User talk:Americatcp
Welcome
[edit]
|
War of 1812 - Historians opinions
[edit]Hi - I was wondering, do you have the references for the historians you mentioned who have said the War of 1812 is a British victory? Would be cool to add them if you do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Friend. Yes I do, my favourite and possibly most convincing is Professor Lambert's from his book "The Challenge : Britain against America in the naval war of 1812" The extract is as follows. Pages 1-3 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jnw7yOPyjSoC&pg=PT493&lpg=PT493&dq=the challenge by andrew lambert preview&source=bl&ots=RXQTjTocnX&sig=JKrx5FEzwvC6P8XpuPM3kJ3eu04&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYzK3_heDYAhUiCMAKHYfsBE0Q6AEIhQEwEA#v=onepage&q=the challenge by andrew lambert preview&f=false
- - In June 1812 the United States, not yet fifty years old, challenged the greatest naval and economic power of the time, invading Canada and attacking British ships. It would be a curious war, fought in the shadow of a far greater conflict. At first the British simply did not believe that the Americans meant to fight about issues of principle, issues which they had no hope of upholding. Eventually they accepted the need to respond, but only after Napoleon began his terrible retreat from Moscow. Eighty years later a great American historian gently reminded his fellow citizens that the War of 1812 had been a disaster; after a litany of defeats all along the Canadian border, the capture and destruction of Washington, bankruptcy and the loss of several ships, including the national flagship; the settlement had been a fortunate escape. This begs the question how could a defeated nation, one that suffered such devastating losses, declare a victory and remain in occupation of the literary battlefield for two centuries?
- The answer lies in the smokescreen of words that obscured American aims and objectives throughout the conflict. President Madison went to war demanding that Britain end the practice of stopping and searching American merchant ships and impressing seamen on the high seas. Yet these aims were not even mentioned in the treaty that ended the war; the peace process was dominated by questions of land and the rights of Indians. While this mismatch between rhetoric and reality was hardly unusual, examining British war aims and strategy reveals a very different war. Both sides considered the war in the context of the European conflict. In the summer of 1812 Napoleon was about to invade Russia with over half a million men. The American administration expected that Napoleon would win. They planned to seize British North America - modern Canada - and hold it while Napoleon defeated the British. Former President Thomas Jefferson expected that the Canadians, anglophobe and francophobe alike, would be happy to join the American Republic, indeed Jefferson opined that conquest would be "a mere matter of marching". Instead, invading American armies were repulsed by a handful of British regulars, Canadian militia and their Indian allies. - In fact the only battles the Americans won in 1812 were at sea, despite the Republican administration effectively ignoring the navy. In three frigate actions that year substantially larger American ships captured smaller, less powerful British opponents. Desperate for good news to bolster their flagging grip on political power, the Republican Party latched on to the sea of glory, claiming these victories had been won in fair and equal combat, and linked the claim to the idea that war had been declared as response to British treatment of American ships and sailors. In reality the seafaring communities of New England and New York, who suffered most from pre-war British actions, consistently voted against war, a fact which reinforces the charge of partisan opportunism. War was popular with Republican voters in the agrarian Central Atlantic states, and especially in the West, because it offered a golden opportunity to seize land from the British and the Indians. - Although the war would drag on until the end of 1812, its outcome was decided by the failure of the American army to conquer Canada, the defeat of American attacks on British merchant shipping and a devastating British economic blockade that left America bankrupt and insolvent. In case anyone in America had missed the utter helplessness of their government, 4,000 British troops captured and burned Washington DC. The Presidential mansion, where the decision for war had been taken, was one of the public buildings to be torched. In the rebuild it acquired a coat of whitewash. The idea that the British 'lost' the war - in which they secured their war aims by compelling the Americans to stop invading Canada, destroyed their capital city, and reduced them to insolvency in the process - is one that requires explanation.
- Lambert continues - The American attack on commercial shipping failed and instead most American warships were blockaded in port, leaving the entire coast open to economic and amphibious attack. As Napoleon wryly observed, the Americans had "not yet succeeded in seriously disturbing the English". He expected they would do better in the future.
That is just one simple extract, bear in mind his lecture at Bicentenary at the George Washington Masonic Memorial in VA also conveys this message.
I will have others as soon as I have time.Americatcp (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- - Cheers - yeah pretty clear cut who Lambert thought won the war. Yeah, my personal opinion, the British army dominated the US army. The US army mainly won when they had superior numbers, or were defending well entrenched positions against British assaults (like New Orleans). At times, the US army was pretty embarrasing, sometimes defeated by armies a lot smaller than theres. The British army wasn't perfect, but overall, was dominant in the field. The US Navy did well at the beginning, but were ultimately overwhelmed.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Correct, the Us was utterly defeated. Even Napoleon acknowledged the US was failing against the British. Not to mention that Madison’s aims were never met, or even mentioned in the peace process, the US achieved none of their aims, and yet the wiki page says they did.Americatcp (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yep - personally, I think the US really had 4 goals, and I think achieved one of them (suppressing the Indians). Whereas the British main goal was to defend Canada, which they did. The article won't reflect that because there is differing opinions by historians on who won the war, and the results - and the article needs to reflect those differing viewpoints.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
[edit]Don't worry about the sockpuppet accusations. People accuse other users of being sockpuppets fairly regularly. If they want to launch an investigation, they can, its no biggie. Actually pretty funny, one the guys is talking about the spacing between letters, as being identical between our typing. Not sure how he came up with thatDeathlibrarian (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am not worried, I find it quite laughable behaviour from editors who have been on this site far longer than I have. They can pursue pointless endeavours all they like.Americatcp (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, if they want to engage in a sockpuppet investigation, its just going to waster their time. Sort of funny though, clearly two people aggreeing on a wikipedia talk page is unusual enough that people assume its the same person!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Probably this is what they do when people try and change the American centric article, accuse people of being sock puppets if they feel like they are starting to lose.Americatcp (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, if they want to engage in a sockpuppet investigation, its just going to waster their time. Sort of funny though, clearly two people aggreeing on a wikipedia talk page is unusual enough that people assume its the same person!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
note
[edit]Hi, please take care not to violate wp:3rr , edit war is not the way to go, get a wp:consensus on the talkpage, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Of course! My bad, see my links on the talk page, the consensus should be unequivocally in my favour.Americatcp (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Barelinks
[edit]Hi. When you add citations, please try not to just add bare URLs as you did in USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal. You can use the Template:Cite web to create citations. Bennv3771 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Cheers for the tip buddy.Americatcp (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
NANP
[edit]I changed your prod nomination of Halifax child sex abuse ring to be an AfD. However, you refer to WP:NANP, which doesn't appear to exist. What did you mean to refer to? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, thank you for that, I was trying to refer to 'not a newspaper' obviously this wasn't very clear, thank you though. The article is scarse and full of BLP problems and a measly two sources, it's not fit for an encyclopedia.Americatcp (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)