Thanks for the advice. I really wanted to do a five minute video just enough for context for my US regents course....most teachers barely mention the war of 1812, I did de emphasize the manifest annex angle, I know there is disagreement on the issue and perhaps I should not of de-emphasize it..... The accent I make no apology for,I love my horrible accents.Thanks again for your feedback. My videos have the human touch and sometimes I talk fast and hit bumps, the comments always correct my bumps.
Ill thank you for you pointing out the scroll mistake but I don't appreciate your tone. If I had to choose between a kid whose history teacher made the occasional quick your/you're mistake to one whom has to try to make another human feel stupid in order to point out a correction, the choice is easy. I replied with some humor you came back with more poop. Please go forth and have a wonderful life & I'll be sure to watch my your and you're because in the end YOUR right about modeling excellence.
The War of 1812 was the third chapter in the division of the US from the UK. It crystallized the separation of the US from the UK - as in "you don't nick our sailors off our ships into your navy, nor do you stop us from pushing West; we're not British and haven't been for some time" - but also the separation of British North America from the US - "enjoy your independence for all the good it will do you, but we're not signing up. Ever. We actually like being British."
The D-R's feared the Federalist relationship with Britain. Keep in mind the character of revolutionaries such as Madison & Jefferson, they were born British & were willing to start a war that killed huge numbers of their fellow British to get what they wanted politically. They were very paranoid not even trusting their fellow colonials. Trying to block even building a military for even the USA's own defense. Do you know about the "Henry letters"?
Super dee duper!! Loved this so much. Doing grad level govt' and there is a ton to piece together. The host was terrific at break own and concept- pulls; placed ideas and framed "conflicts' in a logical and fun way.
I would have loved to have seen Dolly and the servant running out with that huge painting! "Crap, the house is on fire, what do we take? The gold? The bed sheets? The documents?" "No! Get the damn painting!" Great video!, this is one war that is barely discussed, probably because we lost. And most people think the 1812 overture is based on this war.... But it's noooooooot. :). I think you are finished with all the major battles now!
You're a better teacher than my own history teacher. All I do in my history class is work, work, work. No teaching. It's like my history class is flipped. Homework at school, and learning at home.
Man, I really wish you didn't swear in your videos so I could show them in my class. It's great, but I would have parents with pitchforks at my door if I showed them in my room.
Thanks. I put there as part of a grammar contest, which you are now qualified to win.... keep an eye out for a UPS truck, just make sure you have some dead rats cause its going to be hungry by the time you open it up. :)
Oh snap, your rite. But really is that a reason to take you're God's name in vein? Your knot going to believe this but I think that is the first time I made a grammatical error.
I disagree, I do believe that while there is a large part of partisanship and political war banging going on, the war was sold on the basis of national pride, sold on the back of freedom of the seas. Without the lynch pin, the War Hawks couldn't sell their march to war to the citizenry and those Dem-Republicans who were more moderate. Besides, its the answer on the state exam.... which I mentioned. But all in all, I am not disagreeing with you. Semantics.
I was aiming for five minutes so battles did not make the video. I summarized that after the Battle of Queensboro (WIndsor) we pretty much got our ass kicked.
For those who want info on the Canadian side of the story. Go to youtube, and key in "Laura Secord" into the search side. Also key in "War of 1812 Canadian version". I'd post actual links, but youtube is not happy with those..,
I'm confused. Britain had no legal right to impose a fine on anyone (but their own ships), but they had the right to blockade and forbid all trade? How did France control Europe if they had no power to enforce the BD? If Napoleon had no power to enforce the BD, then what use was it?
Sources? Like the Federalist papers? Madison/Jefferson made no secret of their desire for the USA to develop as an agrarian society nor the precieved threat to independence by reliance on foreign commerce. People are too fast to dismiss slavery as a motivating issue in events. It was a huge factor in why many states revolted from Britain as well after the Somerset case of 1772
The important thing about the Henry letters wasn't that they were fake but that they were believed. Madison truly believed Britain was taking control covertly. The USA had only been independent for 30 years & to have this kind of unfounded suspicion & mistrust from the highest office really speaks volumes about US character of the period. Too many assume that USA character was similar to post civil war & it really wasn't.
I am asking you some questions, not affirming my belief in "every excuse for war". You have made no alternate reasoning for the D-Rs to want war with England. You have mentioned the slave trade, yet acknowledged that the international slave trade was already illegal in America. You have mentioned that there was an illegal fine, but that fine only affected the Feds who didn't care. Why did the D-Rs want war and the Feds not? You disagreed with the video, and I want to understand why.
When defending the white house the americans ran away from the red coats so fast the red coats got heat stroke chasing them down! Still they got to rest up and warm themselves on the flames of the white house a little later on.
I think this is a great summary, but as a U.S. history teacher in New Orleans, I have a few critiques: 1- The desire to annex Canada was downplayed. The U.S. could’ve easily called off the war with the information about Great Britain’s new trade/impression policy. 2- You did not mention the American burning of York. 3- No one from New Orleans talks with a country accent. Our accent is more Brooklynese. Look up “Yat dialect”.
2nd Neutral shipping as Madison described in his war speech does not exist The Orders in Counsel 1807 were deeply flawed legally not because they restricted trade but because they allowed the US to trade with Napoleon controlled Europe after paying a fine A complete blockade of all trade would have been perfectly legal, justified by the declarations of war between the 2 powers. The OiC was a Response to Napoleons Berlin Decree 1804 The point is the issue as a cause for war was actually an excuse
You misunderstood my point. The British didn't become Anti slavery because of a moral imperative. Nations don't work like that. The industrial revolution saw power changing hands from older methods of gaining wealth & power to the equivalent of wealthy lobbyists setting policy in parliament. Just as wealthy lobbyists control US congress today. They used slavery as an issue to make their opposition to look bad the same way the R/Ds used Impresment/trade to mud sling at Feds.
