Well I know we covered this somewhat on another thread..  However this seems like a much better place to take it.

In 1812 the United States invaded Canada with the intent of taking all the land South of the  54th parallel.  As you may have guessed, I am a Canadian.  It is my contention that if Canada (albeit with a great amount of British help) did not win the war this land would now be part of the States.

Most Americans I talk to have one of three answers when I ask them who won the war....

1.   What war of 1812

2.   I do not know .....when was it?

3.   The USA has never lost a war!!! You damn Canadian trouble maker!!!!


I am curious if they teach any of this in American Schools....as you can imagine they do cover this here. In fact there was a miniseries on CBC TV this past fall that chronicled the whole sordid affair.



Oh BTW lets do try and keep the flag waving on both sides to a minimum.....

Yes, most Americans don't know much about the War of 1812.

I've read and learned a little about the War of 1812.  I know about the British taking American Sailors away and making them serve on British ships.  

American sailors became privateers and ended up doing some major damage on the British ships.

The White House was burned down. (Every day, I go by the 'replacement/temporary' White House.  "The Octagon".  This is where the President stayed when the White House was burned down.  A few blocks west of the White House)

I think a lot of Americans know of "The Battle of New Orleans" with Andrew Jackson and Jean Laffite (the pirate)

Here is a page with a summary.
[url]members.tripod.com/~war1812/summary.html[/url]

If you recall, the US was at war with England. Canada was still under British control. We invaded Canada as part of the war with G.B. Our primary goal was the preservation of the U.S. The fact that we were denied the expansion of our nation in the process does not make a lost war. You guys survived to prosper under British rule and become the world power you are now. A little thanks should be in order. Besides we didn't need any cold assed wasteland or snooty French, we got Alaska and Louisiana for that. :)
Scott

An interesting battle of the war of 1812 is Lundy's Lane in Canada near Niagara Falls.

This may have been the first time a US Regular army came up against British in open field combat.  The British outnumbered the Americans
& in the end both sides claimed victory.  The US captured the British artillery & withstood all counterattacks to retake.  The US withdrew since they had no source of supples.

A good read, although historical fiction, is
1812 by David Nevin

Gun fan wrote:
." Our primary goal was the preservation of the U.S. The fact that we were denied the expansion of our nation"


Ok I am confused?  Were you trying to "preserve" your country or expand it?  If I recall the battle cry at the time was 54/40 or fight.  I take this as meaning that you wanted all the land below this mark.  If so this was expansionist, and this would mark you as the agressor nation.

When Monroe declared war he wrote a letter to "Canadian" saying that he was invading us to free us.....sort of like vietnam when the soldier said that "we had to destroy the villiage to save it"?

I believe that while the conscription of American Sailors was not a nice thing, it was done while executing a Blockade of France which the Americans were trying to run, which makes them fair game. ( at least this was the rule of sea law at the time).

The fact that England was embroiled in a death struggle with France at the time indicates that perhaps the Americans thought that Canada would be "easy pickings".  Afterall we were only defended by a few Milita, Indians and a smattering of Regular troops.


As for a cold barren wasteland....seems to me that we just found what could be that largest Diamond deposit in the world!!!   I will take that kind of barreness anytime!


Mind you the least you could have done was taken Quebec!!  Then we would not have these French Problems!!

What's not to understand. England wanted us back in the fold. They invaded the U.S. to accomplish this. The U.S. used this opportunity to try to add to the area of our territory. We were unsuccesful in adding territory. We did remain an independent country unlike Canada. Canada was as stated, a British holding & was therefore a legitamate target. If we could take Canada the Brits would have one less way of threatening oru borders & existance. We just changed our cry from 54/40 to manifest destiny & got some really nice land in the southwest & west caost. A much better return on our investment in my opinion. :)

Woa now there Gun-Fan.....the British did not invade the USA until the Americans invaded Canada.  Do not try and twist it around....The British were barely holding their own against the French in 1812.  There is no way in Hell they were going to open up another front in North America

Oh BTW could you pleas explain this concept of Manifest Destiny?  I always interpreted it as sort of a GOD IS ON OUR SIDE...so its ok to kill you sort of plan?   Sort of on the "living space" declaration of a certain Germanic People in the late 1930's  ( and no I am not calling Americans Nazis!)

