Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!msb From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: our neighbors Message-ID: <1004@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Dec-85 14:05:36 EST Article-I.D.: lsuc.1004 Posted: Mon Dec 30 14:05:36 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 30-Dec-85 17:44:55 EST References: <836@mmintl.UUCP> <5000167@uokvax.UUCP> <513@enmasse.UUCP> <1483@jhunix.UUCP> <640@utflis.UUCP> <950@mmintl.UUCP> Reply-To: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 61 Summary: Yes, U.S. *did* lose War of 1812 Frank Adams (franka@mmintl.UUCP) writes: > As for the War of 1812, that was a war between the U.S. and England, and > Canada was English territory at that point. The U.S. invaded Canadian > territory, and were driven out; England invaded U.S. territory, and was > driven out. I don't think it is accurate to say either side really won > the war. (In some sense, that means both lost; but that isn't the way > these things are usually counted.) But there should be a "then" after the semicolon. The thing is, the U.S. started the war (admittedly under serious British provocation, since the British Navy had been interfering with U.S. merchant shipping). The U.S. decided to invade "Canada" (meaning Upper Canada, now southern Ontario, and Lower Canada, now southern Quebec, both British colonies)... AND ANNEX CANADA to the U.S.! The British forces in Canada naturally did not confine themselves to fighting within Canadian territory once a state of war existed, but they never aimed to reconquer the U.S., only to avoid being conquered. In other words, the U.S. tried to take over Canada, and didn't. The forces in Canada tried not to be taken over, and weren't. Conclusion: Britain (not England, please) won, and the U.S. lost. If you still think this is a "tie", you might consider the Falklands War. The boundaries are the same now as they were before the war, and the resignation of the Argentinian government was not at Britain's demand. But I don't think there's any doubt that Argentina lost that one. > I am quite prepared to believe that fear of a U.S. invasion delayed > Canadian independence. Or *caused* Canadian independence. The Canadian colonies had been quite friendly with the States, especially the more northerly ones (indeed, a considerable amount of commerce with New York State continued through the war). If Ontario had joined the U.S. before Britain got around to granting partial independence in 1867, the other colonies might never have joined together, and most of them might well have been absorbed by the U.S. one by one. Of course, this is all conjecture. > On the other hand, I suspect that without the > successful American Revolution, England would not have voluntarily granted > independence to the rest of her colonies. Could be. Or maybe India would have been the first, and the rest following! A good reference on the War of 1812 in North America is Pierre Berton's 2-volume book, "The Invasion of Canada" plus "Flames Across the Border". Like all of Berton's histories, it is well researched with lots of references, and quite readable. It does not try to cover all events of the war, preferring to go into a subset of them in more detail. Berton does not refrain from giving opinions on matters like the conjectures above, but the bulk of the volumes deal in facts. Mark Brader, Toronto, Canada P.S. Toronto (then York) was burned by the Americans. I think it was in retaliation for this that the British burned Washington (sparing the Patent Office) -- and thus led to the Presidential Mansion being named the White House when the smoke marks were painted over.