Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The British defeat in America -
Herc the Merc    5/29/2007 8:27:07 PM
Perhaps one of the few major wars lost by Britain and that too in its own territory with vast ties by blood. How is the American war potrayed in English history books-- a civil war, liberation war, anarchy???? Its perhaps odd that Britain lost America, one of its few territories that it had connections with in bloodline. Even Britain and India parted ways with a handshake and cup of tea. The Yanks broke the tea crates in Boston Harbor and had bloody good fight.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39   NEXT
Ehran       7/6/2007 1:31:52 PM

Who won Wo1812? The US attained its goals. Stopped British interference with American sea trade and the impressment of American Sailors. Stopped British support for the Amerindian tribes in the Northwest territories. Britain failed in its goals of re subjugating the "Colonials" vis-a-vis trade and foreign policy and was deprived of a "free" source of English speaking sailors for its warships. Happy Fourth of July!


the war of 1812 achieved one thing off your list only.  it got the british to renege on their treaties with some of the indian tribes.  interference with trade or more accurately smuggling ended with the war with france as did the impressment issue.  the war in north america had little if any effect on those things.
britains goals in the war of 1812 were pretty minimal.  push the americans back across the border into their own country being pretty much the only goal. 
 
trying to portray the war of 1812 as an american victory really calls for some heavy duty revisionism.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       7/6/2007 1:34:54 PM

. The British regrouped at Halifax, Nova Scotia, marshaled their largest seaborne
force prior to the twentieth century, and seized New York City (15
September 1776).


you do realize pseudo that link does absolutely nothing to advance your argument.  it's merely a definition of word seaborne.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       7/6/2007 1:40:41 PM



you are confusing my comments on 1812 with this thread. the British tried very hard to win the AWI. they did not put anywhere like the resources they could do into the 1812 war.

 

Paul

even in the war of independance the british never put anything like their full weight into it.  the purse strings were always tight and there simply was no enthusiasm for the war on the part of the british public.  when king george sent hessian reg't from his holdings there english public opinion was stirred up against him.  the british public viewed it as using mercs against british citizens and not kosher. 

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       7/6/2007 1:53:27 PM

British foreign policy in the late eighteenth, early nineteenth century was based on containment and balance of power. Certainly the main opponent was Revolutionary/Napoleonic France but they were aware of the potential of the young US especially after France sold it the Louisiana Territory. 

The Brits were arming, training and working with the Amerindians against US settlers in territory Britain had ceded to the US to constrain US growth. That behavior was an act of war. The US did not have the navy to contest Britain on the high seas so it fought Britai on  land in Canada and the Northwest territories.

can you provide anything to support the idea the british were doing this?  my reading says the british were trying to get the indians not to fight with the americans as they felt they would have been blamed for it and wanted to avoid that problem.
bear in mind this is all going on in a time when the british are fully involved in fighting napoleon in europe.  it seems unlikely they would be engaging in a bit of adventurism in a part of the world they simply didn't value.


 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    Ehran   7/6/2007 3:15:52 PM
 "insanely enough there was a washington paper which said some rather unkind things about the british general in charge of the washington raid.  he made a particular point of burning down their offices and breaking up their printing press during the raid. "
 
 Ehran so just how many Americans did those friendly Red Coats round up and burn along with their homes and churches? Yeah only they locked plenty in them buildings as they lit them up!. Now let's discuss how kind they were to those Scots,Welsh,Irish,Northern Irish,Indian,Chinese,and French Canadians!. Now i wonder how 10,000 or so British maintained order in the lands they occupied? Well ask the Poles how Germany did it, or perhap's those Jew's,or try them Indians or Chinese!. I believe you find the answer is Terror!. Yep those Europeons have a great sense of humor allright,yeah as long as you don't show your's to them!.
 
                                                                         tigertony
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       7/6/2007 3:58:56 PM
tigertony:

You are aware that "The Patriot" is not a historically accurate film?

I look forward to seeing your evidence that the British held their Empire together through Nazi-style terror tactics.
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       7/6/2007 6:16:16 PM
The US won the War of 1812. It's silly to keep reiterating the facts that have not been successfully refuted. Vide Supra. Recommended recent books that are readily available are Borneman's The War that Forged a Nation and Hickey's The War of 1812 a Forgotten Conflict.
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    flaming,you are kidding right?   7/6/2007 6:45:28 PM
POW's of the American Revolution On The History Channel
By James Wray
Jan 20, 2005, 19:00 GMT

Mistreatment of prisoners of war has been a contentious topic in recent months and throughout the annals of history. American soldiers held captive by the British during the American Revolution experienced some of the harshest such mistreatment, aboard prison ships docked off New York City's East River in the late Eighteenth Century.

Four out of every five men who passed through the prison ships died in filth and darkness, and most were buried in shallow graves by their freedom-fighting peers on the banks of the river. On Sunday, February 13th at 9 p.m. ET/PT, The History Channel presents POW's OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, a comprehensive look at some of the harshest prison conditions ever recorded, as told by some of the few captives who managed to survive.

Between 1776 and 1783, a dozen British prison ships sat anchored in Wallabout Bay off New York City's East River. The dark, disease-ridden vessels housed thousands of American fighters taken prisoner during the struggle for independence.

Those aboard endured nothing less than a living hell at the hands of the British. Ebenezer Fox, a Boston teenager who enlisted as a privateer to battle the powerful British Navy at sea, managed to survive nearly two years aboard the most notorious prison ship, The Jersey, only to ultimately escape the British Armed Forces and live to turn his tale into a memoir entitled "Testament to the Horrors Aboard the Prison Ships of Wallabout Bay."