June 22 1807 The Chesapeake Affair:  USS Chesapeake fired on and boarded by the HMS Leopard off Norfolk, Virginia.  Nothing to do with blockage of France.

The fact England was occupied with France was exactly the reason the US went into Canada & to keep the Brits out of the US by forcing them to defend Canada.

The US did burn York, the capital of upper Canada in April of 1813.

BTW I had my dates mixed up as you did. The 54/40 or fight was from the 1840's. The British decided to give up the land south of the 49th parralel giving us the current borders. That said, I can't explain Manifest Destiny to you as I wasn't alive then, but I think it worked out marvelously.
Scott

ok Grin now you have lost me as well.  You had to invade Canada to keep the British from invading the USA????  At the same time you agree that they were too busy with the French to complete both tasks.   It seems like a little oportunistic to me....and you got your fingers caught in the cookie jar when the people you were determined to free fought back.


I know that this is a rather moot point now, but I often wonder what would have happened if you had actually won the war?  Think of the ramifications....regarding WWI and WWII.


Oh Gun fan you are correct about the 54/40 thing....theres one that they did not teach us in school, sufficiently.

OK. I stopped relying on my memory. I did a quick brush up.

Key Events & Causes: War of 1812
Event Date Location Significance

Napolean excludes British goods from "fortress Europe" 1806 Europe American ships caught in middle as British respond with blockade. British seize 1000 U.S. ships, French ca. 500.  

British impress American sailors 1803-1812 High seas British captains took over 10,000 American citizens to man ships.  

Chesapeake -Leopard fight June 1807 3 miles off Norfolk, Virginia Chesapeake fired on by Leopard after refusing to be boarded. 3 Americans killed, 18 wounded.  

Embargo Act December 1807 Washington, D.C. Jefferson's attempt at "peaceful coercion" resulted in economic disaster for merchants.  

War Hawks elected to Congress 1810 U.S. Calhoun, Clay, others bothered by insults to U.S. and Indian presence  

Battle of Tippecanoe 1811 Ohio River Valley Tecumseh's brother (the Prophet) led attack on Harrison's army of 1000.  

Congress declares "Mr. Madison's War" June 18, 1812 Washington, D.C. Pushed by War Hawks, Madison asked for declaration. All Federalists oppose it.  

British capture Ft. Mackinac August 16, 1812 Michigan  U.S. lost fort as British invade American territory.  

Invasion attempts of Canada 1812 U.S.--Canadian border 3 attempts of U.S. to invade Canada all fail.  

Constitution vs. Guerriere 1812 Atlantic Ocean Victory by U.S. ship ("Old Ironsides"). Other privateers captured or burned British ships.  

Battle of Frenchtown January 1813 Michigan Kentucky troops repelled by British and Indians in bloody fighting. American survivors killed in Raisin River Massacre.  

Battle of York (Toronto) April 1813 Toronto, Canada U.S. troops took control of Great Lakes, burn York. This action later returned by British burning of Washington, D.C.  

Battle of Lake Erie September 1813 Put-in-Bay  British naval attack repulsed by Capt. Perry.  

Battle of Thames October 1813 Ontario, Canada Tecumseh killed in U.S. victory. NW Indians weakened by battle.  

Battle of Horseshoe Bend March 1814 Mississippi Territory Andrew Jackson defeated Creek Indians.  

British plan 3-part invasion of U.S.: Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, & mouth of Mississippi River 1814 Washington, D.C. British burned capital's buildings, but were turned back at Baltimore harbor.  

Battle of Plattsburgh September 1814 Lake Champlain U.S. secured northern border with victory over larger British force.
Hartford Convention December 15,1814 Hartford, Connecticut Group of Federalists discussed secession, propose 7 amendments to protect influence of Northeast states.  

