Butthurt guy whines about Canada's warship names

[OttoVonBismarck]

By far the biggest losers of the War of 1812 were natives in the Northwest Territory; they came hard at the American settlements and thought with British help it was an opportune time to reclaim their land and force the Americans back to the East. Instead the natives lost major battles that basically meant the end of their presence in the region, and after the war without any British help at all the natives that were still around after Tecumseh's War and etc were pretty easily mopped up by Americans who wanted their land.

[Admiral Yi]

I propose a different way of examining the annexation question.

Imagine a historical hypothetical in which the shitty American militia won its battles around the Great Lakes, and managed to hold the key border forts at the time the peace treaty was negotiated.  I think it's very easy to argue that in that case the US would have pressed for annexation of Upper Canada (modern Ontario), possession being 9/10 of the law, and it's equally plausible that the British wouldn't have fought that hard to retain it.  My understanding is that Upper Canada was *very* sparsely populated at the time, and that the vast majority of the Anglo population of the provinces was settled in or around Halifax.  Keep in mind the British were willing to concede on search of US ships and the arming of Indian allies *before* the one decisive battle of the entire war had been fought.

I think a rough analogy can be made with the Mexican-American War.  I don't consider myself an expert on the origins of that war and starting intentions of the two sides, but as a rough cut it seems that the war arose because Mexicans thought the outcome of the Texan War for Independence was not conclusive.  Yet at the end, the victorious US, in occupation of the enemies capital, annexed massive amounts of territory because, well, why not?

[Barrister]

I don't feel like pouring through my copy of Pierre Burton's history of 1812 at the moment, but my memory is that a great number of US politicians were calling for the annexation of British North America in the debates leading up to the war.

In short, the argument that "the US didn't want to conquer what became Canada" is false.  The US CB may have been impressment, but it was very much a war of territorial expansion.  And perhaps not unreasonably - the war of independence was only 30 years ago, the border felt far more fluid that in wound up being.

[Ideologue]

I wish Britain had gone to war to annex us.

[Barrister]

I wish Britain had gone to war to annex us.

At least that way you wouldn't wind up with a useless JD.

[Ed Anger]

I wish Britain had gone to war to annex us.

Somebody wants benefits and a council house.

[Viking]

I wish Britain had gone to war to annex us.

Somebody wants benefits and a council house.

NHS >>>>>>>> Obamacare

[MadImmortalMan]

Be careful. The Greeks are about to take over the EU presidency.

[OttoVonBismarck]

1. Canadians always argue "politicians argued for annexation", what politicians? Certainly not the cabinet or the President. Random members of Congress say crazy things all the time, but it's the President and typically his administration that actually negotiate peace treaties, not Henry Clay or whoever may have rambled on about annexing Canada (although I would be surprised if it was Clay, his interest in westward expansion was more personally related to areas closer to Kentucky.)

2. With Mexico we had made our intentions known we wanted that large swathe of territory prior to the war. Polk had sent representatives to Mexico willing to offer as much as $30m to settle two outstanding issues, one was the border between Texas and Mexico. When the United States annexed Texas, it adopted the Rio Grande as the border as this was what had been agreed upon in the treaty that ended the Texas War of Independence. But Mexico viewed the treaty as illegitimate and instead insisted a line going roughly North from the Nueces River was the boundary (or alternatively, argued that Mexico still had rightful claim to all of Texas--Mexico's Presidency changed hands like 4-6 times in the year or so leading up to the war.) So part of the $30m was to settle the dispute there and get Mexico to agree formally on the Rio Grande as the border. Secondly, the province of Alta California would also be included in the deal, as many Americans had already moved to the territory and were setting up business for themselves. After concluding the Oregon Treaty with the United Kingdom the last great fear of British expansion in the west was that they might pursue a colony in California (elements back in Britain favored this and they had sent expeditions through the area and found California to be quite favorable.)

Due to an executive leadership vacuum we could barely negotiate any sort of settlement with the Mexicans, and a lot of Mexican hardliners viewed any cessions to the Americans as unacceptable (part of the amount was also forgiveness of very large debts the Mexican government/people owed to the United States, too.)

So right there, prior to the war, Polk had made it known what he wanted and he was willing to pay for it. When there was no progress made in negotiations he sent Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande, and some soldiers under his command were attacked supposedly on the American side of the river (Lincoln was in the House at the time and questioned that narrative and made several attempts to get a precise accounting of where the soldiers were when they were attacked by the Mexicans, but this went nowhere.) That was all the CB Polk needed, and we proceeded to whip Mexico's ass; after the war in the Treaty of G-H, we ended up giving them $15m for the Mexican Cession vs the $30m we had previously offered, for land they never had any hope of keeping in the first place.

With Canada we certainly had no such clear indications as we did with Mexico, nor was the Mexican Cession some sort of "hey, we're here now let's just keep it" thing, it was a pretty publicly acknowledge war goal.

[jimmy olsen]

That's all true Otto, but once Polk administration realized the magnitude of the victory they'd won they demanded a lot more only to be stabbed in the back and sabotaged by their treasonous head diplomat.

It's pretty typical that the bigger you're winning the more you ask for, so if the U.S. is in position to demand Ontario they probably will.

[Capetan Mihali]

What I'm really interested in is to what extent US annexation plans in 1812 have impacted the Toronto/Vancouver housing bubbles.

[Sheilbh]

TBR!

[Ed Anger]

What I'm really interested in is to what extent US annexation plans in 1812 have impacted the Toronto/Vancouver housing bubbles.

And the ability to move there at the drop of a hat with 5 dollars in your pocket and a plucky attitude.

[Barrister]

1. Canadians always argue "politicians argued for annexation", what politicians? Certainly not the cabinet or the President. Random members of Congress say crazy things all the time, but it's the President and typically his administration that actually negotiate peace treaties, not Henry Clay or whoever may have rambled on about annexing Canada (although I would be surprised if it was Clay, his interest in westward expansion was more personally related to areas closer to Kentucky.)

Okay, you made me start looking it up.  It certainly was members of the administration.  How about William Eustis, the Secretary of War, who said "We can take the Canadas without soldiers, we have only to send officers into the province and the people . . . will rally round our standard."  How about President Madison who said "[t]he acquisition of Canada this year will be a mere matter of marching,"

[Ed Anger]

All those butter tarts for the taking.....