Butthurt guy whines about Canada's warship names

[Berkut]

But that's why they all keep going on about "just needing to march".

It was just assumed that the US would be welcomed as liberators, not seen as invaders who would be resisted.  And although that assumption turned out to be false, it was not the first or last time a US invasion suffered from that particular delusion... 

That really sounds like how easy a military strategy would be (which is different then the motive) One could say similar things to the invasion of Iraq, and nobody wanted to actually own Iraq.

But invading York is a useless military strategy in and of itself.  It doesn't advance your stated war aims, which had to do with shipping.  There was no high-value target there, no significant military fort that was threatening you.

INvading York is only a useful military strategy if your ultimate goal is to own York.

Not at all - that isn't how wars worked in that time.

Grabbing stuff of the other guy was part of making war, because it gave you a bargaining chip after the war.

[Barrister]

But upper Canada in 1812 is a pretty crappy bargaining chip.

At least Montreal was a reasonably large and diverse city with some value.  But York?

[Berkut]

But upper Canada in 1812 is a pretty crappy bargaining chip.

At least Montreal was a reasonably large and diverse city with some value.  But York?

So?

So your argument is that the area was desirable enough that the US wished to conquer it, but not desirable enough for the US to want to seize it and use in  a post-war peace deal? How does that follow?

And all this is ignoring the difference between what the goals are once the war starts, as compared to what the motivation for the war might be - not at all the same thing.

And it is all pretty much irrelevant to the basic fact that these battles were not "Canadian" victories anymore than the Brits winning the Seven Years War were American victories, and the fact that the battles in question were largely meaningless, except, apparently, as the basis for a Canadian  alternate history mythos where they bravely seized/defended/established their independence against the evil, conquering Americans intent on denying it to them..

Which really is pretty damn funny, at the end of the day. Canucks are just adorable!

[Barrister]

But upper Canada in 1812 is a pretty crappy bargaining chip.

At least Montreal was a reasonably large and diverse city with some value.  But York?

So?

So your argument is that the area was desirable enough that the US wished to conquer it, but not desirable enough for the US to want to seize it and use in  a post-war peace deal? How does that follow?

And all this is ignoring the difference between what the goals are once the war starts, as compared to what the motivation for the war might be - not at all the same thing.

And it is all pretty much irrelevant to the basic fact that these battles were not "Canadian" victories anymore than the Brits winning the Seven Years War were American victories, and the fact that the battles in question were largely meaningless, except, apparently, as the basis for a Canadian  alternate history mythos where they bravely seized/defended/established their independence against the evil, conquering Americans intent on denying it to them..

Which really is pretty damn funny, at the end of the day. Canucks are just adorable!

Clearly the area was going to be desireable.  It was  an area that the US would want to seize in order to open it up for settlement.  But in 1812?  Seizing York was hardly going to force the Brits to the negotiating table.

Look, some victories were obviously more Canadian than others.  I threw out a gratuitous "we burned down your White House" comment because tradition demands it, but that was an action carried out on US soil by regular british soldiers.  Canada has nothing to do with it.

But Queenston Heights and CHateauguay?  Those were battles fought on Canadian soil, and fought in large part by Canadian militiamen (bolstered and commanded by British soldiers).  That sounds pretty Canadian to me.

WHat's adorable is Americans claiming that despite the US being involved in repeated wars of Conquest for the entire 19th century, that this one war was different - they had no territorial ambitions whatsoever (and just ignore all that Manifest Destiny crap)!

[Razgovory]

But upper Canada in 1812 is a pretty crappy bargaining chip.

At least Montreal was a reasonably large and diverse city with some value.  But York?

Well England was a bit out of reach.  They attacked what was within striking distance.  It was my understanding that York had a fort, and was a regional capital.  That sounds like a political and military objective to me.

[Razgovory]

Shame Manifest Destiny post dates the war by quite a bit.

[Admiral Yi]

Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century?

[Barrister]

But upper Canada in 1812 is a pretty crappy bargaining chip.

At least Montreal was a reasonably large and diverse city with some value.  But York?

Well England was a bit out of reach.  They attacked what was within striking distance.  It was my understanding that York had a fort, and was a regional capital.  That sounds like a political and military objective to me.

Upper Canada was hardly within easy reach either - they had to travel through the wilds of Detroit to get there (my, the more things change...) 

[Barrister]

Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century?

Various Indian wars
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War

[The Brain]

ACW

[alfred russel]

It had significant territorial implications---north, east, and west.

To the north, there was canada.

To the west, there was british involvement with native tribes, which was thwarting expansion within US territory.

To the east, the british were impinging on the rights of American trading ships.

The war was for a long time taught in the US as the "second war of independence", because it was critical to the practical recognition of US sovereignty by the British. The victory for the US on the west and east issues was very important, and I think the war is one of the most important the US has ever fought.

The Northern issue - Canada - is different. After the Revolution, the legend of British despotism was engrained in the US national narrative. The idea that Canadians might prefer British rule was not really conceivable for a lot of Americans. The US made rather pathetic and comical attempts at conquest during the early parts of the war, because, imo, they never understood they actually needed to fight for Canada. The assumption was the Anglo - Canadians would simply join the US and the British didn't have the means to stop it. Once that assumption was shown to be wrong, it was most important for the US to prevail on the western and eastern issues--where it had its hands more than full anyway.

[Eddie Teach]

Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century?

Various Indian wars
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War

Spanish American war was for selling newspapers.

[Berkut]

Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century?

Various Indian wars
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War

Is this part of the Canadian mythology as well, or is this more of a personal mythology?

[Neil]

The US wanted to conquer it for ideological reasons.

When you think of the early US, it's helpful to think of them as being like the Nazis.

[Eddie Teach]

When you think of Neil's trolling, it's helpful to think of him as being like Goebbels. Readily transparent.