Treaty of Ghent December 24, 1814 Ghent, Belgium British and American diplomats agreed on status quo ante bellum

Battle of New Orleans January 1815 New Orleans Jackson's forces defeated British. 700 British killed, 1400 wounded. U.S. losses: 8 killed, 13 wounded  



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please cite this source when appropriate:

Feldmeth, Greg D. "U.S. History Resources"
http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/USHistory.html (31 March 1998).


Scott

Storm:  Perhaps the concept might be best understood in the expression "The best defense is a good offense."

The US-Canada border saw both sides attacking, capturing, forts and cities.  Most of the land battles were in the north or west.

Once France got back the land west of the Mississippi river from Spain in the early 1800s, the US govt feared a French loss in Europe would result in the land west of the MS river becoming British.  The US fear & Napoleon's inabilty to hold the area due to British naval power & his need for cash resulted in the LA Purchase.

Britian & France were trying to hinder each other's trade with the rest of the world. Britian's naval blockade of France affected the United States as it affected other countries engaged in trading. Southern businesses were hurt along with many in the New England are.  Where the New Englander's were more like to support the Brits the southerners weren't.  

The War of 1812 was never popular in the New England states.

*sigh*     Oh boy, here we go again..........

Very good research Grin.  It matches everything I have been able to put together....

While I am a proud Canadian ( ok so maybe I hate my government ), I still like to look at this event as the beginning of the birth of Canada as an independant nation....which was finally completed in the battle of Vimy Ridge, in WWI.

Mind you I still like some aspects of the USA system...just not all of them..

Storm,
You should be proud to be a Canadian. I enjoyed the topic today as it made me look back and remember some things and also made me look objectively at the issue. I still think you guys would make a good aquisition to push us over the 50 state mark. We have been holding there since the 50's. Grant Quebec it's independence first though. We don't need that mess.
Scott

Well you may get your wish sooner than you think... With all the FTAA talks that went on last weekend sooner or later we will be joined.  As for the 50th state?  Considering that we have a larger land mass it would likely make more than one state.  I would invision Ontario broken into at least two if not three, all the maritime provinces would count for one.  BC would be at least two.  Then the three prairie provinces........Quebec?? well the south part (below the St.Lawrence )would be a state.  The far north would become an Indian Nation and all our Natives can move there as would our three territories in the Far North...The part of Quebec in the middle can just whither on the vine......


Hmmmm do you think my part of the state of Ontario would allow Class III?????

The War of 1812 is usually taught in US schools incorrectly.  As for the war itself:

It was thought that an invasion of Canada would be simple.  Many thought that the Canadians would galdly welcome us as "Liberators" from the Brits, rather than the invaders that we were.  Nobody in the US Gov had a good grasp on reality.

The War itself was just a footnote in the greater war between France and England.  Americans seem to want to make it all about us.  It was all about us getting emmeshed in European wars.  

The impressment of sailors, which is often cited as the cause for us to go to war, rings hollow.  The US had become the major neutral trading country.  Our greedy businessmen were making big bucks off of the War in Europe.  Impressment was a symptom of our heavy trade with both sides.  It had been going on for many years, by both the Brits and the French as well.  Impressment continued unabated after the war ended as well.  So it's false to point the finger at impressment as the cause of the war.  It was a good thing to tell John Q. Public, but it wasn't exactly the truth.  If it was the real reason, then we lost the war.  

The British could not devote any real resources to any champagin in the US.  They were too busy fighting in Europe.  They did manage several victories, but never followed up on them to any extent and really accomplished anything throughout the war.

The US lost total control of it's meger forces during the war, and had to rely on local responses to do whatever fighting there was.  I'm not just talking about calling out the militia, I mean that the US government had lost total control of the events.  In the end US forces did manage several victories, but never really accomplished anything either.

The peace treaty that ended the war, The treaty of Ghent, basically ended the war and returned everything to the way it was before the war.  Both sides had pretty much figured out they weren't really getting anywhere with it.  To the US public though, the news of the Treaty of Ghent arrived the same time as the news of the Battle of New Orleans (which was fought after the war was over, but nobody knew it at the time) so John Q. Public thought that we kicked British butt and they sued for peace.  That fable pretty much stayed the mainstream myth about the US and the War of 1812.

