10
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + Line 29:
Line 31: − + − − ::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Conservapedia]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the names Richard Jensen and RJensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)
mischaracterised
This grossly mischaracterised the war. I don't want to get banned by editing it, but the war was a blantant act of unjustifiable American aggression, the writer would do well to be an apologetic for Pearl Harbour. Hugely outnumbered, the British citizens nevertheless managed to heroically rout the American forces in battles that made up for 1776 any day. The war was not a draw, by the end several states were considering leaving the Union and joining the British. We seized Washington. The only reason we did not impose heavy penalties was because war broke out in Europe. James Vanque To post this I had to delete someone else's post to get past the spam filter, sorry.
Re: The reversion of my revision of this article to "The War of 1812 AD"
Re: The reversion of my revision of this article to "The War of 1812 AD"
== Abject failures ==
== Abject failures ==
Both sides tried invasions which led in every case to humilation and defeat. The British did raid Washington and burned public buildings, but they failed to capture Baltimore, the Americans killed the commanding British officer, and the Brits immediately retreated to their ships and sailed away. Worse, the affair united the Americans who demanded revenge and got it at New Orleans. That's what failure looks like. The British commander of the invasion of New York state failed just as badly; he died just as he went to court martial. As for the British invasion of New Orleans, it was one of the most lopsided defeats in the history of the British army, with its top commanders both shot dead. On the other hand, the American performance in invading Canada was even worse, believe it or not. "Abject" is defined as "sunk to or existing in a low state or condition; cast down in spirit : without spirit or pride." It seems to fit. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:59, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Both sides tried invasions which led in every case to humilation and defeat. The British did raid Washington and burned public buildings, but they failed to capture Baltimore, the Americans killed the commanding British officer, and the Brits immediately retreated to their ships and sailed away. Worse, the affair united the Americans who demanded revenge and got it at New Orleans. That's what failure looks like. The British commander of the invasion of New York state failed just as badly; he died just as he went to court martial. As for the British invasion of New Orleans, it was one of the most lopsided defeats in the history of the British army, with its top commanders both shot dead. On the other hand, the American performance in invading Canada was even worse, believe it or not. "Abject" is defined as "sunk to or existing in a low state or condition; cast down in spirit : without spirit or pride." It seems to fit.