You just make things up. The navy was small because we didn't have the money for it. The Federal government was SMALL. I never said politicians were honest - you made that up. I'm glad everyone reading this thread can see what you have done.
I think it was worth mentioning that many of the sailors serving on the Americans ships where British subjects. Pay and conditions on American ships was much better than on British ships. Some of the Brits had taken American citizenship, thus, it all got a bit, 'sticky'.
How was this war a "stalemate"? That's like saying the war of Independence was a stalemate, since Britain tried to do something and failed against the Americans and French... America wanted Canada and Britain stopped them. Surely Britain won this war when you think about it.
"America wanted Canada and Britain stopped them." Usually when you spout shit this supposed no one can take you seriously. British North America was never the objective of the war. This is denied by even the contemporaries. What was a later war objective for the British was a partial reconquest of the US and the Indian buffer state. I wonder how well the British did in that theater. "hat's like saying the war of Independence was a stalemate," The War of Independence ended with a treaty in which the British were forced to cede the entire west coast to the people they lost militarily. There is a clear difference and its no surprise than a numbskull such as yourself cant grasp it. The treaty of Ghent included no such concession of land. In fact the argument that all the Americans wanted was BNA is detrimental in the face of their own uti possedetis claims being denied in Nov 1814. By the same logic the Americans clearly won, because the British expressed a clear and documented desire for American land.
USMarineRifleman0311 The final result of Ghent, however, was precisely what Britain articulated in 1813. On 26th December 1813, the British government agreed that: “She is ready to sign a peace with the United States, in a general peace on the status quo ante helium without involving in such Treaty any decision on the points in dispute at the commencement of hostilities.” Memorandum of Cabinet, December 26th, 1813. Sound familiar? It should do - this was what the US government so eagerly ratified in 1815. No maritime concessions were made as the treaty omitted the points in dispute at the commencement of hostilities. . After the defeat of Napoleon Britain was not engaged in a major war until 1914. The original Orders in Council of 1807 were then repeated by the Orders in Council of 1915 - this time prohibiting trade with Germany. US trade with Germany and her allies was cut dead in its tracks. Although howls of protest reverberated around the USA there were no further attempts on Canada.
USMarineRifleman0311 Frank White said "America wanted Canada and Britain stopped them." You said "Usually when you spout shit this supposed no one can take you seriously." Any reasonable person does take this seriously. As a small sample take the Official US Proclamations that were plastered over the border. “Raise not your hands against your brethern, many of your fathers fought for the freedom and Independence we now enjoy Being children therefore of the same family with us, and heirs to the same Heritage, the arrival of an army of Friends must be hailed by you with a cordial welcome, You will be emancipated from Tyranny and oppression and restored to the dignified status of freemen.” Proclamation, General William Hull, July 1812 “You will enter a country that is to be one of the United States. You will arrive among a people who are to become your fellow citizens. It is not against them that we come to make war. It is against that Government which holds them as vassals.” Proclamation, 17 November, 1812, Brigadier General Alexander Smyth What part of these proclamations don't you understand?
USMarineRifleman0311 And you don’t call America’s demand that Upper Canada or even the whole of Canada be transferred to the USA a territorial demand? The USA did demand territory. US history, always mutable, prefers to forget it as it doesn’t accord with airbrushed history. Fortunately the advice given to the US plenipotentiaries by James Monroe is available online. And the USA was demanding concessions on future revival of the OIC (which regulated American trade with Europe) impressment, violations of territorial waters, breaches of the rules governing naval blockades, and definition of contraband. These were the very reasons that the USA ostensibly declared war in the first place. In advising the negotiating team at Ghent, James Monroe said of maritime issues that “If this encroachment of Great Britain is not provided against, the United States have appealed to arms in vain.” The USA had appealed to arms in vain. She failed to conquer Canada - either to annex it or use as leverage to force concessions from Britain - and she consequently abandoned all demands. And this from the nation that declared war in the first place! Republican policy was a complete failure. Ghent restored territory under terms of status quo antebellum to Britain and the USA. However, that which was salient - the maritime issues - were not even mentioned.
So that means canada has no sovereignity, and is influenced by another nation, which means canada has no culture, while america freed themselves from britain, It shows canada cant stand on its own, while canadians act like there proud, but proud of what.
Well actually the OiC did allow trade. It was the "fine" that was the problem. Britain had no legal right to impose such a fine upon anyone but their own ships. They could Blockade & forbid all trade (Assuming they could enforce it, Napoleon had no power to enforce the BD) but the OiC violated British law. You have to understand Britain NEEDED trade with Napoleon controlled Europe or their economy would suffer as did the USA during the Embargo.
England was involved against France in the 7 years war and the Americans thought they could simply invade Canada. The American Navy on Lake Ontario attacked, looted and burned the Upper Canada Legislature in York (now Toronto). Later the American Army attacked across the Niagara frontier. The British retreated to Burlington Heights (Hamilton Ontario). The American Army of 3,500 camped at Stoney Creek. In the Night the 750 British & Militia attacked the US Army and captured 2 US Army Generals and in the chaos the American Army was chased back to the Border. When England defeated France the British Navy then attacked and burned the Presidential Palace which was White-Washed and renamed the White House. The British Navy then bombarded Baltimore Fort Wayne and in the morning Francis Keys noted: "Oh Say Can you See by the Dawn's Early Light that our Flag was Still There..." Most Americans do not know this History?
It occurred in relationship to the war, where the Federalists were secretly meeting seeking a peace with their British friends..... thematically it is seen as the nail in the coffin in the Federalists.... who then blossom into young Whigs.
Keith Hughes No offense mate, but in that era international waters meant nothing to my country, we had the strongest navy the world had ever seen, with the largest empire to boot, no one but America or France was really going to be stupid enough to try to fuck us up. Even though we ended up in a tie, things could have gone worse if there had been no hurricane and it would in all likelihood have been ""bye bye America" as a soverign state.
