Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 10  Next

IN any case, I'd have to agree with Mustang, Canada/Britian would probably have won as much because they saved their NA colonies. However, the British with their lopsided and halfhearted invasion of the U.S was a flop, besides the burning of the white house and lost many men, the British was not interested in the war in the colonies because they lost many men with Napoleon.

The U.S gained a few territories which might be considered gains (Detroit, Oregon) but their ultimate goal of conquering Canada failed..miserably. That is probably the failure the Americans don't want to concede (which is evident in their history books) and regardless of the semantic word of "country" which Canada wasn't, the people who dwelled their successefully repelled the disgusting invaders who thought that they would be welcomed...

   

the russians




ooops wrong war

   

Cool they want the law removed hope they can come up with a way to have it done. But apologize for what, the law is over 200yrs old. When did any of the current law makers and citizens take a scalp or inact the law? You want an apology for something that happened over 200 years ago. I'm sure I can find tribes (nations) who want the tribe (nation) Mi'kmaq to apologize for something they did 200-400 yrs ago. HOW the far back you want this to go. How about the Myans apologize for deforestation of large masses of trees and killing of prisoners taken during war and used as sacrifices to their gods. How about apologizeing for even comeing over to the contenant and running around killing animals and ruining a prestine land mass. See how silly it gets.

   

Not to far off there. In history we are or at least were tought, not sure about todays students, that we won and or at least had a draw in the war. As for the major aim of the war we were told that it was to stop the British from takeing our ships and empressing US sailors into their navy. Later I found that another and possibley even bigger war aim was to take Canada from the British. This was a flawed and sad attempt. The direct result was the burning of the white house before the British/Candaian forces were forced to retreat do to the aproaching US army that out numbered them. The sea battles is where the US won the War aims mentioned in the history books. On the land we totaly failed to gain anything. Yet still as was pointed out the US came out stronger as a result of the war and Britian weaker.

   

Were you only tought "half" of the war? In my opinion, there were two halves of the war. Invasion of Canada, Invasion of the U.S.....

Remembe the U.S. started the invasion, I'm sure they don't discount the previous two years of 1812 in American history books do they? What do they say about the invasion of Canada? A draw? I'm not questioning your teachings or words but..that is hardly a draw. When one has a motive and fails, that is a loss in my and most others books.

Of course, you could say the U.S won or had a draw with the British when they tried to invade and the U.S gained some territories, nice laughable win....by negotiations and British ineptitude.

I think what most books fail to determine is what the people of Canada felt, and only focused on the British and Americans. Sure there were no official country of Canada but there were people born in Canada beforehandand fought just as much as the British and Indians.

I think this was one attempt for Canadians to fight for their independence just like the Americans, only it took longer to establish a country and by peaceful means.

   

No we were tought about us invadeing Canada but the way it reads makes it sound as if this was just a way to get at Britian not a serious effort to take over canada. Later I found out that it was a serious attempt though truly pitifully done.

Also Yes the books discounted Canada as a nation persay just considered it as a birtish possesion. Your right of course with this statement.

   

Kind of like the Romans and the Germanics...THe Germanics were living in Roman controlled territores but were a sperate people, bursting with self-control. Doesn't take a country to "be" an independent people. Sad nobody recognizes that for Canada instead of being a British automaton.

   

You are a man of honour, ruez.
Yes ... they are. Particularly since their request has received no response.

This is but one example of the ways we continue to dishonour them. These are the ways we make it impossible for them to trust us.

Those who say 'move on ... one people ... one Canada' have no idea of the oppressive nature of Canada's treatment of Indigenous people, and it continues today.

   

Ok this is not a slam or anything but a question. Could it be a preceived oppression do to the fact of not wanting to lose a part of their culture and not wanting to be part of modern Canada. Are they insisting that they should be treated like canadians when they refuse to be part of canada? I'm realy just asking and not trying to insinuate (sp?) anything.

   

Actually, without Brock's victories at Fort Michilimackinaw and Detroit, it's extremely doubtful that the average person in Upper Canada would have resisted at all, least of all as feably as they did in the early going. Had the States attacked across the St. Lawrence above Kingston as they did later in the war, the British army was prepared to let Upper Canada fall and make their stand at Quebec with its fortifications. You obviously don't know know this but recent immigrants from the States made up a significant portion of the settlers in Upper Canada and the United Empire Loyalists and their descendants were being overwhelmed. There just wouldn't have been a significant popular demand for return to British rule.

   

I disagree Isaac Brock was seen as a martyr even if he had failed I still think many would have been opposed to any American rule. I know about the American immigrants they would have probably have accepted it more but Upper Canada at this time only had 77,000 people. Lower Canada was seen as more valuable in a populace sense they had more than 270,000 people. Either way I don't think it would matter even if the majority of Upper Canada accepted the Americans it would be up to the British to let their colony be taken over. At this point of time in the Canadas most people who even thought of joining the United States were extremists. The French people in Lower Canada were already under French laws and language so they thought the Americans could undermine that. But Upper Canada did have many American settlers they probably would have been more inclined to accept it but many might not have.

Anyway it is hard to say what would have happened but I have my doubts that the Americans were capable of occupying and holding on to British North America. The British weren’t stupid even after the war they cut much immigration from the United States off and got more Europeans to come here instead. Also one must look at that small rebellion not far after many people did not take arms in it.

   

It isn't just the recent settlers from the States that would've accepted it. The mindset of the majority of locals at the time would've seen a change as something of a wash in their day-to-day lives. It was only the anglophile types like Strachan and those who benefitted most from the then-status quo who would've resisted and as a percentage of the population, they were clearly outnumbered.

Edited to add: The myth of Brock was primarily a post-War thing fanned by the likes of Strachan et al. Brock was stuck in the Triple-A league of war-fighting and desperately wanted to get into the real fight on the Continent where he could make some real impressions and money for the family. He did what he could in a colonial backwater that was neither here nor there about who it pledged its allegiance to. Michilimackinaw was inspired and Detroit was as much luck as anything else. It was an impetuous charge by him on Queenston Heights that cost him his life.



3,000-mile suplly chain open for only half the year. Population tired and taxed from the war at home. Don't overestimate the will to fight.



Says? Given a few years and some patience, the States could've Texased Canada. Fortunately for us, they had the War Hawks.



There's that supply chain issue again. Also, the Rebellion was a direct outgrowth of actions and opinions that were already in motion from the beginning of the century. In fact, the War exacerbated many of the reasons for the Rebellion.

   

Here we go again. That law is not on the books Saga. To think it is, well I doubt your sanity.

I'm still waiting for you to point out the law that says Canada isn't a country.

And we have had this particular topic so many times I feel like its 'groundhog day' again.....!

   

SCALPING LAW


Don't say no if you don't know ...
I addressed your other question earlier too ... see above in thread re Canada

   

Not good enough, the law is enactable in the Crown Colony of Nova Scotia. No such place exists.

I'm sure any pre-Confederation Province has equally brutal laws on the old Colony's books.

Canada West, Canada East, the Colony of New Brunswick etc.....

Show me in the Criminal Code of Canada where mik maks can get scalped.?

The CC is the law of the land, not some ancient tome that refers to colonies that no longer exist.

This CBC report is just stirring the pot. How unusual.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 10  Next