The US Navy did pretty well in the war overall.  Early succeses by units, like the USS Constitution and later successes on the Great Lakes, are worth mentioning.  It did show that the RN was not impervious to defeat, and called the tune for the future of the Navy.  The Navy itself was pretty much bottled up later in the war due to the British blockade that only ran from New Orleans to New York.  The New England states weren't actively blockaded because they were pro-British, and were extensively supplying Canada.

In pubilic relations terms, we preserved our liberty and showed the world we mean business.  In real terms, nobody in the war accomplished anything (not even ending the impressment of sailors) and both sides quit fighting because there was costing everyone too much.  

In the end Canada preserved her soverignty, so of all the participants, the Canadians can validly claim a victory.  As for the Brits and the Yanks, neither side really got anything done, so it's a draw there.  

Ross

There is a lot of history being taught improperly in the US. Especially the Civil War.

The firing upon a US ship almost within US waters, killing 3 & wounding many along with the kidnapping of 4 sailors (1 was a Brit deserter) was a factor in anitBrit sentiment.  Jefferson tried to cut off all foreign trade as a response but it wasn't popular & the act repealed.

Many in the US saw the British as using, supporting & encouraging Indians to hinder US western expansion.  This was partly true.

After Napoleaon left Russia (late 1813) & France fell (early 1814) Britian could turn more attention to North America.  They sent troops from France to Jamaica to stage the attack on New Orleans.  Just before this they had suffered many defeats on land in North America.  They new found naval assets extended the blockade of the US coast, burned D.C. but failed to take Baltimore.

Most likely the British were tired of being at war & thus the meeting in Ghent.  Kind of like the feeling after WWI leading to western powers not supporting the White Russians enough because everybody was tired.

I'd take everything west of Ontario. The rest of the mess is too urban/liberal oriented and full of gungrabbers. Besides, that Alberta oil money would be mighty handy and would add to the strategic petroleum reserve......
Canada is a beautiful country. Too bad so many of it's easterners still have a British "big government" mindset.

As I understand it, the British were boarding US merchant and military ships and impressing sailors.  That was illegal.  There were a lot of other minor issues left over from the Revolution, but the basic problem was that neither the Brits or the French were taking our sovereignty very seriously.  The embargo act was a failure, as was virtually everything Jefferson did.  

We declared war, and thought Canada would be easy pickings.  It was not.  There was much dissension in the US over the war, and the Northern states were planning on seceding.  Several northern states refused to allow their militias to go into Canada.  The militias that did go did not do well against the British regulars, but the distances involved and supply difficulties were a bigger problem.

Our large frigates had some one-on-one battles with the Brits, and trounced a number of them.  This was a big emberrassment for the Brits.  Once they were able to bring the full power of the Royal Navy to bear, our ships had to stay in port.  Our privateers (pirates with a license) were a bigger threat.

The British raid in the Chesapeake was to punish, not to conquor.

Once the war in Europe ended, and more British troops and ships began arriving, it looked like we were going to get into some deep shit.  The Northern states were getting ready to leave.  The peace was in the nick of time.  But the public in Britian was tired of war too.

Getting Canada was our primary war aim, and that was not achieved.  But, because we ended up with New Orleans and in one piece, US history books tend to portray it as a victory.  We ended up with more than we started with, but our aims were a lot grander than that.

I remember in High School history the teacher portrayed the war as pretty much a fiasco.  He said all of our troops ran, except the ones in New Orleans because they were more afraid of Jackson than the British.  That is not really fair to the US Navy, which did a credible job on the sea and in the Great Lakes.

Stormbringer, I was interested in reading your impression that the war was the beginning of the Canadian nation.  It was always my understanding that the Canadians (a big chunk of whom were French?) were fairly indifferent, and the British did most of the fighting.  Not true?

We were hoping the Canadians would enthusiastically welcome us.  I still do not get why they didn't?  [;)]  I guess a lot of the Anglos were refugees from the Revolution down here.

