Help support TMP


"An Illustrated History of the War of 1812 - When ..." Topic


10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the War of 1812 Message Board

Back to the 18th Century Media Message Board


Areas of Interest

18th Century
Napoleonic
19th Century

Featured Recent Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

Fire and Steel


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

28mm Soldaten Hulmutt Jucken

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian paints the Dogman from the Flintloque starter set.


Featured Profile Article

First Look: Minairons' 1:600 Xebec

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian looks at a fast-assembly naval kit for the Age of Sail.


Featured Book Review


1,336 hits since 29 Oct 2014
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0129 Oct 2014 12:10 p.m. PST

…Washington Burned.

"If one is looking for a book that summarizes the Second War of Independence, as the War of 1812 has often been called, this is the book. There is something in this book for the aficionado as well as for the uninitiated. When Washington Burned is a beautifully bound and richly illustrated volume that takes the reader through the war, start to finish.

While brief, it is a pleasure to read and manages to cover the war remarkably well. Were it a little larger, Arnold Blumberg's volume could be mistaken for a coffee table book, for it is chock full of glossy pages and marvelous illustrations, much of which are contemporary portraiture from both sides of the Atlantic.

When Casemate sent WWTFT a copy of this book for review, there was admittedly some thought that this might not be the sort of book one sits down to read. Upon cracking it open, however, this reviewer did precisely that!…"

Full review here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Glengarry529 Oct 2014 12:48 p.m. PST

"Second War of Independence", give me a break! Like British were so delusional that they had any intention of reconquering the American colonies! If anything it was a war to keep Canada independent from the United States, Canada's War of Independence! It would be more accurate to call the War of 1812 the 2nd American Civil War (The AWI being the first) and that would make the ACW the 3rd American Civil War.

Charlie 1229 Oct 2014 1:49 p.m. PST

"Second War of Independence" is a bit much. Yes, I've heard it called that by, mostly, over the top Brit writers (the same writers who gush over the burning of Washington but gloss over the unsuccessful attack on Baltimore and completely ignore the battle of New Orleans). Thankfully, they tend to be in the minority.

David Manley29 Oct 2014 2:02 p.m. PST

Over the top US writers, surely? I've even heard it called that by USPS guides when visiting historic sites. Amazing how little they knew about their country's history.

Yes, if anything a war of independence for the Canadians – repelling three American invasions in the process.

Glengarry529 Oct 2014 5:28 p.m. PST

As we all know the Battle of New Orleans doesn't count as peace had already been agreed upon (if not yet ratified)! :)

Charlie 1229 Oct 2014 5:47 p.m. PST

Truly, the Canadians were the big winners.

Toronto4829 Oct 2014 8:35 p.m. PST

There is an element of truth in the "Independence" argument but as with most histories it falls somewhere in the middle.

During the treaty negotiations of Ghent the British were aware of the failure of the Lake Champlain campaign and not being able to take Baltimore At that point the realization hit that the War could still be won but a quick knockout was no longer possible. At that point they did not know of anything they could do that would make the Americans sue for an immediate peace.
See this article on the Duke of Wellington for further details
link

The British wanted the War over and despite many American claims to the contrary there is no evidence that Britain wanted to reimpose control over the American Republic. The most they were looking for was an adjustment to the borders and if possible a buffer Indian state.

At the same time that Ghent was going on the British were becoming more involved in European Power politics at the Council of Vienna Those negotiations were not going smoothly from a British point of view The British wanted a Balance of Power and a secure Kingdom of Hannover The Prussians and Russians wanted a lot more then Britain would agree to and while it was unlikely, a possible war between the parties was a possibility.

The British taxpayers were becoming more and more dissatisfied with the war expenditures and as the Napoleonic Wars wound up they wanted a return to normality This would include a restoration of the strong trans Atlantic trade.

A continuation of the War against America would cost even more money and men and basically for little return.

So the negotiators were to offer the Americans a generous peace that would restore things to the normality that existed before 1812 Thus the "status quo ante bellum" treaty . As long as they could guarantee "Canadian" territory and restore trade a treaty like that would be acceptable

The real losers would be the Indian allies of Britain who did not have the pull to get their promised buffer state The Indian had to settle for a promise that the Americans would respect their land rights .(… and we now know how that ended) Not unexpectedly the Americans took the offer

The myth of the Second War of Independence started with that offer Monroe was quoted as saying " The United States have acquired a certain rank amongst nations, which is due to their population and political importance….and they do not stand in the same situation as at former periods"

In essence an understanding had been reached between Britain and America to the effect that while Britain could not win a war outright against America they could still drastically destroy American trade and coastal regions Neither side would win in a war like that.

From 1815 on the Britain and America never fought a war against each other and future problems were resolved by negotiations. Both sides spent a lot in preparing fortifications to defend their territory but never aggressively initiated a war .

Individual Americans would try to provoke wars against Canada in the years to come notably in 1837 and the 1860s (Fenian s) but were not supported by the American government.

America had gained its own guarantee of territorial integrity and was accepted by Britain and other foreign powers as a real country That was not the situation in 1783 at the Treaty of Paris This was the most important factor that America got out of the War of 1812,

For further details see The Weight of Vengence: The United States The British Empire and the War of 1812 by Troy Bickham

link

Clays Russians30 Oct 2014 12:07 p.m. PST

Well, We certainly didn't win this conflict, and every time we stuck our big fat butt into British Canada, we were soundly trounced. I see it as a draw from an American and a British point of view, but a clear win for our northern neighbors in Canada.

Glengarry530 Oct 2014 12:33 p.m. PST

The losers were the First Nations (Indians) who could no longer look to the British for support against American aggression.

mashrewba10 Nov 2014 10:22 a.m. PST

Anyway I ordered this new from Amazon for a fiver plus postage. Thanks for the tip Armand!!

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.