Interesting article. There was a trade war that preceded outright war with British refusal to buy American goods.  Why should the British when they could buy lumber and wheat from Canada.  Also interesting is that Wellington declined command in the America. He figured the nation was too vast to control.  Lost of popular support at home and war weariness and not American feat of arms that brought the British to the peace table.  Read about it here at this: link

Yuck!  There are likely some valid points in that article, but they are outweighed by the dross and foolishness.


First, I cannot say that I have heard public law referenced to womens' genitalia.

"It was replaced with the Non-Intercourse Act. This act had nothing to do with the cessation of attacking the pink fortress."


Second, I do have to give the author some credit, since I have never seen an article on the War of 1812 used to attack George Bush before:

"Virginia Congressman John Randolph even stated the conquest of Canada would be “a holiday campaign … with no expense of blood or treasure on our part”.  (You know … just like that quick war in Iraq and Afghanistan which we were promised.)"

"Madison certainly knew the fine art of Presidential spinning; — necessary war, reluctantly entered, rights, patriotism, and heroes – all in one brief sentence. (He might as well have been talking about Iraq.)"


Third, there are no references or sources cited.  Where does the author get his information?


Fourth, some of his "conclusions" are erroneous.

For example:

"4)- The war changed how Americans viewed the military. The Army and Navy became professional. The State Militia took a back seat. Now the nation embraced military spending as a necessity … even during times of peace."

Let's look at the overwhelming forces created by the War of 1812.

Year     Size of military

1812    12,631
1813    25.152
1814    46.858
1815    40.885
1816    16.743
1817    14,606
1818    14,260
1819    13,259
1820    15,113
1821    10,587
1822    9.863
1823    10,871

http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm

The total size of the armed forces went below pre-war levels less than 10 years after the war.  So much for the invincible regulars.

Militia remained the overwhelming portion of US capability for a long time.  It was not until after the Spanish-American War that the military system was revamped and more professionalism added to the mix.  [see the reforms of Elihu Root for more details.]

"The Root reform era, which encompassed the period between the Spanish-American War and World War I, saw vast changes in the entire fabric of the US Army. This reorientation of a largely frontier-based, Indian-fighting force to meet modern requirements started it on the path to becoming, eventually, the most powerful army on the globe. The reforms that Secretary Root sponsored and facilitated made this evolution possible. To his vision and willingness to think beyond the limits imposed by entrenched interests and practices, the Army of the twenty-first century is lastingly indebted."

http://www.history.army.mil/documents/1901/Root-Ovr.htm

"6)- The war permanently changed America’s economic model. Previous presidents, especially Jefferson, championed an agrarian economy."

The author gets well ahead of himself here.  Rural populations outnumbered urban populations for a long time to come.

"The United States began as a largely rural nation, with most people living on farms or in small towns and villages. While the rural population continued to grow in the late 1800s, the urban population was growing much more rapidly. Still, a majority of Americans lived in rural areas in 1900."

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/riseind/rural/

"10)- Expansionism. The victory over not only the Brits, but also over the Indians in the Northwest and Southwest, opened up the West as never before, and resulted in huge territorial gains. "

What huge territorial gains?  the Louisiana Purchase had been done several years earlier.


Respectfully, I cannot recommend this article as a good source of history.

Intercourse doesn't necessarily infer sexual intercourse.  There's an Amish town in Pennsylvania by that name and the Amish are noted for being naughty people.  

You are correct in your definition of the word intercourse.  However, the author of the article tried to use that same word to make a GD-style double entrendre sexual reference.  I can understand trying to make history entertaining, but all the author did there was add unnecessary crudity to his writings.  The author seems to not know the difference between a fluff entertainment piece and a serious attempt to bring history alive.  In combining them, he fails at both.