GreenSkylord I meant 200 years after the war of 1812. 202 years to be exact. You are projecting nationalism and a bit of hostility for something that occurred 200 years ago.
AWESOME! Love the ticker tape at the bottom of the screen! Stop the bowing and rising... every time you pop up your hair flies, and one of these times you'll get a heart attack! )Besides, what if you turned into a vampire while you were down? It might scare the kiddies!) You left out many of the details of the failed US attempt.to invade Canada. But from a US centric point of view... Good job. I'd tell you to take a bow, but you already did that! ;-}'
I am sure more than a few were English too. Bad people do bad things. Considering the remarkably small size of the US navy, it is of no surprise that the Anti-slave trade law was hard to enforce - yet most historians write that it was Cuba that saw the increase and America a massive decrease. I'm glad that the Empire Upon Which The Sun Never Sets tried to make up for their slave trade over centuries, but you keep wandering away from the topic of the root causes of the war of 1812.
During the Napoleonic wars the USA grew to the worlds largest neutral shipper. The USA became essential middle men for British trade. This relationship caused Madison to fear Britain was taking economic control of the USA. The Embargo was actually a good plan in principle. Also its important to note exactly what contraband cargo the British were taking off of US ships which is why southern slave states were so upset about British coming aboard. 1807 was also the year of the Anti slave trade act.
The most popular pro-war slogan was "Free trade and sailor's rights." The video doesn't mention the USS Chesapeake. This was a notorious incident in which the British boarded and impressed men on a U.S. Navy frigate in 1807. This incident was certainly a bigger factor in the decision to go to war than either Native Americans or Canada. After the Republicans lost seats in the 1808 election, the party shifted to a more cautious approach. In the 1810 midterms, the Republicans regained these seats. The success of the War Hawk faction led by Henry Clay showed that war was a winning issue politically. In short, it was all about domestic politics and how to beat the Federalists. There was basically zero preparation, no military buildup, and no serious plan to conquer Canada.
You know some people say that the war was a nobody won war. But in my honest opinion America won. Mainly because, event though we didn't take canada like we planned, we still were not taken out. Which kinda solidified and united our young nation.
The British had no intention of a drawn out war with the United States, nor did they have any intention of conquering the United States. What they had was to stop American Aggression into BNA and Canada, which they did. The US failed to achieve it's military Objectives and though they Sacked York, the capitol of Upper Canada, Washington was it's self Sacked. To say the US won this war is wrong as they were against a nation which had no interest in destroying them. However they had every interest in conquering Canada.
There is nothing to support the idea that Britain had any harsh intentions toward the USA. America could have had peace at any time just by giving up its ambitions but as it was Britain had to give the USA a serious beating before that would happen.
Eddythebeast666 Check the results of the battles fought in the last year of the war. Britain took the beating and, in spite of the failure of the Treaty of Ghent to mention things like impressment, Britain backed off from its hostile, aggressive behavior towards the US.
Eddy, go to the Wikipedia article on this war and make your argument there in the "talk" section. There is a (in my mind a well-founded) disagreement on the causes of the war, and it's pro-US form (which changed). The dissenters believe it had more to do with expansion than British impressment, tax on trade, etc. No one mentions anything you bring up. I think that is because your reasons are minor if they exist at all. So go there and present your theory and "fix" the article. Hughes is right.
The success of this law can also be seen against the background of Napoleonic Wars, going on at the time. The French Revolution had originally outlawed slavery, an act which won the admiration of progressives - but in 1802 Napoleon reestablished slavery in Haiti and Guadeloupe, sending troops to both islands to fight the freed slaves and reenslave them. Thus, the 1807 British law - though outlawing only the slave trade, not slavery itself - won for Britain something of a moral high ground
Fear was a big motivator. The Feds states economy was growing to completely dominate the US which didn't fit in with the Agrarian vision they hoped the USA would grow in to. A war with Britain & closer ties with France would halt that growth. There was also the growing push to end slavery. Or do you think the Southern states wouldn't start a war that might kill huge numbers of Americans to protect their use of slavery?
I understand what you mean by Semantics but there is an important distinction we must make to be honest. How a war is sold to the public is not a true motive for why a war took place. That would imply propaganda becomes true once a certain percentage of the population comes to believe it. Slogans & chants are great for getting the ball rolling to war but when we talking history we have to reflect & question. The "Why" of this war was Expansion.
The commentator says that Britain didn’t recognise the naturalisation process. What he doesn’t tell you is what that naturalisation process was. According to the Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802 US citizenship was based on five years residence probationary period, but money-making scams operated by US notaries, US consuls and US customs officers abounded - where “proof” of naturalisation could be bought at the right price and issued to anyone - no oath required and no questions asked. So even by US standards ‘naturalisation’ was highly suspect. Moreover, is any rational person ready to admit that all those British sailors with certificates had been resident in the USA for five years? Impressment of British sailors on board American vessels was never sufficient cause for war. After the repeal of the OIC (following much protest on both sides of the Atlantic) the major cause of war was removed. However: “The practice of impressment, which nobody had ever mentioned as sufficient cause of war, and for which alone congress could ever have been prevailed on to declare war, was now brought forward as a sufficient motive for continuing it, and the armistice was rejected. The war party might then have made peace with the greatest glory. They would have obtained a complete triumph. Their measures would have appeared to be completely successful ; and they would have risen to the pinnacle of popularity. But their secret motives for war were too strong for all these powerful considerations. “ Robert Goodloe Harper , Annapolis, Jan 20th, 1814 And we all know what those not so secret motives were ….
To learn more about the Battle of New Orleans, please visit us at facebook.com/pages/Battle-of-New-Orleans-2015-Bicentennial-Celebration/685146321521544
Anyway the point I was trying to make is that taking Madison who owned over 200 slaves & the other slave owning war hawks words at face value that they wanted a war to fight for sailors rights & pretending there was nothing else that directly effected them being done by Britain that was much more likely to have motivated these guys is kind of... American Because Canadians really don't buy in to that. We tend to laugh a lot at the US version of history. Do you guys believe every excuse for war?
