1812 so who won?

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: makemap

War of 1812 was like Nazi Germany during WW2 when it comes to battles. Fighting too much conflict at once.

That also applies to Britain. Its best troops and commanders were in Spain fighting Napoleon at the time.

Yeah God forbide what Wellington would have done !
Him and his peninsular army could of conquered hell if it had wanted.

originally posted by: Flavian
All sides, for the reasons already posted by many members.

Although, to a lesser extent, does anyone ever really win when family fight? The animosity can't have been too bad as we were back to being friends in next to no time.

I suppose, critically thinking, the real winners were Canada though as it eventually allowed the formation of a nation.

True.

i think Warhawks got abit to ahead of them selfs and wanted a war to show there new nation off.

Still it helped the USA see were its weaknesses were.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: makemap

War of 1812 was like Nazi Germany during WW2 when it comes to battles. Fighting too much conflict at once.

That also applies to Britain. Its best troops and commanders were in Spain fighting Napoleon at the time.

Yeah God forbide what Wellington would have done !
Him and his peninsular army could of conquered hell if it had wanted.

That Peninsular Army was largely Irish (as was Wellington) - wonder if they would have been persuaded to go fight America?

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: makemap

War of 1812 was like Nazi Germany during WW2 when it comes to battles. Fighting too much conflict at once.

That also applies to Britain. Its best troops and commanders were in Spain fighting Napoleon at the time.

Yeah God forbide what Wellington would have done !
Him and his peninsular army could of conquered hell if it had wanted.

That Peninsular Army was largely Irish (as was Wellington) - wonder if they would have been persuaded to go fight America?

Doubt Wellington would.
Sadly he hated his Irish background and even changed his family name to make it sound less Irish.

And for some odd reason his troops were fiercely loyal to him, despite him being abit of a arse hole.

Plus France tried that trick of getting the Irish to turn. Again didn't work.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Bearack

Hard to say with the Navy as we only sent over older small ships.

Our best and biggest ships were deployed in the blockade of France or raiding there trade routes.

So you never really got to see the RN try rely in action.

PS britains power was not wanning in 1812 it was stronger than ever and would remain so till WW1 and was not till WW2 the U.S. truly took over.
We were just distracted with France.

Waning in that their resources were well over stretched in conflicts across the globe. They were still a major power, but financially, they were in desperate times.

a reply to: crazyewok

No one really won so much as neither side had a reason to continue fighting. Not every war has a winner, sometimes both sides lose. If it had continued the UK would have certainly won but no one was really interested in continuing it.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Gold has the value of gold. Gold has never been worthless.

If you were on a desert island, which has value: gold or fresh water?

False dichotomy. Like suggesting food has no value because you also need water and air. Gold is most likely irrelevant to fresh water in that situation.

Gold would make a nice sanitary eating utensil or a distillation mechanism. Gold has inherent value.

Any medium of exchange is fiat currency. Nothing is of fixed value.

Fiat currency has value because the rulers decree that it must be accepted. Currency is a technology that allows wealth to be easily carried and exchanged. Currency can have a direct correspondence to wealth or it can have its value enforced by law. Fiat currency is enforced by law.

Remember the desert island. If I had the ship's fresh water supply, and you had all the gold, who would determine the price of water?

Everybody dies unless the gold can be made into a still.

So no-one has a box of 8 track tapes in the garage they can't get rid of? One of the problems with classical economics is that it is based on the concept of scarcity, whereas the modern economy is based on unlimited consumption. We throw away things that would have been treasured just a few generations ago.

Happens to truth all of the time.

Something is always scarce. If we had every creature comfort provided for free we would still want entertainment or relief from inevitable discomforts. Anything that requires human action is worth paying for.

And new technology makes for new desires.

If supply never exceeded demand, there would be no need of TV commercials, would there? People would demand fifty different brands of toothpaste, and no business would ever fail because demand is limitless. Government programs can become money pits when statesmen are outnumbered by politicians.

Supply assumes a profit is made. There will be nothing supplied when there is no profit in it.

Government has no need of profit and so it is detached from reality. That is why it can claim to solve any problem by decree.

Most historians have the opposite opinion.

Most historians are paid by the Powers That Be and most historians don't know economics.

[In the Great Depression] Banks failed because there was more money in the system than specie. It had nothing to do with how much gold the US had. In fact, the US was on the gold standard at the time.

Banks fail because they loan money that they don't have, other people's money, and those people sometimes want their money back before the loans are repaid.

That and bad investments are the only reasons banks fail.

ETA: What does any of this have to do with the War of 1812 a.k.a. "The Cousins' War?"

"War is the health of the State" -- Randolph Bourne

Banks make big profits from healthy warring governments. Banking is as good a reason as any to explain the cause of a war. The 2nd Bank of the US got most of its support from the effects of the War of 1812.

The 2nd Bank of the US won the War of 1812. It got everything it wanted.

originally posted by: Bearack

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Bearack

Hard to say with the Navy as we only sent over older small ships.

Our best and biggest ships were deployed in the blockade of France or raiding there trade routes.

So you never really got to see the RN try rely in action.

PS britains power was not wanning in 1812 it was stronger than ever and would remain so till WW1 and was not till WW2 the U.S. truly took over.
We were just distracted with France.

Waning in that their resources were well over stretched in conflicts across the globe. They were still a major power, but financially, they were in desperate times.

Not really. After the Napoleonic wars they ended up mopping the world economy up like the USA after worldd war two.

Remember the industrial revolution was just getting going here. And there was india......

Money was not a issue for the UK and infact bank rolled Russia, Prussia and even later on spain to fight the French.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: crazyewok

No one really won so much as neither side had a reason to continue fighting. Not every war has a winner, sometimes both sides lose. If it had continued the UK would have certainly won but no one was really interested in continuing it.

Think that sums it up really.

It was a stupid war started for stupid reasons.

US = Lost
UK = Lost
Canada = Win.

US failed to achieve their stated goals. UK failed to achieve their stated goals.

Canada was able to come into existence in the aftermath.

originally posted by: peck420
US = Lost
UK = Lost
Canada = Win.

US failed to achieve their stated goals. UK failed to achieve their stated goals.

Canada was able to come into existence in the aftermath.

Thats the thing though.

UK didn't really have any stated goals except to defend canada.
We didnt want the war in the first place as we had bigger fish to fry.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: makemap

War of 1812 was like Nazi Germany during WW2 when it comes to battles. Fighting too much conflict at once.

That also applies to Britain. Its best troops and commanders were in Spain fighting Napoleon at the time.

Back then it was Quantity > Quality. A gun can kill your best commander. It wasn't just sword fights anymore nor there was any high tech stuff like Tanks or Armored Vehicles(WW2)

Britain had more allies than ever during Napoleon War. It was directly opposite for Napolean. He had no allies at all, made too much enemies in a rush. Even the Russians were helping Britain.

As far as best Quality goes, it was the sea battles that made a major difference. Why Napoleon couldn't invade Britain.

Wellington said it was a draw. America was not really after any land, they wanted to prevent a native American state, which they did, and they got most of what they wanted.

It's really more a draw than anything though.

a reply to: crazyewok

The International Banking families won. They don't profess to have a nationality, because they believe the world is theirs.

Everyone knows the war of 1812 was for oil.

So Haliburton 'won'.

originally posted by: neo96
Everyone knows the war of 1812 was for oil.

So Haliburton 'won'.

That ***t made me laugh, I'm not sure if it is ironic funny or I'm just that cynical but it really did make me laugh.

originally posted by: neo96
Everyone knows the war of 1812 was for oil.

So Haliburton 'won'.

Not obamas fault?

originally posted by: neo96
Everyone knows the war of 1812 was for oil.

So Haliburton 'won'.

No, Big Whaling did.

originally posted by: Brotherman
The Native Americans were the ones that lost the most. Without the UK backing them up Americans could expand westward with little to no resistance.

This is the real answer, neither lost. The US gave up on owning the whole continent when they realized fighting natives to the west was easier and more profitable.

The US didnt expect any resistance since they won the war of independence, yet loyalists were still around ready to die for a far off king. The U.S. didnt want to waste resources where it wasnt needed. If the brit population "now Canadians" wanted to be British still they would not stop them provided they wouldnt try any bs. So Canada was born.

"Sorry for invading guys, here ill let you burn down my whitehouse for good measure if you just leave." After that we worked together to destroy the natives.

a reply to: crazyewok

We had the British on the run.