I think he's full of it.
-
-
Why do you think the writer is full of it? How would you write the summary?
-
@renauda said in I think he's full of it.:
Why do you think the writer is full of it? How would you write the summary?
In 1812, I don't think the English had fully embraced the idea of American independence. They tended not to treat the United States as a sovereign nation. Witness the impressment of merchant sailors into the Royal Navy.
Much of the War of 1812 was nothing more than a holdover from the Revolutionary War.
I do think America had its ideas of northern conquest squelched by the war, but I also think the British had bigger fish to fry on the European Continent with a certain Frenchmen. By 1814, I think both sides had settled into their respective lanes.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Here's a funny thing - in the UK, nobody ever mentions the War of 1812. It's almost completely unknown. All the historic discussions of the 19th century centers on the Napoleonic wars.
When I first moved to Canada, it was the first time I'd ever heard anybody talk about it, and they talked about it a lot.
-
@renauda said in I think he's full of it.:
Why do you think the writer is full of it? How would you write the summary?
In 1812, I don't think the English had fully embraced the idea of American independence. They tended not to treat the United States as a sovereign nation. Witness the impressment of merchant sailors into the Royal Navy.
Much of the War of 1812 was nothing more than a holdover from the Revolutionary War.
I do think America had its ideas of northern conquest squelched by the war, but I also think the British had bigger fish to fry on the European Continent with a certain Frenchmen. By 1814, I think both sides had settled into their respective lanes.
That’s reasonable assessment. Still I believe the author is correct when he states that the real losers of the 1812 conflict were the First Nations people. Most tribes allied with the British and were led to believe they would have some form of self government when the war was over. In the end the Crown left them out hanging. Not because the there was no clear winner, but because the British were no longer interested in North America but rather its command of the seas and its growing commercial empire in Asia. Likewise I don’t believe that certain Frenchman (actually Corsican) was much other than a spent force by 1814. Sure he had his escape from Elba and another short lived attempt to hold power, but the continental forces of Prussia, Austria and Russia were never going to allow him to be the warlord he had been. Britain was of course an arbiter of the peace, but only because she was unsurpassed as a global sea power.
I do agree with you that Britain did not recognize US sovereignty in 1812. It did not because it was inconceivable in their thinking that a sovereign country could be governed by any group of people other than members of the aristocratic class.