Making use of Fox's writings and the historical perspective of a variety of New York-area professors, POW's OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION presents a unique and compelling perspective on an aspect of the American Revolution that is often overlooked.

"Many Americans are familiar with the story of the generals and the politicians," says Brooklyn College (CUNY) professor Edwin G. Burroughs. "This is the story of ordinary guys caught up in a big conflict, often who paid a very high price for it."

Prisoners housed aboard the ships were subject to cramped conditions without proper exercise, ventilation, nutrition, or waste removal for months, sometimes years at a time. They felt the oppressive heat of summer and the bitter cold of winter in the same clothing in which they'd been captured. Bugs and lice infested the quarters and diseases spread unchecked.

Malnourishment may have been the biggest culprit, as Ebenezer Fox's diary tells the story of eating worm-infested biscuits and year-old meat boiled in dirty river water without a fruit or a vegetable in sight. British motivation for the abuse was multi-faceted: prisoners destroyed by the conditions were highly unlikely to re-join the American cause, and those willing to join forces with the British were offered a ticket out.

By the end of the war in 1783, it is estimated that as many Americans (about 20,000) had died as prisoners in the hands of the British as died in combat during the War. The remains of the dead continued to turn up on the beaches of the East River for decades, and many today are interred in a monument at Fort Green Park in the Brooklyn section of New York City.

With a number of experts providing the historical details to supplement the accounts of the survivors, POW's OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION chronicles the driving forces behind the brutality toward the American rebels and the George Washington-led American efforts to stop it. A tale of war, politics, brutality, and survival, POW's OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION brings to life some of the harshest realities of war and the bravery of those that survived.

Executive Producer for The History Channel is Susan Werbe. POWs OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION was produced for The History Channel by Principal Films.

Further details on their Web site.
 
It was Thomas Jefferson and the Continental Congress in Philadelphia that drew up the charges against King George III, denouncing him for a long list of offenses and indicting him for war crimes. King George III had, according to Jefferson and Congress, “plundered our seas,'' its armies had “ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”

The British king was also denounced for, among others, employing foreign mercenaries to create havoc “scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages,” inciting the slaves to rebel against their American masters, and actively encouraging the attacks of Indians. The British soldiers were also charged with taking Americans hostage and forcing them to fight against their own country. Sounds like a formidable litany of grievances to me now don't it? And this don't even take into account those British Loyalists who did plenty of their own pil
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       7/6/2007 7:42:02 PM
Oh yes, because I refute that the British armies went round burning people in churches and generally committing genocide like the Nazis that must mean I similarly deny any and all bad behaviour by the British.  

Presumably whilst stroking my goatee.

I think that we can see that where these terror tactics were applied, it didn't work and was usually counter-productive. 
The Empire was held together by other means, usually getting the locals to hold it together for us. I scarcely think that one can reasonably blame the British for how locals fight each other? Especially when they were doing it anyway.

These prison ships, how different were they from other prisons at the time? This was slightly prior to the prison hulks on the Thames and the joys of Victorian workhouses? 

Yes, England has a checkered past. No, it's not as bad as plenty out there. Yes, it could have been better. Would you rather a Spanish or French empire?

Out of interest, what do you mean by this?
"Well i at the least can admit that our treatment of our own indians or rebels was not just as barbaric as those English i insult!"
If you mean what I think you do, you forgot the horrors visited upon loyalists by rebels

Oh, and we've been fighting everyone else for longer than 800 years, thank you very much. It was very much the done thing at the time. Mainly because if you didn't you ended up not being you. How very medieval.
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    flaming   7/6/2007 9:34:28 PM
 "Yes, England has a checkered past. No, it's not as bad as plenty out there. Yes, it could have been better. Would you rather a Spanish or French empire?"
 
  Well now see you don't have any idea just who i am do you? I am the man who understands that there should be no empires at all "Just Britain,Belgium,Canada,China,France,Russia,Spain,Mexico,USA,and All Nations to stay just where they already are!". Why do i need an empire? I just need a home,however some i can buy are better then others,lol!
 
Out of interest, what do you mean by this?
 
"Well i at the least can admit that our treatment of our own indians or rebels was not just as barbaric as those English i insult!"
If you mean what I think you do, you forgot the horrors visited upon loyalists by rebels
 
 No actually Einstein i meant quite the opposite! We in our very short history commited our share,but we also changed our nation far sooner then you!. And in less then 100 years we fought our one and only civil war, and freed our slaves,we also managed to side on the lesser of the 2 evils twice,and for 50 years we have sown freedom where there was none after at was over!. So what did Britain fight for in France those other countless years? And what did they fight for here in America then? Answer: EMPIRE!. Far too many accuse the USA of being the New Roman Empire "When we have actually done more then anyone to just keep our nation,and all others free, including Britain,France,and even Germany!". And just think we have done all this good for the world, and not blown most of it up,and all in our short 231 years!. Now can any of you from anywhere in the world claim that?. Oh and btw,i never actually meant that you Brits were as bad as those Nazi, that's why we joined your side!. However, since my family came from there, i will make one point about Europe then. 
 
 Just where was Britain and France for those 3+  years leading up to Hitler's rise in Germany's Government? Well i mean since none of you 3 hesitate to attack each other thru out your history!. I guess you did not read Mein Kampf? Well my grand dad did, and was smart enough to leave in 1934!. Too bad he never came back from Germany later, after going back to finish the job you should have done yourself  years before!. And if i remember just after WW1 our president warned you both about making too many demands on Germany,but again you had to ignore him,and look what happened next!. Kinda reminds me of most of Europe today, thinking that Iran will not soon give a nuke to a terrorist or a holocaust to those Jew's again!. Well i would not wait those 3 + years again if i were us all!.
 
                                                                       tigertony
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics