Guest Rob/1 Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error: Rob: Umm... My friend, we won because the British surrendered... You know, it IS in the history books... The British simply became sick of the war with us and felt it was more advantageous to appease the nation and use us as a useful source for raw materials against the French. At that time, we were a breadbasket to the British Empire, and little more. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, they figured. (literally)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um if the British surrenderd how come Canada is still a Contrey Eh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Johnno, you vote for Doris, er, Stockwell Day? I don't want to get into a debate on the better system (US or Canada) but I will defend our system over that of the American one any day. Maybe it is just that too many Canadians are considering that acquiring money and material goods is the sum value of the success of a society, but, I still hold that success is measured only by the accessibility of necessities to its lowest member. In Canada you don't have to worry about affording medical treatment or a good education, although you can't spend quite as much money on luxury material goods. Regarding 'Canada' and the War of 1812, you also forgot America's 1st Invasion attempt of Canada, ie. during the American Revolution. The US Managed to capture Montreal, but were totally defeated in an attempt to capture Quebec. In one action, 30 French Canadians defeated 300 American Troops during an American attack during a snowstorm. Another 400 were totally annihilated after entering the city, waiting for the 300 that were defeated, getting surrounded and destroyed by British and French Canadian Militia. During the War of 1812 (or the 2nd Invasion attempt), the first action, the capture of Detroit, where 5 000 US troops surrendered to no more than 1 500 Canadians, British and Iroquois troops without a fight. Regular British troops were in such short supply that Canadian Militia made up a significant part of the British force in Upper and Lower Canada. The second invasion of Quebec met similar disaster at the hands of French Canadians as well. And the British units in Canada were not the veterans of Europe. These only came to North America in 1815, after Napoleon was finally defeated. Just as a side note, Canadians actually had to give back occupied territory to the US at the end of both the American Revolution and the War of 1812 because of the treaty. Just think, vast tracts of Illinois and New York could be Canadain, but who would want Buffalo or Detroit? As reasons for the US going to war against Britiain, yes, it was due to pressing some US nationals captured trying to break the blockade of French occupied Europe, and the reasoning for this was that England still considered these sailors as British subjects, just under rebellion. And I wouldn't try and push some sort of moral superiority about this being compared to slavery, it was much more rampant in American plantations than in the high seas. Although I find both systems deplorable. Both sides fought pretty well in this engagement, with defeats and victories all around. (the US fought brilliantly on Lake Erie among other actions) However, I do believe that generally the US did get a thrashing. Lacky, Canada had an even smaller military and fleet and stood up pretty well to two American invasions. We didn't get rid of the UK entirely, we still keep close ties, out of a sense of loyalty to what England has given our nation. Our 'freedom' as you call it, wasn't bought, but earned (freedom from what? Freedom from being governed by local elite instead of distant elite?). It was actually gained after the First World War, as we debated in Parliament to see if we would actually go to war in 1939, with morality winning out. In fact, Canada was the first nation to declare war on Japan, even before the United States! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 Rob: It was a surrender of convenience. I hate to tell you, but MOST wars do not end with the destruction of one of the sides. Both sides basically just got tired of fighting for something that would ONLY benefit the French. Napoleon ENGINEERED the war in an attempt to divide the attentions the Britain... Major Tom: Always remember, of course, that defenders fighting on HOME SOIL will always carry an inherent advantage. Finland, circa 1940? BOOYA to the Huns, eh what? Now, I REALLY don't want to debate the superiority of either side, (I mean Christ, both countries ARE still standing, right?!) except to say that both countries DO have both advantages and disadvantages. No system is perfect, and I do not think any of us can say with certainty that one system or the other is in some way BETTER than the other. Different philosophies, different ideologies. Now, DAMMIT, can we start bashing the bloody French again?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error: Rob: It was a surrender of convenience. I hate to tell you, but MOST wars do not end with the destruction of one of the sides. Both sides basically just got tired of fighting for something that would ONLY benefit the French. Napoleon ENGINEERED the war in an attempt to divide the attentions the Britain... Major Tom: Always remember, of course, that defenders fighting on HOME SOIL will always carry an inherent advantage. Finland, circa 1940? BOOYA to the Huns, eh what? Now, I REALLY don't want to debate the superiority of either side, (I mean Christ, both countries ARE still standing, right?!) except to say that both countries DO have both advantages and disadvantages. No system is perfect, and I do not think any of us can say with certainty that one system or the other is in some way BETTER than the other. Different philosophies, different ideologies. Now, DAMMIT, can we start bashing the bloody French again?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with you fully 100%, except that Detroit =/= home soil, and neither was Washington Although the Americans did burn down York! So it all equals out! Since both Canada and the United States have been, are, and will be prosperous I do agree that neither system is better, just different. Yep, Napoleon was even thinking about recreating a North American French Empire based around the Louisianna territory. (which was sold in 1808 (?)) After the French lost substantial forces in the Carribean and needed money more than a North American Empire so they sold it to the US for a bargain. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 12-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Huh? Canada whipped the US in 1812? IIRC the US took over Canada but then gave it back to them because who in the hell would wanna live up there in the cold? We did the same with Mexico. Took it over in the Spanish-American War, but then gave it back. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Meybe so but the pretext for invading in the first place was pretty tenuous wouldn't you say? A little bit reminiscent of Germany's pretext to invade Poland because "we were invaded first" by their own fall guys. Or am I being too harsh? Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 History is written by the winners. That is the ONLY requirement for legitimacy. Almost all of the countries in the world were created by revolution. They are "real" nations today because they won. That's all it takes. The losers tend to be enslaved, executed, or exiled. *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 "May All Acquaintance Be Forgot..." Threads like this always seem to get out of hand so it's best just to lock it up now. I don't particulaly like threads where one country or another is picked on with no provocation. It shows an close minded intolerance which we do not permit and which goes against the rules of this Forum. Keep that in mind next time you feel the urge to blast anothers homeland. Madmatt [This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 12-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts