Butthurt guy whines about Canada's warship names

[Viking]

In Canada I've noticed a false historical view that the War of 1812 was a "war of independence" of some sorts for them. Despite the fact that Madison and others who planned the American war effort never viewed Canada as a target of conquest. Canada was never in any danger of being conquered and annexed by the United States as that was never the American intention in the war.

The Canadian War of Independence lasted from Queenston Heights to Vimy Ridge. Alternate endings include the end of Canadian Bacon and Wayne Gretzky's conquest of America.

Seriously, people, of course the Canadians are going t call their ships after battles they won. Cowpens, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Lexington, Yorktown, Trenton, Valley Forge, Ticonderaoga, Princeton, Germantown, Vincennes, Fort Henry etc. are all ships, half of them WWII carriers and light carriers. And thats just the revolutionary war.

[grumbler]

The Canadian War of Independence lasted from Queenston Heights to Vimy Ridge. Alternate endings include the end of Canadian Bacon and Wayne Gretzky's conquest of America.

Seriously, people, of course the Canadians are going t call their ships after battles they won. Cowpens, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Lexington, Yorktown, Trenton, Valley Forge, Ticonderaoga, Princeton, Germantown, Vincennes, Fort Henry etc. are all ships, half of them WWII carriers and light carriers. And thats just the revolutionary war.

None of those you named are from the French and Indian War, which was to America what the War of 1812 was to Canada. In fact, I don't think there are any US ships named after battles from the FIW.

However, I understand that there isn't much history to Canada, so they can't be picky about what "national history" they call upon to name their ships after. HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay are fine names for ships, even if they are named after battles that took place before there was a "Canada."  They are part of the national myth, and thus worth commemorating.

[viper37]

I don't think any Americans care, but it seems kind of desperate for the Canucks. After all, it wasn't a Canadian victory, and it was pretty petty, in the scheme of things. Naming Candian warships after battles that happened before the nation even existed?

Why not commemorate some of the WW1 or WW2 victories they were key players in?

The Canadian government is desperately trying to create a Canadian identity that is not composed of French Canadians and English Canadians, but only Canadians.  Harper, a man I usually respect of his intelligence, has decided the best way to do this is to go on some monarchy worshipping, replacing canadian artist's work by portrait of the Queen and celebrating a war only history buffs and Ontarians know about.

About as good an idea as naming a US ship the USS Nathan Bedford Forrest.

[viper37]

In Canada I've noticed a false historical view that the War of 1812 was a "war of independence" of some sorts for them. Despite the fact that Madison and others who planned the American war effort never viewed Canada as a target of conquest. Canada was never in any danger of being conquered and annexed by the United States as that was never the American intention in the war.

The US intention was certainly to displace the British from the continents, securing their northern border in the process.  I don't know if they planned to offer statehood to the canadian colonies or simply annex them as territory, but they certainly weren't fighting to create a vast empty space reserved for the indians and the french colonists.

[Neil]

In Canada I've noticed a false historical view that the War of 1812 was a "war of independence" of some sorts for them. Despite the fact that Madison and others who planned the American war effort never viewed Canada as a target of conquest. Canada was never in any danger of being conquered and annexed by the United States as that was never the American intention in the war.

The US intention was certainly to displace the British from the continents, securing their northern border in the process.  I don't know if they planned to offer statehood to the canadian colonies or simply annex them as territory, but they certainly weren't fighting to create a vast empty space reserved for the indians and the french colonists.

Well, annexing Canada would certainly prevent the British from providing arms to the Indians so that they could resist American incursions.  I think that the priority for expansion was west rather than north.  Conquering Canada would have been gravy, but the main goal was to isolate the Indians from their support so that they could be destroyed.

[viper37]

It's simply more room to expand to.  West or North didn't make any difference, except the North was better defended by a united Empire instead of fragmented indian tribes, so the West was easier.  But once Canada is conquered, I doubt the Americans would have simply let it go.

[Neil]

The land to the west was better, with a milder climate.  Also, as evil as the early Americans were, even they would balk at exterminating thousands of white people.

[OttoVonBismarck]

That's what I'm talking about, Canadians have no idea as to the history. The War of 1812 is very similar to the Spanish-American War, in that a President foolishly got into a war for essentially no reason. In McKinley's case the war was a resounding success but saddled America with overseas territories that would later prove to be troublesome and have never been of any real benefit to the United States. McKinley was also vaguely anti-war with Spain, but was pushed into it because he was a weak President. Madison on the other hand appears to have had the most wretched reason possible for war with the British--domestic political concerns. Madison wanted a firmer break with the British and a war because he felt it would be the coup de grace to finish off the Federalist party and cement firm control for his own Democratic-Republican party. I can at least understand Henry Clay, who was almost solely concerned with westward expansion and removal of British as an obstacle to that. I can also understand some of the other political leaders who were up in arms about impressment and various other British misdeeds. But Madison's decision to go to war was a blemish on an otherwise exceptional career, and it's a fairly dark blemish as he literally took the country to war for his own domestic political purposes.

When war came, Madison's goal in regard to Canada was solely to capture key Canadian cities (because really, that's all of Canada in the year 1812) and then sue Britain for peace, using Canada as a bargaining chip. Neither Madison or the western expansionists (lead by Henry Clay) showed any interest in annexing Canada. The Clay faction felt they needed to bloody the British to keep their hands off the territory to the west that was as yet mostly unsettled by white men. Madison's hope was that this quick victory would force the British to stop impressment and get out of the way in the west and then Madison and his party would be able to take full credit for it. I'm not sure when the myth began that anyone who actually made these type of decisions was looking to conquer Canada, but the writings and historical documents involved make it clear what the reasoning was and what the strategy was the Americans intended to employ. There was simply no actual record of the President or his cabinet discussing annexation or conquest of Canada.

Interestingly by the end of the war, the British were mostly done with interfering overtly with American westward expansion and impressment¹; though neither was really because of the war. Madison and his party also suffered fairly grave hits to their popularity primarily because of how ineptly they ran the war. But the Federalists saved them by holding the Hartford Convention which managed to make them look even worse than Madison, add Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans and Madison essentially ran off the playing field waving a flag of victory after a tie game and it seems more or less the public accepted that. (Jackson probably was the biggest beneficiary of the war politically since it vaulted him to national fame.)

1. Not to say the British and Americans didn't have further tussles in the 19th century. Over the Oregon territory, random spats over Northern Maine, and some unfriendliness during the ACW. But prior the the Napoleonic Wars the British were quite active in keeping natives provisioned for raiding into the Northwest Territory out of their forts in Canada and that practice did come to an end.

[Viking]

The Canadian War of Independence lasted from Queenston Heights to Vimy Ridge. Alternate endings include the end of Canadian Bacon and Wayne Gretzky's conquest of America.

Seriously, people, of course the Canadians are going t call their ships after battles they won. Cowpens, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Lexington, Yorktown, Trenton, Valley Forge, Ticonderaoga, Princeton, Germantown, Vincennes, Fort Henry etc. are all ships, half of them WWII carriers and light carriers. And thats just the revolutionary war.

None of those you named are from the French and Indian War, which was to America what the War of 1812 was to Canada. In fact, I don't think there are any US ships named after battles from the FIW.

Tico is named after the second battle, not the first, so you are correct there. What really matters here for national identity is where the local militia fought and the conseqeunces of those victories and losses. The Militia Levies in the French and Indian war did NOT distinguish themselves on the british side. What the Great Lakes campaign under Brock has in common with Vimy Ridge (which is THE battle that made Canada more than any other) was they were the militia fighting and deciding important campaigns, justifying their claim for political influence after the war. The british won the 7 years war in america by headshotting the french at quebect, NOT by holding the frontier with militia.

The reason 7YW battles don't ships in the US navy is that the victories that were had were won by british regulars outside of modern US territory. The reason 1812 battles deserve ships in the RCN is that they were victories won by canadian militia inside modern Canadian terrtory.

However, I understand that there isn't much history to Canada, so they can't be picky about what "national history" they call upon to name their ships after. HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay are fine names for ships, even if they are named after battles that took place before there was a "Canada."  They are part of the national myth, and thus worth commemorating.

[Admiral Yi]

I had thought the Chesapeake Incident occurred right before the declaration of war, but turns out it was back in 1807.

[MadImmortalMan]

I always thought along similar lines. Canadian territory was attacked because it had British targets within striking distance.

They didn't need even more big empty territory to colonize at the time.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I always thought along similar lines. Canadian territory was attacked because it had British targets within striking distance.

They didn't need even more big empty territory to colonize at the time.

Yeah, and realistically at the time Canada for all intents and purposes was a few British forts and couple major cities of the time. Capturing those was not actually that grandiose a plan; if the United States actually had a functioning regular army prior to declaring war then most likely they would have achieved those goals. It's only because of having essentially no standing army and militia that refused to leave their State borders that saved Canada from the initial invasion. It's questionable as to why Madison and the military leadership felt a bunch of untrained recruits and officers hastily recruited would be effective soldiers, but there you go.

[Viking]

Presumably Madison assumed that his highly partisan war would gain support from even his political enemies. I assumed he proceeded on the assumption that New England would actually participate and that state militias and volunteers could make an army, given that, a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Sheilbh]

I still think that it looks more like insecurity than anything else. Pick the trivial and irrelevant battle that you won against the 800ln gorilla to the south rather than more relevant and significant battles.

I disagree. They're a distinctive part of Canadian history and, if BBoy is right, key in creating a Canadian identity. That's as relevant and significant to Canada as any battle in a war of independence or a revolution. Even if it's not historically accurate that that war 'made' Canada, if it's their national myth that's rather more significant.

As Neil points out it's pride in their past not insecurity.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The War of 1812 was important for both Canada and the United States, but mostly in how it made both look at themselves, so to speak. In the U.S. it taught some lessons about how a proper country needed to be ran and organized, and to some level it also reinforced the concept that America was truly independent of the British. You would not have thought this was in doubt, but I've read a lot of American literature that was written in the period 1840-1880 and I can remember a few scattered passages where characters would note the 1812 War sort of like it had "reinforced" its independence. I don't doubt the perception in Canada about the War of 1812, but just like in the United States I think the perception and the reality were different.

In the U.S. it was perceived as reasserting independence (never in jeopardy), and righting grievances against the British (the British had already decided to stop the offending behavior prior to the DOW by Madison); in Canada it's part of their foundational national folklore and is thought of as successfully fighting off American conquest (when that w as never even something that the Americans intended.)