I do not believe it is silly that we have this discussion 200 hundred years later, I believe it is a interesting subject that all good people of good will can have a rational discussion about. The other important reason is that we can all maybe can learn something from the discussion. As you pointed out, it depended on who wrote the history of the events that determined who won or who lost. As to my mentioning Canada/British, there were large numbers of volunteer fencible regiments raised in Canada, these were not professional soldiers like the British. I believe this an important point since it demonstrated that the settlers in Canada did not wish to be conquered by the Americans. Another historical point is that many of these fencibles were originally from America that left after the American Revolution. In Canada they were called United Empire Loyalist who came to Canada following the revolution because of threat to their liberty and safety ( they were on the loosing side in the revolution). I agree the Natives were the big loosers, especially in the America, in Canada they were given sanctury and treaties, which they have to this day. But even in Canada they did not win much. Canada did not win independence from Britain by revolution although there were some rebellions that pushed Britain to give more self rule to Canada. As a Canadian I am proud of the fact that we achieved our independence in a rather peaceful maner. Cheers, Joe from Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Gaddis" <rongaddis@neb.rr.com> To: <WARof1812-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 10:28 PM Subject: [WARof1812] Winner-Loser & Causes > It is a bit silly that after nearly 200 years are we still debating over > who > won this war. > > In this "current exchange", I think no one has recognized that neither > side > really won much of anything....not the Brits nor the Yanks. The gain for > both > sides was mainly psychological and whipped up by the leaders who felt > obliged > to point out that there really were advantages reaped by making the > sacrifices > endured. > > Too, this seems a fitting example of the glass half-full or half-empty > situation. > > While there were no real winners (or if you wish...two winners, each in > their > own ways), there is no doubt that there was a big loser, the Native > Americans. > > Has someone already mentioned that the US felt the control of the entire > area > then known as the "Northwestern Territory", gained from Great Britain > during > the Revolutionary War, was under threat of being controlled again by the > British? It seems the Brits enjoyed very profitable trade (furs etc.) > with the > Indians of that region and knew this trade would be lost if the area was > settled. It was claimed, that the Indians were furnished with weapons by > the > British and encouraged to rise up against the settlers in order to prolong > the > prosperity derived from the trade. So, the Native Americans were allied > with > the British, for the most part, and while they did win some battles and > help > win some others, their participation in the fights gave perfect excuse to > completely subjugate them when, in the final analysis, they were soundly > defeated. > > I am not sure why a current day Canadian would distinguish between > Canadian > forces and those of Great Britain during the War of 1812? Today there is > a > difference between Canadian and British. However, back in those days, > "Canadians" were out and out British subjects to a dimension not felt at > all > today in a country that is completely self-ruled and has been for a number > of > years. Canada did not rebel against the Crown. We in the USA did that. Is > the > distinction made between local British citizens/subjects in a militia as > opposed to regular British troops from the homeland? > > One list member reported that many Americans (here meaning citizens of the > U.S.A.) were living in certain portions of Canada at the time? Were they > just > visiting in Canada? Working there in 1812? Were they American > sympathizers? > Were they considered foreigners waiting to become British subjects again? > There > were many Loyalists who decided to move to locations where their prior > political choices were unknown after the Revolutionary War. They were on > the > losing side and feared or knew that neighbors would not always be > completely > kind to them. Some went to other states or territories within