| Yesterday's Weapons Forums http://www.yesterdaysweapons.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Info http://www.yesterdaysweapons.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=527 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Et2ss [ Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Info |
| Author: | OLD RSM [ Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The war started badly for the Americans as their attempts to invade Canada were repeatedly repulsed by General Isaac Brock commanding a small British force, composed largely of local militias and American Indian allies. The American strategy depended on use of militias, but they either resisted service or were incompetently led. Military and civilian leadership was lacking and remained a critical American weakness until 1814. New England opposed the war and refused to provide troops or financing. Financial and logistical problems plagued the American war effort. Britain possessed excellent finance and logistics but the ongoing war with France had a higher priority, so in 1812-1813 adopted a defensive strategy. After the defeat of Napoleon in 1814 the British were able to send veteran armies to invade the U.S., but by then the Americans had learned how to mobilize and fight as well. At sea the powerful Royal Navy instituted a blockade of the majority of the American coastline (allowing some exports from New England, which was trading with Britain and Canada in defiance of American laws.) The blockade devastated American agricultural exports, but helped stimulate local factories that replaced goods previously imported. The American strategy of using small gunboats to defend ports was a fiasco, as the British raided the coast at will. The most famous episode was a series of British raids on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. These raids included an attack on Washington D.C. that resulted in the burning of the White House, the Capitol, the navy yard and other public buildings, later called the "Burning of Washington". The American strategy of sending out several hundred privateers to attack British merchant ships was more successful, and hurt British commercial interests, especially in the West Indies. Although few in number compared to the Royal Navy, the American Navy's heavy frigates prevailed in several one-on-one naval battles against British ships. The decisive use of naval power came on the Great Lakes and depended on a contest of building ships. Ultimately, Americans won control of Lake Erie and thus neutralized western Ontario and cut the native forces off from supplies. The British controlled Lake Ontario, preventing any major American invasion. The Americans controlled Lake Champlain, and a naval victory there forced a large British invasion army to turn back in 1814. The Americans destroyed the power of the native people of the Northwest and Southeast, thus securing a major war goal. The trade restrictions and impressment by the British had ended, removing another root cause of the war. Both nations eventually agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact. In January 1815 after the Treaty of Ghent was signed but before the US Congress had received a copy to ratify, the Americans succeeded in defending New Orleans, and the British captured Fort Bowyer before news of the treaty reached the US south coast. The war had the effects of both uniting Canadians and also uniting Americans far more closely than either population had been prior to the war. Canadians remember the war as a victory by avoiding conquest, while Americans celebrated victory in a "second war for independence" personified in the hero of New Orleans, Andrew Jackson. |
|
| Author: | Gun Nut [ Wed May 07, 2008 11:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
| Author: | Amatikulu [ Thu May 08, 2008 6:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Every nation writes history from it's perspective and likes to pose themselves as being on the side of good and right. You have to remember this when you read "history." The truth is often not documented by either side but reading both sides at least gives you a balance. Here's an interesting link from the American perspective: This comes from "OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY" and it covers most of the statements in the previous post - albeit from a different perspective giving a motive for some of the beliefs. |
|
| Author: | Gun Nut [ Thu May 08, 2008 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
| Author: | OLD RSM [ Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Info |
Hi Guy's The War of 1812 200 years this year how will it be remembered? Cheers |
|
| Author: | A square 10 [ Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Info |
not sure gerry , im going to admitt this is one area of our history that i am truely deficient in , other than the really common known facts and stories , i think it may have fallen short in my younger years of holding my interest but i think i cheated myself , |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|