supplied men and ships through out the conflict.

3.Probably the biggest reason for the American loss was the large number of incompetent & inept American Generals. This was especially true in the early part of the war and was caused by the undue faith by Presedent Madison in the effectiveness of part-time civilian militia comanders like: General James Winchester, General James Wilkinson & General William Hull.
On the other side was Sir George Prevost the leader of the British Forces in Canada his strategy was defensive, cautious and some night say that he too was incompetent.

In Retrospect the Americans seemed to be in a hugeley advantageous position with Great Britan at war and the Population of Canada was a mere 400 thousand while that of the United States was about 8 million at the time a ratio of 20:1.

[CanadianODST]

^ seems fairly logical.

[BartSimpson]

Batsy Batsy:

$1:

A Royal Navy gunboat of the Mid-Victorian period would have been an unarmoured sloop of approximately 200 to 250 tons and most of them sported two main guns of about twenty pounds. Her 1863 US counterpart would have been an armoured steam ship of about 300 tons sporting two 32 pound guns at the outset of the war and those guns would be at least ten inch rifles by late 1862.

What a load of rubbish. The WORLD'S FIRST armoured, iron-hulled warship was HMS Warrior, which came into service in the RN in 1860 and weighed over nine THOUSAND tons. She was the largest, fastest, most heavily armed and most heavily armoured warship the world had ever seen.

$1:

The Royal Navy gunboat would likely be far more manuverable but this would have been lost in a confrontation as her 20 pound guns would have had little effect on the layered armour plating the US Navy employed above the water line. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy 20 pounders had a max range of 1900 yards at 5° while the US Navy 8" rifles had a max range of 2600 yards at 11°. The 8" rifle round was also a 65 pound beast compared to the 20 pounder of the RN.

What about the 26 68-pounders that the Warrior was armed with, which had a maximum range of 3,620 yards?

Apples and oranges, Batsy. The Warrior would have done decently against a two-gun gunboat, depending on the circumstances. I was comparing ships of similar rates (where you're such the expert I expect you know what a 'rate' is?) and that meant comparing gunboats of the same rate of each navy to each other.

In 1864 had the ship of the line Warrior encountered the heavily armoured steamship USS Franklin which was a frigate armed with two 100 pounders, 34 nine-inch rifles, and eight ten inch Rodman howitzers which fired a 128 pound shell in a 30° ballistic arc at a maximum distance of 4,836 yards, well, then the Warrior would not be a museum ship today. The idea behind the Rodman being that it was targeted not at the heavily armoured sides of an opponent but at the unarmoured deck. Despite the threat of naval howitzers it would be another eighty years before any navy paid serious attention to deck armor.

The Warrior was a fine ship unchallenged in the world when she was launched in 1860 but she was the last of that generation of ships who were made obsolete by new technologies that set to sea by 1862. By 1864, no offense, she'd have been matchsticks up against the latest US Navy frigates and a fight against one of our cruisers would have been utterly lopsided.

But, like I said, by 1867 most of the wartime US Navy was decomissioned and by then RN naval architects were producing the ironclad broadside frigates which themselves would have been more than a match for a ship like the Warrior.

If you'd like to read a good yarn on how the Brits would have fared against the Union in the 1860's I'd recommend the book, "Britannia's Fist".

http://www.amazon.com/Britannias-Fist-C ... 197&sr=1-1

[BartSimpson]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

A US flag ship is US territory and the British had no right to stop them to search for anyone.

Ummmm...major world power at that time, if not the sole world power. It was the equivalent of what the US does nowadays..... no fly lists and demanding to know passenger manifests are a couple of examples of what the US does today, that and demanding foreigners be extradited to the US because they broke US laws while outside of US jurisdiction(Emery). Those who can serve the biggest can of whoop ass make the rules.

And, as I am saying for the umpteenth time, thus there was a war.

For the record, I don't think that war had any real winners or losers because both sides came away with gains of a sort. The Brits resolved US pressure towards Canada and the US resolved British intrigues in the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys along with securing the port of New Orleans from British claims. And, of course, the Royal Navy after this time left US flagged shipping and sailors in peace.

[EyeBrock]

Have a listen to this podcast Bart. It's an interesting view on the whole war. This guy is a well regarded historian.

http://www.historyextra.com/podcast/10th-may-2012

[FurTrader4]

I believe we can blame Hollywood & the movies for most peoples misconceptions regarding American history.
In an effort to separate fact from fiction books and the internet can be usefull tools.

Take the (2000 film) The Patriot starring Mel Gibson for example it was a good box office hit but was it fact or fiction?
Mel Gibson plays Benjamin Martin a composite character who we are led to believe is the real deal.
A composite character is constructed from many real characters taking their best qualities and lumping them into one.
The real character in the movie is based on Francis Marion (The Swamp Fox) a Franco American who's family was deported from Port Royal Acadia to Charleston South Carolina.
Francis Marion was not a family man,smoked,drank,gambled,whored and was not particularly religious unlike the fictional character Benjamin Martin portrayed by Mel Gibson.
In fact when the 200 thousand or more French 1766 Charleville Infantry Muskets ordered by General George Washington where dispatched to America he probably greeted the French in their native tongue when they came ashore.

In Retrospect Hollywood is willing to go to great lengths to make a box office hit and they are more than willing to twist the facts.
All of which doesn't bode well for the credibility of their movies when it comes to the facts researching different sources is good practice.

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Have a listen to this podcast Bart. It's an interesting view on the whole war. This guy is a well regarded historian.

http://www.historyextra.com/podcast/10th-may-2012

Thanks.

My comments as I listen to this:

Lambert's comment (paraphrased) "The war was a waste because it ends where it started" is true if you look at territorial gains. I posit that both sides gained things that were not territorial.

He also exhibits a bias with the 'Americans wanted to pinch Canada' comment.

He cites the 'land speculators on the other side of the Appalachian' as if they were a concern to Britain - which tritely ignores the fact that Britain had no business 'on the other side of the Appalachian' which was all clearly US territory.

There was NO Republican Party at this time. He's utterly wrong by over fifty years on that point.

He restates this: Relations between the British and the Republicans were not good. I repeat, there were no Republicans at the time and this error speaks to his grasp of US history. The GOP started in 1854.

He's spot on about the US land forces being woefully inadequate.

His take on the US Navy is correct. I'm surprised at his admission that the Royal Navy underestimated the US Navy. He notes the larger US ships, bigger guns, better officers, better crews.

Crap, he called a RN skipper 'blind and stupid'.

Again with the Republican thing. That chafes on me. He hates Republicans and makes that clear, too bad he rewrites history so he can hate the Republicans BEFORE they existed.

Geez, he refers to US sailors as 'predators'.

I like the whole discourse on 'privateers' for the fact that these days we call such people 'contractors'.

He notes that Maine was a military target for the British.

I had no idea that the West Indies were so volatile that they had to be garrisoned under military governance. Interesting.

No mention of Canadians invading Washington DC. The British get sole credit for that.

He is wrong that the British attack on Washington DC was the only time Washington was attacked by a hostile force - the Confederates made several attempts on Washington and they were close enough to shell it on a couple occasions.

He acts as if the 'status quo ante' on the part of the British was of no consequence. It begs the question of why Britain would not extract reparations or etc. from a losing power when Britain did just that in every war that they won.

AGAIN with the Republican thing.

LOL he said that political parties (vis a vis the Republicans) don't fret about factual accuracy! HE SHOULD SPEAK!

The one naval victory he cites includes a RN skipper who was much the exception to the rule who had a well trained crew who'd practiced their gunnery.

And he goes on about this particular engagement as if it is world-famous. Aside from classes at Newport I've never heard anyone speak of the encounter between the Shannon and the Chesapeake.

Interesting, the interview takes place in the USA somewhere. The sirens in the background at about 2/3 through are clearly a US siren.

He does note that the US defeats the native American confederacies but he negelects to point out that those native American forces were backed with British materiel.

He's dead wrong about the threat of war between the US and Britain never coming up again. It came up several times after that and it came up frequently during the period 1865-1917. He does cite the Trent Affair but the period saw a lot of friction between the two powers.

Interesting to hear, but forgive me if I'm not going to cede much to an historian who can't even be bothered to know when the Republican Party started. Seriously, if you're going to devote so much bile to the GOP it would help to throw it in the right direction.

[BartSimpson]

FurTrader4 FurTrader4:

I believe we can blame Hollywood & the movies for most peoples misconceptions regarding American history.
In an effort to separate fact from fiction books and the internet can be usefull tools.