Ok, I understand the BD of 1804 and the OiC of 1807 both forbade trade with the opposing nation to all subjects as well as neutral parties - in a sense both sides (B & F) blockading the other. I also understand that the Democrat-Republican-run states (esp. War Hawks) would like to expand west into the U.S. Territories, possibly Canada, whereas the Federalists cared for none of this "expansion". Rightish? (No surprise the reasons are propagandized as defensive ones - esp. in state school tests)
Also armydoc everyone knows battles won to battles lost are about even in this war for both sides however when u consider the British fought most of the time away from it's territory and while at the same time defeating the French the American proformance is imbarrassing it failed in it's war aim while the British won there war aim
During the last 7 months of the war, Britain was fighting no one but the US. Britain had a friendly base in Canada so it is a fallacy that Britain was fighting away from its own territory. Britain launched a series of offensive moves against the US in that period in order to force the US into accepting harsh peace terms and failed in doing that.
Bases do not mean that England wasn't fighting away from its country lol all England's war material came from England if the USA won the war of 1812 canada would be the USA it's as simple as that the FACT is the USA lost
Tim Morgan "if the USA won the war of 1812 canada would be the USA" No this is disputed. Madison would've been forced to give up Canada had it been illegally annexed. Canada was to be held for concessions. Its like saying France would've been Prussian because the Germans won.
So by your theory then the native land still belongs to the native nations and Texas and Cali are Mexico the USA would have annexed and called it the USA there would have been no giving it back to the British lol
USMarineRifleman0311 “No this is disputed. Madison would've been forced to give up Canada had it been illegally annexed. Canada was to be held for concessions." - Forced to give up Canada? By whom… 12th Congress … public opinion …? The only people who could force US from British North America were the British and their allies. As Donald Hickey observes, there is not a shred of contemporary evidence to suggest that Canada was to be held as ransom for maritime concessions from Britain.
What rhetoric are you talking about? This whole thing started with me asking about root causes - I included the concept of expansion - YOU went off on a tangent, could not back it up, attempted to jump to other subjects (as you continue to do now) and continue to somehow blame me for your own poor reasoning.
I missed no point. YOU brought up that the slave trade was a reason for the War of 1812. It was not. Now you are rambling about the industrial revolution & lobbyists. You were wrong and you won't admit it, you just keep typing about something else.
The Battle of New Orleans. Had the British won, they most certainly would not have turned it back over to America and would have used it to place a stranglehold on the American Economy. The Battle Of New Orleans most certainly turned a tie into an American Victory in the War of 1812.
The United States failed to complete any of its war goals and it reverted into a complete status quo while all the British were doing was keeping the United states from taking territory and keeping the status quo. A complete British victory
Tyriol the USA got all its goals. The US goal wasn’t Canada. Britain never gained its goals of land in the USA. So no Britain did not win nor did the USA.
Good lord! This is what I said initially and YOU kept pushing the slavery angle! NOW you agree with me that slavery was not a big reason?! Now you bring up the Civil War?? Of course that was about slavery, but we are talking about the root causes of the War of 1812!! This conversation has jumped the shark.
Good argument on the Northern states growing economy threatening the south. Some sources would help. Beating your slavery drum is getting old. It's already illegal for international slave trade - heck even your lovely Canada and England still have slavery at this time.
Thanks for the advice. I really wanted to do a five minute video just enough for context for my US regents course....most teachers barely mention the war of 1812, I did de emphasize the manifest annex angle, I know there is disagreement on the issue and perhaps I should not of de-emphasize it.....
The accent I make no apology for,I love my horrible accents.Thanks again for your feedback. My videos have the human touch and sometimes I talk fast and hit bumps, the comments always correct my bumps.
I was impressed with this video, but not in the British-kidnapped-me-and-forced-me-to-join-their-navy-kind-of way.
Hey, Mr. Beat!
How was this seven years ago
@@toiletpaper6150 What?
@@theparadigm8149 yup, that's me
@@toiletpaper6150 I’m confused...
Dude so awesome appreciate the uploads!
Ill thank you for you pointing out the scroll mistake but I don't appreciate your tone. If I had to choose between a kid whose history teacher made the occasional quick your/you're mistake to one whom has to try to make another human feel stupid in order to point out a correction, the choice is easy. I replied with some humor you came back with more poop. Please go forth and have a wonderful life & I'll be sure to watch my your and you're because in the end YOUR right about modeling excellence.
I love the way you break it down. I wish our books were like this! 😶 I need it broken down!
shut it
dont be mean
sorry
hi
hi
Rest in Peace Isaac Brock
The War of 1812 was the third chapter in the division of the US from the UK. It crystallized the separation of the US from the UK - as in "you don't nick our sailors off our ships into your navy, nor do you stop us from pushing West; we're not British and haven't been for some time" - but also the separation of British North America from the US - "enjoy your independence for all the good it will do you, but we're not signing up. Ever. We actually like being British."
I would love to use these videos in class, however, my district would be less than thrilled about the swearing in them. Major bummer, Mr. Hughes.
The D-R's feared the Federalist relationship with Britain. Keep in mind the character of revolutionaries such as Madison & Jefferson, they were born British & were willing to start a war that killed huge numbers of their fellow British to get what they wanted politically.
They were very paranoid not even trusting their fellow colonials. Trying to block even building a military for even the USA's own defense. Do you know about the "Henry letters"?
Super dee duper!! Loved this so much. Doing grad level govt' and there is a ton to piece together. The host was terrific at break own and concept- pulls; placed ideas and framed "conflicts' in a logical and fun way.
This is a great summary! Good stuff!
I would have loved to have seen Dolly and the servant running out with that huge painting! "Crap, the house is on fire, what do we take? The gold? The bed sheets? The documents?" "No! Get the damn painting!" Great video!, this is one war that is barely discussed, probably because we lost. And most people think the 1812 overture is based on this war.... But it's noooooooot. :). I think you are finished with all the major battles now!
Can't.... Can't we all just get along..
love your videos ! They help a lot! thanks
awesome presentation, thanks
You're a better teacher than my own history teacher. All I do in my history class is work, work, work. No teaching. It's like my history class is flipped. Homework at school, and learning at home.
truth
ong
relally
Man, I really wish you didn't swear in your videos so I could show them in my class. It's great, but I would have parents with pitchforks at my door if I showed them in my room.
Thanks. I put there as part of a grammar contest, which you are now qualified to win.... keep an eye out for a UPS truck, just make sure you have some dead rats cause its going to be hungry by the time you open it up. :)
I'm using your videos for all my US history questions starting........
Now.
keith do you make shirts with your face on them cuz i want!!!!
I embarrassingly have to answer yes. www.cafepress.com/hiphugheshistory
that was actually what I was going for.
"You're* coming with me." in the ticker.
Oh snap, your rite. But really is that a reason to take you're God's name in vein? Your knot going to believe this but I think that is the first time I made a grammatical error.
I disagree, I do believe that while there is a large part of partisanship and political war banging going on, the war was sold on the basis of national pride, sold on the back of freedom of the seas. Without the lynch pin, the War Hawks couldn't sell their march to war to the citizenry and those Dem-Republicans who were more moderate. Besides, its the answer on the state exam.... which I mentioned. But all in all, I am not disagreeing with you. Semantics.
I was aiming for five minutes so battles did not make the video. I summarized that after the Battle of Queensboro (WIndsor) we pretty much got our ass kicked.
Very interesting video I enjoyed the humor. Most interesting video I have watched on the subject kept me engaged.
For those who want info on the Canadian side of the story. Go to youtube, and key in "Laura Secord" into the search side. Also key in "War of 1812 Canadian version". I'd post actual links, but youtube is not happy with those..,
We commemorate war heroes on our money: Secord, de Salliberry, Brock, and Tecumseh. Do Americans? NOPE!!
I am a proud Canadian!🇨🇦
A Lincoln/Douglas one would be great too!
I'm confused. Britain had no legal right to impose a fine on anyone (but their own ships), but they had the right to blockade and forbid all trade? How did France control Europe if they had no power to enforce the BD? If Napoleon had no power to enforce the BD, then what use was it?
im so confused. what issue was left unresolved by the missourri compromise??
You rock Keith thanks for explaining this war
Sources? Like the Federalist papers? Madison/Jefferson made no secret of their desire for the USA to develop as an agrarian society nor the precieved threat to independence by reliance on foreign commerce.
People are too fast to dismiss slavery as a motivating issue in events. It was a huge factor in why many states revolted from Britain as well after the Somerset case of 1772
You didn’t mention the fact the White House was burned to the ground Lolol
They don't teach that, makes 'Mercan history look bad.
The British stopped Impressment of American Sailors 2 days before the War Started.
+Thanato
We repaid in kind with the seizure of at lease 30,000 British merchant sailors aboard 1,900 vessels from 1812 into mid 1815.
US Marine Rifleman The US Navy captured a few hundred ships and boats. Privateers captured 1300 ships and boats. during the war of 1812.
Its in my brain to do so. Just need the time. And there is wrong place to ask for learnin'
The important thing about the Henry letters wasn't that they were fake but that they were believed.
Madison truly believed Britain was taking control covertly.
The USA had only been independent for 30 years & to have this kind of unfounded suspicion & mistrust from the highest office really speaks volumes about US character of the period.
Too many assume that USA character was similar to post civil war & it really wasn't.
Great video. Thanks!
Very helpful and interesting, keep it up
I am asking you some questions, not affirming my belief in "every excuse for war".
You have made no alternate reasoning for the D-Rs to want war with England. You have mentioned the slave trade, yet acknowledged that the international slave trade was already illegal in America. You have mentioned that there was an illegal fine, but that fine only affected the Feds who didn't care.
Why did the D-Rs want war and the Feds not? You disagreed with the video, and I want to understand why.
When defending the white house the americans ran away from the red coats so fast the red coats got heat stroke chasing them down! Still they got to rest up and warm themselves on the flames of the white house a little later on.
1867 is when we were a country not 1982 we got or flag in 1960 so that is when we became a country.
I think this is a great summary, but as a U.S. history teacher in New Orleans, I have a few critiques:
1- The desire to annex Canada was downplayed. The U.S. could’ve easily called off the war with the information about Great Britain’s new trade/impression policy.
2- You did not mention the American burning of York.
3- No one from New Orleans talks with a country accent. Our accent is more Brooklynese. Look up “Yat dialect”.
2nd Neutral shipping as Madison described in his war speech does not exist
The Orders in Counsel 1807 were deeply flawed legally not because they restricted trade but because they allowed the US to trade with Napoleon controlled Europe after paying a fine
A complete blockade of all trade would have been perfectly legal, justified by the declarations of war between the 2 powers. The OiC was a Response to Napoleons Berlin Decree 1804
The point is the issue as a cause for war was actually an excuse
You misunderstood my point.
The British didn't become Anti slavery because of a moral imperative. Nations don't work like that.
The industrial revolution saw power changing hands from older methods of gaining wealth & power to the equivalent of wealthy lobbyists setting policy in parliament.
Just as wealthy lobbyists control US congress today.
They used slavery as an issue to make their opposition to look bad the same way the R/Ds used Impresment/trade to mud sling at Feds.
Ponies do not eat rats. Do you own a velociraptor farm?
A hurricane got the British out of WDC? They weren't going to stay anyway ........... why do you think they torched all the best buildings?
You just make things up. The navy was small because we didn't have the money for it. The Federal government was SMALL. I never said politicians were honest - you made that up.
I'm glad everyone reading this thread can see what you have done.
What does Go north young man refer to?
I think it was worth mentioning that many of the sailors serving on the Americans ships where British subjects. Pay and conditions on American ships was much better than on British ships. Some of the Brits had taken American citizenship, thus, it all got a bit, 'sticky'.
How was this war a "stalemate"? That's like saying the war of Independence was a stalemate, since Britain tried to do something and failed against the Americans and French... America wanted Canada and Britain stopped them.
Surely Britain won this war when you think about it.
"America wanted Canada and Britain stopped them."
Usually when you spout shit this supposed no one can take you seriously. British North America was never the objective of the war. This is denied by even the contemporaries. What was a later war objective for the British was a partial reconquest of the US and the Indian buffer state. I wonder how well the British did in that theater.
"hat's like saying the war of Independence was a stalemate,"
The War of Independence ended with a treaty in which the British were forced to cede the entire west coast to the people they lost militarily. There is a clear difference and its no surprise than a numbskull such as yourself cant grasp it. The treaty of Ghent included no such concession of land. In fact the argument that all the Americans wanted was BNA is detrimental in the face of their own uti possedetis claims being denied in Nov 1814. By the same logic the Americans clearly won, because the British expressed a clear and documented desire for American land.
USMarineRifleman0311 The final result of Ghent, however, was precisely what Britain articulated in 1813. On 26th December 1813, the British government agreed that:
“She is ready to sign a peace with the United States, in a general peace on the status quo ante helium without involving in such Treaty any decision on the points in dispute at the commencement of hostilities.”
Memorandum of Cabinet, December 26th, 1813.
Sound familiar? It should do - this was what the US government so eagerly ratified in 1815. No maritime concessions were made as the treaty omitted the points in dispute at the commencement of hostilities. .
After the defeat of Napoleon Britain was not engaged in a major war until 1914. The original Orders in Council of 1807 were then repeated by the Orders in Council of 1915 - this time prohibiting trade with Germany. US trade with Germany and her allies was cut dead in its tracks. Although howls of protest reverberated around the USA there were no further attempts on Canada.
USMarineRifleman0311
Frank White said "America wanted Canada and Britain stopped them."
You said "Usually when you spout shit this supposed no one can take you seriously."
Any reasonable person does take this seriously. As a small sample take the Official US Proclamations that were plastered over the border.
“Raise not your hands against your brethern, many of your fathers fought for the freedom and Independence we now enjoy Being children therefore of the same family with us, and heirs to the same Heritage, the arrival of an army of Friends must be hailed by you with a cordial welcome, You will be emancipated from Tyranny and oppression and restored to the dignified status of freemen.”
Proclamation, General William Hull, July 1812
“You will enter a country that is to be one of the United States. You will arrive among a people who are to become your fellow citizens. It is not against them that we come to make war. It is against that Government which holds them as vassals.”
Proclamation, 17 November, 1812, Brigadier General Alexander Smyth
What part of these proclamations don't you understand?
USMarineRifleman0311 And you don’t call America’s demand that Upper Canada or even the whole of Canada be transferred to the USA a territorial demand? The USA did demand territory. US history, always mutable, prefers to forget it as it doesn’t accord with airbrushed history. Fortunately the advice given to the US plenipotentiaries by James Monroe is available online.
And the USA was demanding concessions on future revival of the OIC (which regulated American trade with Europe) impressment, violations of territorial waters, breaches of the rules governing naval blockades, and definition of contraband.
These were the very reasons that the USA ostensibly declared war in the first place. In advising the negotiating team at Ghent, James Monroe said of maritime issues that “If this encroachment of Great Britain is not provided against, the United States have appealed to arms in vain.”
The USA had appealed to arms in vain. She failed to conquer Canada - either to annex it or use as leverage to force concessions from Britain - and she consequently abandoned all demands. And this from the nation that declared war in the first place! Republican policy was a complete failure.
Ghent restored territory under terms of status quo antebellum to Britain and the USA. However, that which was salient - the maritime issues - were not even mentioned.
So that means canada has no sovereignity, and is influenced by another nation, which means canada has no culture, while america freed themselves from britain, It shows canada cant stand on its own, while canadians act like there proud, but proud of what.
Well actually the OiC did allow trade.
It was the "fine" that was the problem.
Britain had no legal right to impose such a fine upon anyone but their own ships.
They could Blockade & forbid all trade (Assuming they could enforce it, Napoleon had no power to enforce the BD) but the OiC violated British law.
You have to understand Britain NEEDED trade with Napoleon controlled Europe or their economy would suffer as did the USA during the Embargo.
England was involved against France in the 7 years war and the Americans thought they could simply invade Canada.
The American Navy on Lake Ontario attacked, looted and burned the Upper Canada Legislature in York (now Toronto).
Later the American Army attacked across the Niagara frontier. The British retreated to Burlington Heights (Hamilton Ontario). The American Army of 3,500 camped at Stoney Creek.
In the Night the 750 British & Militia attacked the US Army and captured 2 US Army Generals and in the chaos the American Army was chased back to the Border.
When England defeated France the British Navy then attacked and burned the Presidential Palace which was White-Washed and renamed the White House. The British Navy then bombarded Baltimore Fort Wayne and in the morning Francis Keys noted: "Oh Say Can you See by the Dawn's Early Light that our Flag was Still There..." Most Americans do not know this History?
you guys should put this in one of those epic rap battles of history. or battle in the octagon for a one night only ppv fight to the last word.
You mentioned Hartford Convention for a microsecond in the video. How is that related to War of 1812?
It occurred in relationship to the war, where the Federalists were secretly meeting seeking a peace with their British friends..... thematically it is seen as the nail in the coffin in the Federalists.... who then blossom into young Whigs.
Keith Hughes No offense mate, but in that era international waters meant nothing to my country, we had the strongest navy the world had ever seen, with the largest empire to boot, no one but America or France was really going to be stupid enough to try to fuck us up. Even though we ended up in a tie, things could have gone worse if there had been no hurricane and it would in all likelihood have been ""bye bye America" as a soverign state.
GreenSkylord 200 years later...I get your message.
dude sorry but what are you talking about? i just replied to him here because i could find nowhere else..
GreenSkylord I meant 200 years after the war of 1812. 202 years to be exact. You are projecting nationalism and a bit of hostility for something that occurred 200 years ago.
AWESOME! Love the ticker tape at the bottom of the screen!
Stop the bowing and rising... every time you pop up your hair flies, and one of these times you'll get a heart attack! )Besides, what if you turned into a vampire while you were down? It might scare the kiddies!)
You left out many of the details of the failed US attempt.to invade Canada. But from a US centric point of view... Good job. I'd tell you to take a bow, but you already did that! ;-}'
Shared on my Quora along with Tom's stuff on this.
I am sure more than a few were English too. Bad people do bad things.
Considering the remarkably small size of the US navy, it is of no surprise that the Anti-slave trade law was hard to enforce - yet most historians write that it was Cuba that saw the increase and America a massive decrease.
I'm glad that the Empire Upon Which The Sun Never Sets tried to make up for their slave trade over centuries, but you keep wandering away from the topic of the root causes of the war of 1812.
My question is why Mark Hoppus from Blink 182 is lecturing me about the war of 1812.
During the Napoleonic wars the USA grew to the worlds largest neutral shipper.
The USA became essential middle men for British trade. This relationship caused Madison to fear Britain was taking economic control of the USA.
The Embargo was actually a good plan in principle.
Also its important to note exactly what contraband cargo the British were taking off of US ships which is why southern slave states were so upset about British coming aboard.
1807 was also the year of the Anti slave trade act.
The most popular pro-war slogan was "Free trade and sailor's rights." The video doesn't mention the USS Chesapeake. This was a notorious incident in which the British boarded and impressed men on a U.S. Navy frigate in 1807. This incident was certainly a bigger factor in the decision to go to war than either Native Americans or Canada. After the Republicans lost seats in the 1808 election, the party shifted to a more cautious approach. In the 1810 midterms, the Republicans regained these seats. The success of the War Hawk faction led by Henry Clay showed that war was a winning issue politically. In short, it was all about domestic politics and how to beat the Federalists. There was basically zero preparation, no military buildup, and no serious plan to conquer Canada.
Love the content of this video, one of the best on the War of 1812, but I can't show it to my 9th graders because of the swearing. :-(
You know some people say that the war was a nobody won war. But in my honest opinion America won. Mainly because, event though we didn't take canada like we planned, we still were not taken out. Which kinda solidified and united our young nation.
The British had no intention of a drawn out war with the United States, nor did they have any intention of conquering the United States. What they had was to stop American Aggression into BNA and Canada, which they did.
The US failed to achieve it's military Objectives and though they Sacked York, the capitol of Upper Canada, Washington was it's self Sacked.
To say the US won this war is wrong as they were against a nation which had no interest in destroying them. However they had every interest in conquering Canada.
Thanato Britain intended to impose a harsh peace upon the US, which Britain failed to do.
Well all in all, both nations fought hard so let's give them that.
There is nothing to support the idea that Britain had any harsh intentions toward the USA. America could have had peace at any time just by giving up its ambitions but as it was Britain had to give the USA a serious beating before that would happen.
Eddythebeast666
Check the results of the battles fought in the last year of the war. Britain took the beating and, in spite of the failure of the Treaty of Ghent to mention things like impressment, Britain backed off from its hostile, aggressive behavior towards the US.
Eddy, go to the Wikipedia article on this war and make your argument there in the "talk" section. There is a (in my mind a well-founded) disagreement on the causes of the war, and it's pro-US form (which changed). The dissenters believe it had more to do with expansion than British impressment, tax on trade, etc. No one mentions anything you bring up. I think that is because your reasons are minor if they exist at all.
So go there and present your theory and "fix" the article.
Hughes is right.
Still off-subject, but you completely ignore why most normal individuals opposed slavery - morality.
The success of this law can also be seen against the background of Napoleonic Wars, going on at the time. The French Revolution had originally outlawed slavery, an act which won the admiration of progressives - but in 1802 Napoleon reestablished slavery in Haiti and Guadeloupe, sending troops to both islands to fight the freed slaves and reenslave them.
Thus, the 1807 British law - though outlawing only the slave trade, not slavery itself - won for Britain something of a moral high ground
Fear was a big motivator. The Feds states economy was growing to completely dominate the US which didn't fit in with the Agrarian vision they hoped the USA would grow in to.
A war with Britain & closer ties with France would halt that growth.
There was also the growing push to end slavery.
Or do you think the Southern states wouldn't start a war that might kill huge numbers of Americans to protect their use of slavery?
You guys should read the bully boys it was a very good book about the war of 1812
I understand what you mean by Semantics but there is an important distinction we must make to be honest.
How a war is sold to the public is not a true motive for why a war took place.
That would imply propaganda becomes true once a certain percentage of the population comes to believe it.
Slogans & chants are great for getting the ball rolling to war but when we talking history we have to reflect & question.
The "Why" of this war was Expansion.
Paul Jennings is the enslaved black man who saved the painting
America came waltzing in Canada and we sent em back all beaten and bloody.
Your looking good for being a 200 year old vampire youtuber.
The commentator says that Britain didn’t recognise the naturalisation process. What he doesn’t tell you is what that naturalisation process was.
According to the Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802 US citizenship was based on five years residence probationary period, but money-making scams operated by US notaries, US consuls and US customs officers abounded - where “proof” of naturalisation could be bought at the right price and issued to anyone - no oath required and no questions asked. So even by US standards ‘naturalisation’ was highly suspect. Moreover, is any rational person ready to admit that all those British sailors with certificates had been resident in the USA for five years?
