US Tea Party

[N36fSL3A]

Yes, I have learned exactly what BHX Specter stated. I thought Britain sailed into Washington and burned it, not that they pushed all the way North from Canada.

[htirwin]

I seems like the divisive issues that polarize people politically are generally issues that those in power could care less about. The two sides keep us loud and busy hating each other over this and that, while they quietly take care of all of the real dirty business they are both involved in, without many people paying attention. Clinton, Bush, Obama, they all work for the same bosses. The differences are mostly superficial.

[Disch]

I don't think there's a secret party pulling the strings... I just think anyone that makes it that far in politics is going to have the same ambitions. They're all going to be a certain kind of personality.

If you aren't that kind of personality... like if you are genuinely a decent person that wants to do good for the country, you tend to get washed out early.

And gawd... Hilarly Clinton. She's clearly going to win and she's clearly going to be horrible. The last thing we need in the presidency is more corporate lawyers.

[BHX]

I hope this doesn't break into a Knights of the Templar, Free Masons, and Illuminati conspiracy discussion. :/

[Cheraphy]

No need for conspiracies. It's a fact that the US government is largely bought and paid for. Anywhere you can follow the money, it's plain to see that the uber rich have taken congress. So, there's this organization that's pushing for an invocation of article V of the constitution to get money out of politics. And we're making ground.

https://movetoamend.org/
and
http://wolf-pac.com

[Computergeek01]

I almost want to break it off into another thread because I'm much more interested in the 1812 thing now: http://www.buffaloah.com/h/flint/

This is an important one: http://www.buffaloah.com/h/flint/source/1.html

That plaque linked above is less then a mile from my house and is probably what prompted my interest in this mostly forgotten war. I was taught the same thing as you guys were in school. But because of our front line position in that conflict and the way it affected my home city; I think there is a lot more local material on the subject matter then in most other places.

You have to ctrl+f for "The War of 1812" in this one, it's a bit dated. But it's worth the read: http://www.oldfortniagara.org/history

Pay attention to the dates and who moved first. That is what has me convinced that we had every intention of taking Canada from Britain. Canada on the other hand had no plans in regards to holding territory in the states, they just wanted payback for Niagara-on-the-Lake (yes, that's actually the name of the town).

BONUS HISTORY: Look at the date that the treaty of Ghent was signed and then look at when we started to "push back" the invaders. I love revisionist history, don't you?

[BHX]

Computergeek01 wrote:

BONUS HISTORY: Look at the date that the treaty of Ghent was signed and then look at when we started to "push back" the invaders. I love revisionist history, don't you?

What about it? Treaty of Ghent was signed Christmas Eve, December 25, 1814; was ratified by Britain December 27, 1814; arrived in Washington February 17, 1815 and was quickly ratified thus ending the war.

We were having trouble with Britain since 1811. After the Battle of Tippecanoe (1811), the American Indians allied with the British who then started supplying them with weapons via Canadian supply routes encouraging them to fight our expansion into the Northwest Territory, then the British stopped our trade with France when they went to war with them. Those two were the key events that pushed us to declare war on Britain. The only reason we started fighting Canada was because the British occupied it and we were at war with them, nothing more.

If America had managed to get land during the war it wouldn't have been worth the loss seeing as the Treaty of Ghent had a clause that said all territory captured during the war would be returned to its original country.

You bring up an interesting perspective though, the US says they weren't trying to annex Canada and Canada says they weren't trying to annex the US and there is no evidence to prove either side wrong. You are grasping at straws saying proof of annex is that the US attacked first, but one could also grasp at straws and say that British/Canada were wanting to annex American territory because instead of just holding off the US at the border they moved all the way down to New Orleans.

As for the image you posted stating "anticipation of invasion" again that doesn't prove an attempt of annexing Canada. When terrorists attacked the towers on 9/11 everyone anticipated an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and we didn't annex any of their land. We were at war with the British, the British at the time had claim to Canada, so of course everyone anticipated an invasion. You wouldn't declare war on Mexico and then wave at them across the border, you would invade to try and gain ground in order to gain the upper hand in the war.

[Computergeek01]

As for the image you posted stating "anticipation of invasion" again that doesn't prove an attempt of annexing Canada. When terrorists attacked the towers on 9/11 everyone anticipated an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and we didn't annex any of their land.

That probably has more to do with the fourth Geneva Convention circa 1949 then it does with us just being polite. There was no such restriction on our nation in the 1800's. Also, as you said, the British were using Canada as a port to supply the Native's with weapons. That right there could have been our motivation to permanently deny them Canada.

Granted the evidence may be circumstantial but I'm hardly "grasping at straws" here there is precedence. We had tried to take Quebec twice before during the American Revolution and we even made provisions for them to join the US in the Articles of Confederation. That was fewer then 50 years prior.

[BHX]

Trying to take Quebec or Ontario was military strategy, not an attempt to annex Canada. When at war, you take villages and buildings (in this case colonies) to try and cut off the opposition from resources and supplies (in the case of those cities it was possible soldiers (potential recruits) and a staging areas to attack us from).

At the time of the American Revolution Canada was only Ontario and Quebec. As for the Articles of Confederation, the article you are referring to is Article XI,

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the united States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

That basically is saying that if Canada wanted to join the United States it could do so without voting them in, while any other colony would be required to be voted into being a state by at least nine of the states. The stipulation was that Canada had to break off all relations with the crown, but since they didn't want to do that they never asked to join the states.

Article XI simplified explanation:

If Canada chooses to declare its independence and agrees to the terms of the Articles of Confederation, it can join the union and become a fully sovereign state like the other thirteen states. This offer does not include any other colony but Canada, unless nine states agree to extend this offer to another colony.