the US and > some > chose to go to Canada where they would not have to conceal their former > sympathies. > > The burnings apparently started with the Yanks who burned some British > government buildings in the British center of government in Canada (was it > York?), as I recall. But the burning thing seemed to be mainly of forts > on the > part of both sides in the land struggle. I understood that Its original > purpose was not to punish necessarily, but in the case where one side > could not > permanently occupy the fort of the other they burned it to destroy the > defenses > (and shelter for militants) so that the enemy would be forced to withdraw > from > the area. One situation comes to mind (I forget the exact location up > around > Niagara) where the US had captured a Fort on the Canada side and after > some > time began to run out of supplies in the face of a hard winter. They felt > no > choice except to withdraw (abandon, retreat from) the fort and did not > simply > wish to turn it back over to the opposition....so, they burned it. > > Where it got nasty was when, on either side, the burning seemed to get out > of > hand and result in burning down a whole town, leaving even non-combatant > families homeless and at the mercy of the harsh weather. Are there "good" > burnings and "bad" burnings? > > One would tend to think that all burnings are bad. > > Another list member said that the war seems to have been mainly a sea war. > That seems to me to be inaccurate. Indeed, it was both a sea war and a > land > war. I was surprised to learn that the battles of the navies were so > important > on the Lakes although now it is evident that whoever controlled the Lakes > had > an overwhelming advantage in terms of moving troops and supplies as well > as > bombarding shore installations. However, there were many battles on land. > > I have read accounts that lauded the US Navy as having pretty well held > its own > against the awesome and powerful British Navy, which at the time is said > to > have "dominated the seas"...not just over the US, but all of Europe. > Again, it > is the glass half-full. US officials said that the US affirmed itself as > a > sea power to be reckoned with by what it was able to do with its tiny > navy. > > On the land, one should not think that it was only the US who tried to > invade > Great Britain's Canadian Territory. The British also tried to invade our > territory. As best I can assess, both sides seemed to fight more > effectively > against invaders and have less confidence and determination when it came > to > invading the other side. Often advantage seems to be gained only to stop > forward progress and hesitate to regroup, eventually losing the advantage > gained and feeling (often wrongly) that they were forced by the situation > to > retreat. Partially as a result of this, I was surprised at the number of > battles which appear to be "get in and plunder and leave". I put the > Washington and Baltimore invasions in that category. I find nothing to > brag > about or take pride in for this kind of wanton destruction by whatever > side > might achieve it. > > Genocide? I guess I am unaware of instances of this on either side. > Sounds a > bit harsh, but since war is hell, I would be reluctant to deny that it > happened. > > One thing I learned rather quickly in studying the War of 1812 is that if > you > wish to really know about a specific battle, you need to try and read the > accounts rendered by both combatants, if possible. They will not be the > same. > One sides heros and military geniuses can be declared as blunders or > stupid > leaders by the other side. It is not just the war that folks dispute as > to who > won or lost...it applies to the battles also. Fled in panic retreat can > be > stated as a purposeful decision to effect an orderly withdrawal. We beat > them > back with withering firing when described from the other viewpoint can be > recorded as a command decision to press the attack in a different sector. > At > times the leaders on one side who are cited as performing brilliantly and > courageously are not even mentioned by the other side as having commanded > any > major element of the enemies forces. One may even wonder if both accounts > are > really describing the same battle. > > > ==== WARof1812 Mailing List ==== > WAR of 1812 LIST ADMINISTRATOR > <<<commander@sunlitsurf.com>>> > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx > >

You might contact the War of 1812 Society in Illinois; their web site has a listing of the American Prisoners of War that died at Dartmoor Prison: http://my.execpc.com/~sril/dartmoor/1812apow.htm Scott Baker -----Original Message----- From: CHG33@aol.com [mailto:CHG33@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:32 AM To: WARof1812-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [WARof1812] St. Michael's Church and Dartmoor Prison/England I am in search of someone to speak at a meeting in Washington DC in April about St. Michael's Church in England that was built by the men in Dartmoor Prison during the War of 1812. Any leads would be most helpful. Thank you. Connie Grund ==== WARof1812 Mailing List ==== WAR of 1812 LIST ADMINISTRATOR <<<commander@sunlitsurf.com>>> ============================== New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&ta rgetid=5429

I am in search of someone to speak at a meeting in Washington DC in April about St. Michael's Church in England that was built by the men in Dartmoor Prison during the War of 1812. Any leads would be most helpful. Thank you. Connie Grund

I am the ggg-granddaughter of Simon Girty-who I have learned some things about and also the ggg-grandaughter of James Daniel Klingensmith who is from Pa. and drowned in the Maumee River by Ft. Meigs. He is buried at the Fort under the monument that looks like a casket- I believe. That is all I know about him. I can't seem to find him anywhere. I am also related to the Munger's that farmed that land where the Fort is. Anyone know about John? Thanks, Kim

In a message dated 12/15/04 6:25:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, smclean@deadsquid.com writes: > Huzzah for history! The course of history always depends upon where you stand to view it. Books written close to the War of 1812 period were notoriously biased; e.g., British James and American Cooper. Later the "official " British Naval history of the period would be written by a young American, Teddy Roosevelt. 1. From where I stand the underlying cause of the War of 1812 was money. The British mercantile interests wanted to drive the American upstarts from the lucrative trade that belonged to Britain before the American Revolution. The US interests resisted All of the other reasons stated by the US for war were only the acceptable cover and allowed congress to vote for the War; i.e., westward expansion, annex Britain's Canadian colony, impressment, etc. 2. Canada could not have won the War, they were only a British colony. Actually, no one "won" 3. The British could have won the war if it has not been for their "problems" with France and Napoleon 4. The war ended when the same British mercantile interests were losing too much money because of the continuing war. 5. The British did rule the waves where they could use their naval resources. See #3 above. 6. In spite of my #5 above the US "super" Frigates and everyday Brigs/Ships scored some serious victories. 7. The U.S. won, not the war, but the peace. Trade improved. In spite of the initial political split, the states united against a common enemy and the Federal government was significantly strengthened. 8. Unfortunately the war of 1812 also illustrated weakness in our governmental system that would eventually lead to our Civil War between the States. Barry Ketner ...continuing the search for Joseph Edward Smoot.

It is a bit silly that after nearly 200 years are we still debating over who won this war. In this "current exchange", I think no one has recognized that neither side really won much of anything....not the Brits nor the Yanks. The gain for both sides was mainly psychological and whipped up by the leaders who felt obliged to point out that there really were advantages reaped by making the sacrifices endured. Too, this seems a fitting example of the glass half-full or half-empty situation. While there were no real winners (or if you wish...two winners, each in their own ways), there is no doubt that there was a big loser, the Native Americans. Has someone already mentioned that the US felt the control of the entire area then known as the "Northwestern Territory", gained from Great Britain during the Revolutionary War, was under threat of being controlled again by the British? It seems the Brits enjoyed very profitable trade (furs etc.) with the Indians of that region and knew this trade would be lost if the area was settled. It was claimed, that the Indians were furnished with weapons by the British and encouraged to rise up against the settlers in order to prolong the prosperity derived from the trade. So, the Native Americans were allied with the British, for the most part, and while they did win some battles and help win some others, their participation in the fights gave perfect excuse to completely subjugate them when, in the final analysis, they were soundly defeated. I am not sure why a current day Canadian would distinguish between Canadian forces and those of Great Britain during the War of 1812? Today there is a difference between Canadian and British. However, back in those days, "Canadians" were out and out British subjects to a dimension not felt at all today in a country that is completely self-ruled and has been for a number of years. Canada did not rebel against the Crown. We in the USA did that. Is the distinction made between local British citizens/subjects in a militia as opposed to regular British troops from the homeland? One list member reported that many Americans (here meaning citizens of the U.S.A.) were living in certain portions of Canada at the time? Were they just visiting in Canada? Working there in 1812? Were they American sympathizers? Were they considered foreigners waiting to become British subjects again? There were many Loyalists who decided to move to locations where their prior political choices were unknown after the Revolutionary War. They were on the losing side and feared or knew that neighbors would not always be completely kind to them. Some went to other states or territories within the US and some chose to go to Canada where they would not have to conceal their former sympathies. The burnings apparently started with the Yanks who burned some British government buildings in the British center of government in Canada (was it York?), as I recall. But the burning thing seemed to be mainly of forts on the part of both sides in the land struggle. I understood that Its original purpose was not to punish necessarily, but in the case where one side could not permanently occupy the fort of the other they burned it to destroy the defenses (and shelter for militants) so that the enemy would be forced to withdraw from the area. One situation comes to mind (I forget the exact location up around Niagara) where the US had captured a Fort on the Canada side and after some time began to run out of supplies in the face of a hard winter. They felt no choice except to withdraw (abandon, retreat from) the fort and did not simply wish to turn it back over to the opposition....so, they burned it. Where it got nasty was when, on either side, the burning seemed to get out of hand and result in burning down a whole town, leaving even non-combatant families homeless and at the mercy of the harsh weather. Are there "good" burnings and "bad" burnings? One would tend to think that all burnings are bad. Another list member said that the war seems to have been mainly a sea war. That seems to me to be inaccurate. Indeed, it was both a sea war and a land war. I was surprised to learn that the battles of the navies were so important on the Lakes although now it is evident that whoever controlled the Lakes had an overwhelming advantage in terms of moving troops and supplies as well as bombarding shore installations. However, there were many battles on land. I have read accounts that lauded the US Navy as having pretty well held its own against the awesome and powerful British Navy, which at the time is said to have "dominated the seas"...not just over the US, but all of Europe. Again, it is the glass half-full. US officials said that the US affirmed itself as a sea power to be reckoned with by what it was able to do with its tiny navy. On the land, one should not think that it was only the US who tried to invade Great Britain's Canadian Territory. The British also tried to invade our territory. As best I can assess, both sides seemed to fight more effectively against invaders and have less confidence and determination when it came to invading the other side. Often advantage seems to be gained only to stop forward progress and hesitate to regroup, eventually losing the advantage gained and feeling (often wrongly) that they were forced by the situation to retreat. Partially as a result of this, I was surprised at the number of battles which appear to be "get in and plunder and leave". I put the Washington and Baltimore invasions in that category. I find nothing to brag about or take pride in for this kind of wanton destruction by whatever side might achieve it. Genocide? I guess I am unaware of instances of this on either side. Sounds a bit harsh, but since war is hell, I would be reluctant to deny that it happened. One thing I learned rather quickly in studying the War of 1812 is that if you wish to really know about a specific battle, you need to try and read the accounts rendered by both combatants, if possible. They will not be the same. One sides heros and military geniuses can be declared as blunders or stupid leaders by the other side. It is not just the war that folks dispute as to who won or lost...it applies to the battles also. Fled in panic retreat can be stated as a purposeful decision to effect an orderly withdrawal. We beat them back with withering firing when described from the other viewpoint can be recorded as a command decision to press the attack in a different sector. At times the leaders on one side who are cited as performing brilliantly and courageously are not even mentioned by the other side as having commanded any major element of the enemies forces. One may even wonder if both accounts are really describing the same battle.

I just recently learned my ggggrandfather, Jean Baptiste Courture's son Jean Baptiste, Jr. was in the War of 1812. Apparently he was living at River Raisin, Michigan Territory and was killed sometime between Jan 18 and 23, 1813. He was a Captain of the Militia and Residents of the Rivier Raisin. I assume he was fighting against the British. I would be interested to learn more about this part of the country at that time. If anyone has any idea's on where I might obtain reading material or online material I would appreciate it. I have been following everyone's perspective on the War and who won. All I can say is that I live near the St. Lawrence River in NY and had both sides of my ancestry participating in the War. Many people along river were related to each other and traveled back and forth and trade goods. Most hated the idea of War. Thanks for listening and any help is appreciated. Gary, Canton, St. Law. Co., NY > ==== WARof1812 Mailing List ==== > NEW WAR OF 1812 LIST MEMBERS > are encouraged to post your > queries to our list anytime. > > ============================== > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx > > >

Hello: I am new to this list and could use some advice. My 4xgr.grandfather was Thomas N. Adams, born 1771 in DE. His tombstone lists him as a War of 1812 veteran, he died 12 July 1875 in Clinton Co., OH. Can anyone tell me where to find information on him in the war? Any help gratefully appreciated, Shari in Ohio

As a Canadian with an GGGrandfather who was a soldier in the 1812 War on the Canada / British side I believe Canada/Britain won the war. The war ended with Canada's borders intact, and the Americans having a healthy respect for their northern neighbours. I believe the most important evidence is the fact that no further attacks on Canada were carried out in Canada following 1814. In fact, the USA alerted Canada to an attempt by the Fenians ( Irishman in the US ) to attack and take over Canada following the American Civil War. I believe America realized that the cost to take Canada met a nasty war with Britain, Canada and the Indian allies without any guarantee of success. This of course has proved mutually beneficial to Canada and America with trade and good relations throughout the years that have followed and to this day. Joe in Ontario, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rose Jobe Unrue" <runrue@zoominternet.net> To: <WARof1812-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:08 PM Subject: [WARof1812] More about the War >>>>>>My take on WHO WON revolves around achievement of set goals. The US >>>>>>goal > was to conquer Canada and the British goal was to prevent this. The US > ended the war in the last quarter of 1814 fighting a defensive action on > their own soil, thus not achieving any of their original goals, in fact > facing the real delemma of loosing their country (however, this was never > a > British goal). By 1815, the US lacked the funds to continue the war, and > the British must have been strained financially as well after many years > fighting Napoleon > > What about the Orders in Council? That was much of the problem. Those > were rescinded, albeit too late to stop the War. What about British > impressment? It stopped. While it is true that the "War Hawks" in our > Congress wanted to take Canada, most people weren't in favor of that. > They were mad about the trade issues and the impressment. > > Rose in KY > > > ==== WARof1812 Mailing List ==== > UNSUBSCRIPTION DIRECTIONS > Warof1812-L-request@rootsweb.com UNSUBSCRIBE <as subject> > Warof1812-D-request@rootsweb.com UNSUBSCRIBE <as subject> > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >

the British must have been strained financially as well after many years fighting Napoleon Yes, this may be true, but they also had a large, well trained, battle-hardened army (and navy) who were no longer fully occupied in Europe. It would not have been difficult to transfer this force to North America. The British regulars garrisoned there had already proved themselves more than a match for the American forces. Had the war continued, and that military force been focused on the United States, the war would have gone on longer with much different results. However, the war ended. And now we have a great time re-enacting it, then afterward, happily sharing good times with "the enemy". Huzzah for history! And for those who share a passion for it! -- Sue McLean smaclean@deadsquid.com

Who started this notion that the War of 1812 was an extension of the American Revolution? Whatever the origin of the idea, it's a stretch. To the extent that the United States fought to gain respect for its sovereignty and the territorial settlement of the Revolution by Britain, it did put a close to issues, but it was hardly a continuation of the Revolution. The U.S. jumped in while the Brits were distracted with their war against France in hopes of taking Canada. As to who won, I concur with Murray's assessment of "achieved goals." The U.S. did not wrest Canada away from the Crown. However, I'd add to the U.S. objectives the cessation of impressment of our sailors by the British on the high seas AND an end to encroachments on the American Northwest Territories -- and British encouragement of Native American attacks on American settlers in that area. These aims were achieved. I think the best face the U.S. can put on it is, "we didn't lose." Roger

>>>>>My take on WHO WON revolves around achievement of set goals. The US goal was to conquer Canada and the British goal was to prevent this. The US ended the war in the last quarter of 1814 fighting a defensive action on their own soil, thus not achieving any of their original goals, in fact facing the real delemma of loosing their country (however, this was never a British goal). By 1815, the US lacked the funds to continue the war, and the British must have been strained financially as well after many years fighting Napoleon What about the Orders in Council? That was much of the problem. Those were rescinded, albeit too late to stop the War. What about British impressment? It stopped. While it is true that the "War Hawks" in our Congress wanted to take Canada, most people weren't in favor of that. They were mad about the trade issues and the impressment. Rose in KY

Great Site Todd, My family history, during the War of 1812 in Niagara, may not be that unique, but bears telling none the less. Two sons, John McCombs (aka Maccomb), and Samuel are found enrolled in the 1st Lincoln Militia, 2nd Flank Company from the beginning of the war. A third son Michael, then 12 years old is surmised to have run ammunition for this company. They fought in every major engagement and fought as rear guards during the British evacuation from Fort George in 1813. It is known from John's journals that he returned with British flank, and Merritt's Dragoons to harrass the enemy, joining Lt. Col Bisshop's command, and present at the "burning and baking" of Buffalo. The sons father, Timothy was indicted for high treason for actions in Niagara under American occupation (I published accounts of discovered orginal Assize Court scrolls, in the Niagara Historical Society a few years ago) and the remaining family evacuated with the American troops in 1813. The three sons remained in Upper Canada after the war to remain Loyal to the Crown. My take on WHO WON revolves around achievement of set goals. The US goal was to conquer Canada and the British goal was to prevent this. The US ended the war in the last quarter of 1814 fighting a defensive action on their own soil, thus not achieving any of their orginal goals, in fact facing the real delemma of loosing their country (however, this was never a British goal). By 1815, the US lacked the funds to continue the war, and the British must have been strained financially as well after many years fighting Napoleon. I disagree with the statement that the British controlled the oceans. The British navy were loosing badly up to the HMS Sannon under Capt Broke, defeating the USS Chesapeak under Capt. Lawrence. However most of the US ocean navy was bottled up in port by blockade in the later war. This would have direct help for the US achievments for their Lake navy, as per Perry's victory 1813, and Lake Champlain victory at the Battle of Plattsburgh 1814, as trained ship crews moved to this theatre. Just my two cents Murray From: "Todd Humber" <todd.humber@sympatico.ca> To: WARof1812-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <001a01c4e241$d0be2390$8ab1fea9@Humber1> Subject: Re: [WARof1812] re: Extension of Rev. War? C I'm finding this debate around the War of 1812 fascinating. I'm a bit loathe to plug my own site, but since it's not there to make money, if you're interested in reading about the War of 1812 from a Canadian perspective and, in particular, the exploits of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock, check out http://www.generalbrock.com. Thanks, - Todd Webmaster General Brock.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

It's nice to see so many people getting involved in this discussion. It shows us all that no matter how much education and learning we have we all need to learn more. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana Sadly considering that in the past 2,000 years. there has been only about 10 years of worldwide peace we need to learn a whole lot more. We haven't done too well up to now. Lists like this help us all to understand more about each other. Or at least it shows us how easy it is to take sides :-))) As I said I am Canadian. . . (and a bit of; English, Welsh, Scottish, American, French, German etc. and I married a gal who is part Iroquois) I'm also a opinionated -conservative -middle aged -self employed -straight -white -Anglo -Saxon -protestant - non smoker/ non drinking/non drug/non- steroid user & 100% plastic surgery free male who is still married to his first wife. . So I guess I'm a minority too. :-)) Nelson.

I'm finding this debate around the War of 1812 fascinating. I'm a bit loathe to plug my own site, but since it's not there to make money, if you're interested in reading about the War of 1812 from a Canadian perspective and, in particular, the exploits of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock, check out http://www.generalbrock.com. Thanks, - Todd Webmaster General Brock.com

American, Canadians and British all have an opinion on who won the war of 1812, and I suppose it is mainly based on where you come from that mainly forms your opinion. As a Canadian with a GGGrandfather in the war, I believe Canada ( Britain) won. Canada's boundaries were intact, and that is an important point since the forces in Canada were small compared to the size of the American forces. I say this respectfully but what did the American forces win. Canada(Britain) held it's own and gained respect on the battle field. The forces demonstrated that they could go to the Capital. and of course burned the Whitehouse. A mutual respect was learned by all sides, but at the end of the day Canada remained under British control and all forces returned to their own country with lessons learned. Britain strengthened it's military in Canada, and plans were made to fortify against future attacks. A couple of examples are the Rideau Canal and Old Fort Henry. My family is here in Canada because of the 1812 war, after the war ended in 1814, my GGGrandfather was granted land. Respectfully, Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: <REPAGE@aol.com> To: <WARof1812-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [WARof1812] re: Extension of Rev. War? > In a message dated 12/14/2004 4:01:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, > runrue@zoominternet.net writes: > > >> I suppose I'll have to "weigh in" here. I don't want to make anyone upset >> with me. I am an American and I do know the facts as well. >> I imagine that in England, Canada and the U.S., there are those people >> who >> love history and learn it and there are those people who do not. All of >> us >> know really intellegent people who know nothing about a subject, be it >> geography, math, photography, history or whatever. >> I know there are MANY Americans who know very little about the War of >> 1812. >> But, does that naturally follow that most everyone in England or Canada >> DOES?? I don't think so. I recognize that there are many different >> perspectives in any situation, and certainly, war would have more than >> most. >> I learned in history that what gave the "War Hawks" in Congress the power >> to >> push us into war was the impressment of American sailors into the British >> navy. While there were those persons who wanted war with Great Britain >> because they wanted to take Canada, it would not have moved forward >> without >> the impressment. It is true that all bids for Canada were lost. It is >> true >> that the battle of New Orleans was fought in January of 1815, and the >> peace >> had been signed weeks before that. It is also true that when war was >> declared, the Orders in Council in Parliment had already been repealed. >> Both matters of slow communication. It is true that Great Britain had >> not >> been sending their top of the line soldiers. It is true that the >> soldiers >> who fought at the battle of New Orleans were top of the line, but tired >> because of the fighting in Europe. Which is why they lost, maybe, to >> Andrew >> Jackson. But.... >> Whichever way you slice, Great Britain said UNCLE. We all know that if >> you >> forfeit, for whatever reason, you lose. Impressment stopped. Free trade >> began again. >> This is the way I see it. Just another perspective. >> >> Rose Jobe Unrue >> > > > Let me add that I don't know if the British units involved in the battle > for > Washington were "mostly Canadian" or not, but I do know that the American > forces they faced in their push across the Anacostia River to take > Washington were > preteen cadets from the local military academy and some sailors who were > across the road at the Anacostia Harbormaster's house. The building that > housed > those young lads is now my local branch of the county library system. The > spring > where the British forces set up their triage and camped before moving back > to > Lower Marlboro to reboard their ships is about 4 blocks from my house. Two > of > my sons spent the summer of 1986 making the site of the spring head into a > mini-park. > > Bob > Robert Evans Page > "... comes from a long line of dead men." > Lawrence Block > > > ==== WARof1812 Mailing List ==== > WAR of 1812 LIST ADMINISTRATOR > <<<commander@sunlitsurf.com>>> > > ============================== > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx > >

One more Opinion !! I have great respect for Canadians and the Canadian Government. As an American I am also proud of my country and it's flag. My Maternal Ggrandparents in Maine removed to Nova Scotia at the onset of hostilities. They did not want to be disloyal to the Crown. When hostilities ceased one brother stayed in Nova Scotia, one returned to Maine the other settled on Cape Cod. I am proud of the ones that went to Nova Scotia and did not fight. On the other hand my Paternal ancestors fought Cornwallis all over North Carolina, In fact my Ggrandfather was a Captain in the North Carolina Militia, along with several brothers and nephews. Naturally I am proud of the stand that they took . I am also glad that they did not come in contact with each other. There is a real possibility that one could have killed the other. The fact that I am righting this is proof enough for me. I am just glad to have the opportunity to say that there is really no difference in a Canadian and an American. Doug:

In a message dated 12/14/2004 4:01:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, runrue@zoominternet.net writes: > I suppose I'll have to "weigh in" here. I don't want to make anyone upset > with me. I am an American and I do know the facts as well. > I imagine that in England, Canada and the U.S., there are those people who > love history and learn it and there are those people who do not. All of us > know really intellegent people who know nothing about a subject, be it > geography, math, photography, history or whatever. > I know there are MANY Americans who know very little about the War of 1812. > But, does that naturally follow that most everyone in England or Canada > DOES?? I don't think so. I recognize that there are many different > perspectives in any situation, and certainly, war would have more than most. > I learned in history that what gave the "War Hawks" in Congress the power to > push us into war was the impressment of American sailors into the British > navy. While there were those persons who wanted war with Great Britain > because they wanted to take Canada, it would not have moved forward without > the impressment. It is true that all bids for Canada were lost. It is true > that the battle of New Orleans was fought in January of 1815, and the peace > had been signed weeks before that. It is also true that when war was > declared, the Orders in Council in Parliment had already been repealed. > Both matters of slow communication. It is true that Great Britain had not > been sending their top of the line soldiers. It is true that the soldiers > who fought at the battle of New Orleans were top of the line, but tired > because of the fighting in Europe. Which is why they lost, maybe, to Andrew > Jackson. But.... > Whichever way you slice, Great Britain said UNCLE. We all know that if you > forfeit, for whatever reason, you lose. Impressment stopped. Free trade > began again. > This is the way I see it. Just another perspective. > > Rose Jobe Unrue > Let me add that I don't know if the British units involved in the battle for Washington were "mostly Canadian" or not, but I do know that the American forces they faced in their push across the Anacostia River to take Washington were preteen cadets from the local military academy and some sailors who were across the road at the Anacostia Harbormaster's house. The building that housed those young lads is now my local branch of the county library system. The spring where the British forces set up their triage and camped before moving back to Lower Marlboro to reboard their ships is about 4 blocks from my house. Two of my sons spent the summer of 1986 making the site of the spring head into a mini-park. Bob Robert Evans Page "... comes from a long line of dead men." Lawrence Block

I suppose I'll have to "weigh in" here. I don't want to make anyone upset with me. I am an American and I do know the facts as well. I imagine that in England, Canada and the U.S., there are those people who love history and learn it and there are those people who do not. All of us know really intellegent people who know nothing about a subject, be it geography, math, photography, history or whatever. I know there are MANY Americans who know very little about the War of 1812. But, does that naturally follow that most everyone in England or Canada DOES?? I don't think so. I recognize that there are many different perspectives in any situation, and certainly, war would have more than most. I learned in history that what gave the "War Hawks" in Congress the power to push us into war was the impressment of American sailors into the British navy. While there were those persons who wanted war with Great Britain because they wanted to take Canada, it would not have moved forward without the impressment. It is true that all bids for Canada were lost. It is true that the battle of New Orleans was fought in January of 1815, and the peace had been signed weeks before that. It is also true that when war was declared, the Orders in Council in Parliment had already been repealed. Both matters of slow communication. It is true that Great Britain had not been sending their top of the line soldiers. It is true that the soldiers who fought at the battle of New Orleans were top of the line, but tired because of the fighting in Europe. Which is why they lost, maybe, to Andrew Jackson. But.... Whichever way you slice, Great Britain said UNCLE. We all know that if you forfeit, for whatever reason, you lose. Impressment stopped. Free trade began again. This is the way I see it. Just another perspective. Rose Jobe Unrue Kentucky USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Waggener" <sequoia@pacbell.net> To: <WARof1812-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [WARof1812] re: Extension of Rev. War? > I also would like to thank you Nelson. I found it very refreshing to read > your "different" and broader perspective on the War of 1812. I personally > joined this list in the hope of possibly learning anything else I could > about the service of my g-g-grandfather, who I know as a 17 year old, served > for 6 months out of Camp Holly in Virginia at the end of the war. Since I > have had a hard time learning much of anything about his service, almost > anything about the war is of interest. Although I know the general "facts" > of the war and the general picture, I have never had a particularly deep > understanding of the real dynamics of the time and the conflict. > > Although I personally have a number of Canadian ancestors, and even more > English ancestors, I am an American. Generally speaking, I would say that > Americans know and understand little about the War of 1812. There is a > general perception that we "won" the war because we somehow defeated the > British, but that's really about the extent of the picture. Clearly the > reality was much more complicated, and the perception that evolved was > different from the perception at the time. Any insight into the life of my > g-g-grandfather and the world he lived in is of interest to me. > > Rick Waggener > Walnut Creek, California > > > ==== WARof1812 Mailing List ==== > WAR OF 1812 QUERY BOARD > http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/genbbs.cgi/USWARS/War1812/General > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >

I just read your post! That was wonderful. Thank you for writing it. History is so often rewritten as it is today - right before our eyes. That period of time has always fascinated me. Coral Barker Allbee My great grandfather was from Vermont and one of my great great grandfathers was born in Canada although they were from Mass. My understanding is that they went there for land not to escape the War issue. I keep learning more and that too is why I joined this site.