Impressment of British sailors on board American vessels was never sufficient cause for war. After the repeal of the OIC (following much protest on both sides of the Atlantic) the major cause of war was removed. However:
“The practice of impressment, which nobody had ever mentioned as sufficient cause of war, and for which alone congress could ever have been prevailed on to declare war, was now brought forward as a sufficient motive for continuing it, and the armistice was rejected. The war party might then have made peace with the greatest glory. They would have obtained a complete triumph. Their measures would have appeared to be completely successful ; and they would have risen to the pinnacle of popularity. But their secret motives for war were too strong for all these powerful considerations. “
Robert Goodloe Harper , Annapolis, Jan 20th, 1814
And we all know what those not so secret motives were ….
To learn more about the Battle of New Orleans, please visit us at facebook.com/pages/Battle-of-New-Orleans-2015-Bicentennial-Celebration/685146321521544
Anyway the point I was trying to make is that taking Madison who owned over 200 slaves & the other slave owning war hawks words at face value that they wanted a war to fight for sailors rights & pretending there was nothing else that directly effected them being done by Britain that was much more likely to have motivated these guys is kind of...
American
Because Canadians really don't buy in to that.
We tend to laugh a lot at the US version of history.
Do you guys believe every excuse for war?
Americans, so full of themselves!
You rock Keith!
Ok, I understand the BD of 1804 and the OiC of 1807 both forbade trade with the opposing nation to all subjects as well as neutral parties - in a sense both sides (B & F) blockading the other. I also understand that the Democrat-Republican-run states (esp. War Hawks) would like to expand west into the U.S. Territories, possibly Canada, whereas the Federalists cared for none of this "expansion".
Rightish?
(No surprise the reasons are propagandized as defensive ones - esp. in state school tests)
Of course. Duh.
No one but you is talking about that, we are talking about the root causes of the War of 1812 - you keep jumping to other subjects.
Also armydoc everyone knows battles won to battles lost are about even in this war for both sides however when u consider the British fought most of the time away from it's territory and while at the same time defeating the French the American proformance is imbarrassing it failed in it's war aim while the British won there war aim
During the last 7 months of the war, Britain was fighting no one but the US. Britain had a friendly base in Canada so it is a fallacy that Britain was fighting away from its own territory. Britain launched a series of offensive moves against the US in that period in order to force the US into accepting harsh peace terms and failed in doing that.
Bases do not mean that England wasn't fighting away from its country lol all England's war material came from England if the USA won the war of 1812 canada would be the USA it's as simple as that the FACT is the USA lost
Tim Morgan "if the USA won the war of 1812 canada would be the USA"
No this is disputed. Madison would've been forced to give up Canada had it been illegally annexed. Canada was to be held for concessions. Its like saying France would've been Prussian because the Germans won.
So by your theory then the native land still belongs to the native nations and Texas and Cali are Mexico the USA would have annexed and called it the USA there would have been no giving it back to the British lol
USMarineRifleman0311 “No this is disputed. Madison would've been forced to give up Canada had it been illegally annexed. Canada was to be held for concessions." -
Forced to give up Canada? By whom… 12th Congress … public opinion …? The only people who could force US from British North America were the British and their allies. As Donald Hickey observes, there is not a shred of contemporary evidence to suggest that Canada was to be held as ransom for maritime concessions from Britain.
What a mess of a war.
Please avoid cussing so I can show my APUSH class.
Rumps dumpster Colonel Johnson shot Techumpsy!
Did you mean 49-61?
I believe he meant that the house voted 61, and the senate voted 59.
What rhetoric are you talking about? This whole thing started with me asking about root causes - I included the concept of expansion - YOU went off on a tangent, could not back it up, attempted to jump to other subjects (as you continue to do now) and continue to somehow blame me for your own poor reasoning.
Jesus Christ. For a teacher, you'd think you'd know the difference between "your" & "you're". Look at the scrolling text around 2:10
I may or may not have been under the influence of sleep deprivation, I am sorriest.
Impression, lol, that what happen to Andrew Jackson as a young man during the War of Independence.
I missed no point. YOU brought up that the slave trade was a reason for the War of 1812. It was not. Now you are rambling about the industrial revolution & lobbyists. You were wrong and you won't admit it, you just keep typing about something else.
dude your glasses are cool
sooooooo cool
My 14 year old said he cusses too much
at least we know who lost the war, the natives
Americans didn't win it either!! OH CANADA! 🇨🇦, and rule Britannia! 🇬🇧
The Battle of New Orleans. Had the British won, they most certainly would not have turned it back over to America and would have used it to place a stranglehold on the American Economy. The Battle Of New Orleans most certainly turned a tie into an American Victory in the War of 1812.
The United States failed to complete any of its war goals and it reverted into a complete status quo while all the British were doing was keeping the United states from taking territory and keeping the status quo. A complete British victory
Chris Perkins The British won the war of 1812
Tyriol the USA got all its goals. The US goal wasn’t Canada. Britain never gained its goals of land in the USA. So no Britain did not win nor did the USA.
Harry Clark nope it was a draw.
Can you please come to my school and be my instructor?!
Good lord! This is what I said initially and YOU kept pushing the slavery angle! NOW you agree with me that slavery was not a big reason?! Now you bring up the Civil War?? Of course that was about slavery, but we are talking about the root causes of the War of 1812!!
This conversation has jumped the shark.
when american win, the make parties firework and stuff like that. but when they lose never talk about it and never say we lose
BLESS ALL UNITED STATE'S MARINE'S, MILITARY, AIR FORCE'S, U.S.S. AROUND THE WORLD THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PLANET. 📡🏩🕌😇🇺🇸🌎🌍🌏🇺🇸🌗🇬🇧🐦🌱
THANK YOU ALL FOREVER YOUR SERVICE IS APPROPRIATED 📡🍒🌱🐦⭐🐬😇🇺🇸🌎🌍🌏🌗🇬🇧🕌
Yes! You rule sir
he couldnt talk right at the beginning so they put it below, so funny
Good argument on the Northern states growing economy threatening the south. Some sources would help.
Beating your slavery drum is getting old. It's already illegal for international slave trade - heck even your lovely Canada and England still have slavery at this time.
Xcellent!