Actually Imposter, very few regular British Soldiers were on hand to defend Canada.  Many of our battles were fought by a combination of British troops, Militia and indians.  In my area of Southwestern Ontario, many locals fought.  
   In the end the war did help to cement Canada together as a country due to the "We showed them" attitude.  

The reason we fought back??  Well as you know many of our people were loyalists who came to Canada during your revolution.  I guess if they were willing to leave they might be willing to fight.'


It was not till the end of the war that plenty of British troops started to show up.  Until then we were pretty well cut off from reserves and replacments.


I still like to wonder " what if"

Heck I could be part of a vast underground of freedom fighters determined to win a free CANADA!!! from you vicious Americans!!!

The more history I know the less wars America won.
Invade Canada again?
No way, the Quebecois are almost as bad as the Parisian French.
How do you spell Canada?
C-eh?-N-eh?-D-eh?
With all the gun ban fights, I would expect western Canada to secede.

Actually after the last election a Western Seprartist party was formed.  They did not do to well in a by-election in Alberta recently mind you.

However most of their support is in Alberta...what you want is BC so you can link up with Alaska!!  BC has plenty of Socialist tree hugger types..

Oh BTW do not forget us poor saps in Ontario..some of us are worth having!!!  Even if we kill the occasional cat!

I think the US is much better off without Canada  pissing and moaning about how we screwed up their wonderful country.  We have enough problems trying to unscrew what we already have. Let them deal with the uppity "french".

I guess we could call "re-do" and try the invasion again if that's what you/they really want?

( just a little joke - Dudley Moore )

I dint think Canada became a country till around 1863, there for country of Canada did not win the war. Also Was not Canada under British rule. There for I think it would be fair to say England won the conflict. and to tell you the truth we were Just Trepassing. we didnt invade anything.


Six

Sormbringer -  Two points about your statement.  First "54/40 or Fight" was a campaign cry when James Polk ran for President in 1844.  The territory in question at the time was Oregon, in the Pacific Northwest.  This line, had it been acheived, would have granted the US a sizeable chunk of modern British Columbia.  Obviously, the US did not get what it wanted, but in the end we wound up getting much larger tracts of land from Mexico in the Mexican War (1846-1848).  You had the right quote, but the wrong (potential) war.  Second, James Monroe was the Secretary of State under President James Madison who declared war on England in 1812 - He was elected president in 1816 after Madison's second term.  Not a flame just an FYI.  EH!

I actually knew alot about this topic because it is part of my family history. My 5th great uncle was Issac Hull, Captain of the USS Constitution. His uncle was Gen. Hull who lead the invasion into Canada. From what I can understand, Gen Hull almost lost his commission over the invasion. It really put the whole Great Lakes area in jepordady or invasion.

The important thing that happened as a result of this little war was that the US started to become a naval superpower. British frigates were petrified to have to engage US frigates so much that British Admiralty issued orders not to do so. The US retained a significant trading market in many different ports around the world.

I ended up doing alot of reserch on this for a college paper and the Book by Teddy Roosevelt was a good reference.

BTW: We still have Issac Hull's Bible, it has alot of family history written in it and was decoded by my great uncle. Its a bit fragile and we try not to mess with it. We keep it wrapped up in plastic in the fireproof safe. One thing I find really facinating is the lock of hair with a ribbon wrapped around it. Not sure whose hair it is, but it sure does make you think.
I have wanted to visit Old Ironsides and show this Bible to the curators. Maybe someday I'll get to.

I'm just glad that once the government found out how really stupid Canadians are they decided not to fight for it. Is the oxygen thin up there or what. What the hell is a canuck doing on a site where people talk about GUNS? What was Tom Selleck's line in Quigley Down Under? Something derogatory about having the British in America but we kicked their asses out. Nice to have company on this site but don't bring your "Canadian" candy ass here to try to be condescending to Americans while really trying to find an argument somewhere where you won't get your ass kicked worse than your wife did this morning.

notyguy58...

That seems a bit harsh.  Our neighbors to the north seem like a relatively friendly lot.

They did a fair share of good fighting during the 1940s and an awful lot of them wen't to early graves to protect the very freedoms you and I enjoy today...

They probably did more to liberate France than the French did...(just guessing)

Gee thanks medicjim a very sane post.  Actually some thousands of Canadians went to Vietnam as well if I recall some 50,000 went all of them volunteers.

Its people like notyguy that give you Americans such a bad name in the rest of the world....

Oh BTW not I would wager that I have just a few more guns than you......TWIT!

The War Of 1812 was a victory for America because our fragile republic was held together. We made ourselves a name in the world.
We preserved our freedom.
(You are entering a spin zone)

Ok now I you have got me confused SS..

You preserved YOUR freedom because you failed to take ours away!!!!


Please explain how this is possible!


You attacked us....I am Canadian...ergo YOU LOST!!!  You reached NONE of your goals...

Yes you survived but that was not your intended reason......


DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW!!!

Its not so much that we won as to YOU LOST..

notyguy58: "What the hell is a canuck doing on a site where people talk about GUNS?"

Because we can legally own new post-ban SBR ARs up here.  Oh, and our 10/22s are fed only with new and legal 30-rounders which set us back a modest US$15 apiece. Did I mention that Garands cost about US$120 up here?

Ooo, that's gotta hurt... [;D]

Funny you should mention that!! I just picked up a 10/22 last week. got a 25 rd Hotlips mag and a 30 rd Ramline with it as well as the std 10 rd....all for $150 Canadian!!

I was just in Michigan last week and Garands were going for $450 US!!  Mine was only $120 but that was two years ago.

Mind you are gun laws DO SUCK!!!

I was in Sault Ste Marie, ON. Last year.  I went to a gun dealer.  The prices were great.  The only issue was getting the weapons legally into the US.  (There is a BATF form that takes 6 weeks to process)  Anyway the owner of the gun shop says, "how do you get 100 Canadians out of a pool?  Ask them to please get out."  He then proceeded to weave a story about Canadians being sheep over the gun issue.  

Consider this:  Where did Canadians come from?  They were the British loyalist who did not have the ball to stand-up to the British.  The Loyalist figured once the British beat the Patriots, they would come back and reclaim the property they abandoned.  

My observation?  Canada has the best strippers in North America.  I am in support of Canadian independence.  Who wants Toronto to be the New, New York.

Now everyone sing "Oh, Canada"

It is interesting to point out that more Canadians went over to Vietnam than Americans went to Canada.  Good point.

What is your other point?  Most 2nd Amendment supporting Americans are fairly history literate and it seems to me that you want to rub past history in our noses.  Like everyone else here, I am aware that American troops launched an invasion of Canada and lost.  So?  

Thank you so much for a history lesson from Canada, where everyone is so much smarter.

[-!-!-]  Just pray we don't come over again!

Not everyone here is SMARTER than you yanks.  Just look at our government for proof.  However the average Canadian knows more about the USA and the world than the average American ( its not hard with your TV signals crossing the border.

The reason I asked my question was not to slam Americans.  In fact I was betting that the crowd here would know more than those samples I have spoken for in the past....as it is most Americans DO NOT KNOW OF THE WAR.

Oh as to you comming up here again......go ahead make my day!!!!  

Guys, we didnt just invade Canada to take it, though we would have kept it if we could.

For thirty years after the end of the Revolution British and Canadians remained in military posts in the old northwest on soil the British had ceeded to the US by the 1783 treaty of Paris.  Further they armed and supplied Indians and Tory partisans and encouraged them to conduct a war of terror against Americans in the Ohio, Cumberland, and Tenessee river valleys.  They were also attacking US shipping on the Mississippi- which was a international waterway untill 1805 and SOLEY American after that due to the Louisiana Purchase.

With the British routinely ignoring American protests to stop this activity and to clear off our land there was believed there was only one option left.  Clear all British subjects out of North America once and for all.

We did not succeed in that.  We did not succeed in seizing Montreal or even Niagara as intended.  But, and this was what the majority of Americans were most concerned about, the Indians were driven back and the raids on our settlements ceased.

And another point... Canada would have also made a good hostage, we could have traded it back to the British in order to get them to stop raiding our ships.  

If General Hull had not surrendered 2000 veteran troops- roughly one quarter of the Regular Army to the British without firing a shot in the first couple months of the war, the land campaign in the Northwest would have gone much better than it did.  Things did go well once Harrison retook commmand in the West and Scott took over in New York.  But by then we had to take back a lot of American land first before we could even get to British soil.

Wow this thread really got quiet?  Did I offend someone?

When was the War of 1812?

LOL yes when was it again???



I always loved the surrender of Fort Detroit!!

I have an idea.  How about we give you Detroit and we call the whole thing even?

Yeh.  We'll give you Detroit if you'll promise to keep Quebec.

Norm

Excellent threat!!

I really enjoyed reading this one...Learned a few things, and a few mis-conceptions were set right.

Thanks to all of our Historians...On both sides of the line!

Sorry to see it end.

Just FYI, here's an interesting section (section XI) of the Articles of Confederation, the original "constitution" of the United States:

It appears that the Founding Fathers hoped that Canada would choose to become one of the United States.

What about the Finian raids of Irish Americans against Canada. Lets hear about that one?

I am Australian and grew up in Canada (Saskatchewan). I don't miss the cold, but the beer, oh yes!!! As for the women, well Aussie girls are the best, even Seinfeld thinks so!

Quebec should seceed and become a French Territory. Then the tree-huggers should jump off a bridge. Only then would I want Canada. Sorry, the only part of Canada I would want would be British Colombia in order to make Alaska attach to the contiguous United States. No way I would take Quebec. We have enough problems with NY, MA, CT, RI, and NJ already. Oh by the way I would be glad to give Canada NY, RI, CT, NJ, MA, Detroit, MI, Chicago, Gary Indiana, Minnesotta, and Seattle Washington. I would rather add the entire Baja peninsula to Kalifornia than add Quebec. BY the way, I'll have to stop by Canada sometime and get one of those $120 Garands. How much is an AR up there or are they illegal ?

Which ones, 1830 or 1868?

Actually in both cases the ones the Canadians didnt get wound up in American jails for filibustering, which back then did not mean Senators hogging the microphone but making war upon another country without the approval of the US Congress.

Since the Canadians were British citizens, all they really did was maintain their ties to their soverign. Besides, the only way they would have lost that is if they did so willingly.

Americans really did preserve their soverignty, as that was potentially at stake. After the War of 1812, the Brits pretty much gave up on getting us back.

We also invaded Canada during the Revolution, in the hope they would stand beside us. However, Canadian Catholics were very suspicious of Americans, and sided with the British.

Neither side "won" the War of 1812.

The US would not have siezed Canada and forced it to become part of the US, although we no doubt hoped you would choose to join us (just as we did during the American Revolution).

The English would have certanly liked to get the US back, and prior to the War of 1812 they certainly considered this. It was no longer a consideration after 1812. Furthermore, Americans were much more cemented together as a country after the war. These were the most important results of the war.

I can't consider Canada's "independece" from the US as much of an achievement, because the US never intended to take it by force.

As for not reaching our "goals", our explicit goal was to stop the Brits from impressing our sailers. However, no land victory in the Americas could prevent them from doing so, so in this sense our goal was not militarly achivable (I was under the imprssion they had pretty much stopped such imprssment [i]before[/i] the war began). As others mentioned, our more important goal was to stop the Brits and Canadians from encouraging the Indians to wage a war of terror on our frontier. We were more succesful in this. The US achieved all the important "goals" of the war that could be achieved by war, even if they were not stated goals.  

Impressment was just a issue to get the coastal states to go along with the Western states and terratories. They were extreamly interested in protecting their trade with England.  That doesnt mean that impressment had stopped- 11 men were taken from [i]Chesapeak[/i] by [i]Leopard[/i] in 1811.  Even then, Massachusets refused to send State troops to fight the British- hence no fighting in what is now Maine- and talked with Rhode Island and Conneticut about secession from the Union because the war distrupted their trade with Great Britain.