Take the (2000 film) The Patriot starring Mel Gibson for example it was a good box office hit but was it fact or fiction?
Mel Gibson plays Benjamin Martin a composite character who we are led to believe is the real deal.
A composite character is constructed from many real characters taking their best qualities and lumping them into one.
The real character in the movie is based on Francis Marion (The Swamp Fox) a Franco American who's family was deported from Port Royal Acadia to Charleston South Carolina.
Francis Marion was not a family man,smoked,drank,gambled,whored and was not particularly religious unlike the fictional character Benjamin Martin portrayed by Mel Gibson.
In fact when the 200 thousand or more French 1766 Charleville Infantry Muskets ordered by General George Washington where dispatched to America he probably greeted the French in their native tongue when they came ashore.

In Retrospect Hollywood is willing to go to great lengths to make a box office hit and they are more than willing to twist the facts.
All of which doesn't bode well for the credibility of their movies when it comes to the facts researching different sources is good practice.

In that movie you also missed the obvious fact that the Stars & Stripes which was used in the battle scenes did not exist in that form at that time. It was used so that audiences would be able to better identify who the Americans were.

I think too many Americans would have been confused by the Grand Union flag which was carried into battle in several early engagements:

[HyperionTheEvil]

Why do people care if the "yanks" think they won the war or not is the better question.

Listen i'm as big a fan of Harry Turtledove as anyone else but please i'm quite content thinking it's over and done with two centuries ago.

[BartSimpson]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Why do people care if the "yanks" think they won the war or not is the better question.

Listen i'm as big a fan of Harry Turtledove as anyone else but please i'm quite content thinking it's over and done with two centuries ago.

No offense, but it matters to some British and Anglophiles because it was the last armed conflict with what was then a superpower and what is now a superpower.

There are some who do not want to swallow the fact that the sun long ago set on the British Empire and that even a declining second rate power like Argentina can cause severe consternation in London. So because the UK of today is a shell of its one-time glory these people are fighting the wars of two centuries ago as if they were occuring in the here and now. It's easier than dealing with the reality that the UK of today is what it is.

Give it a few years and you'll see the same nostalgiac bent coming from Americans when we get spanked by some second-rate power and then you'll see the armchair warriors dishing on how the USA used to whoop the heck out of Japan.

I still maintain that both sides came away from the confrontation for the better. Absent this war US westward expansion would have been stopped at the Mississippi, the era of the Yankee trader would have never taken place, and without the impetus for the US to develop a military Europe would have bled itself white in WW1.

It played out as it did and I like to think that both sides came away from it for the better and, in the long run, as friends.

[HyperionTheEvil]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It played out as it did and I like to think that both sides came away from it for the better and, in the long run, as friends.

We did at that. I just get tired of the navel gazing. To the point though i have no desire to be an American or am i particularly thrilled to have a Queen as my head of state. To whit, the US does what it does and the Queen can do whatever the hell she and her spawn do. I am a Canadian and i only want to answer to my own government and they to me not to some ossified 'royalty' an ocean away

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

There was NO Republican Party at this time. He's utterly wrong by over fifty years on that point.

Again with the Republican thing. That chafes on me. He hates Republicans and makes that clear, too bad he rewrites history so he can hate the Republicans BEFORE they existed.

AGAIN with the Republican thing.

LOL he said that political parties (vis a vis the Republicans) don't fret about factual accuracy! HE SHOULD SPEAK!

Interesting to hear, but forgive me if I'm not going to cede much to an historian who can't even be bothered to know when the Republican Party started. Seriously, if you're going to devote so much bile to the GOP it would help to throw it in the right direction.

Bart, I think the historian is talking about Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans (the forerunner of the Democrats);

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... ican+Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic ... ican_Party

[BartSimpson]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

I am a Canadian and i only want to answer to my own government and they to me not to some ossified 'royalty' an ocean away

Hmmm. Would you support Canada declaring itself a republic?

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Bart, I think the historian is talking about Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans (the forerunner of the Democrats);

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... ican+Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic ... ican_Party

Nope, he makes no reference to the Democratic-Republican Party and instead uses the vernacular 'Republicans' with no small amount of scorn. The DP of that time was the antecedent to the Democrat Party of today with the term 'republican' then meaning something analagous to Democrat. The declining Federalist Party of the time was ideologically analagous to the Whigs.

I'm sorry, but he owes his audience a distinction between the 'republican' party of the time and the Republican Party of today.

The same would be said of myself if I referred to the NDP as the liberal party while not making the distinction between the NDP as being liberal and the named Liberal Party.

It makes a difference and an historian should know this.