View previous topic | View next topic

Who won the war of 1812?

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

1190082.  Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:45 pm Reply with quote

In the end Canada arguably won the war because the Americans had been defeated and pushed back over their border after a rather bloody war which saw thousands of dead on both sides of the conflict.

However if the question is determined by a pissing contest, Canada won because British Major General, Robert Ross and his crew sailed down the Potomic River, found that the President and his men had run away in fear so they marched into the Presidential Mansion to discover the Presidential victory feast was ready to be served.

Ross and his crew seated themselves, ate the Presidential feast and then thanked the kitchen staff, saying that while the food was very good, the service sucked balls...and then they proceeded to burn the place to the ground! (-and it felt goooooood!)

Wikipedia describes the event this way:

The Burning of Washington in 1814 was an attack during the War of 1812 between British forces and those of the United States of America. On August 24, 1814, after defeating the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg, a British force led by Major General Robert Ross occupied Washington, D.C., and set fire to many public buildings, including the White House (known as the Presidential Mansion at the time), and the Capitol, as well as other facilities of the U.S. government.

The attack was in part a retaliation for the recent American destruction of Port Dover in Upper Canada. It marks the only time in U.S. history that Washington, D.C., has been occupied by a foreign force.

President James Madison, military officials and his government fled the city in the wake of the British victory at the Battle of Bladensburg. They eventually found refuge for the night in Brookeville, a small town in Montgomery County, Maryland, which is known today as the "United States Capital for a Day." President Madison spent the night in the house of Caleb Bentley, a Quaker who lived and worked in Brookeville. Bentley's house, known today as the Madison House, still stands in Brookeville.

Less than a day after the attack began, a sudden, very heavy thunderstorm—possibly a hurricane—put out the fires. It also spun off a tornado that passed through the center of the capital, setting down on Constitution Avenue and lifting two cannons before dropping them several yards away, killing British troops and American civilians alike. Following the storm, the British returned to their ships, many of which were badly damaged. The occupation of Washington lasted only about 26 hours. After the "Storm that saved Washington", as it soon came to be called, the Americans were able to regain control of the city.



Andrew Haines

1190136.  Sat Apr 30, 2016 3:07 pm Reply with quote

When did the War of 1812 take place? 1811-1815.

1190155.  Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:57 pm Reply with quote

Thanks for that Andrew, and welcome. It is strange that our neighbours to the south never seem to tell it quite that way .....

1190163.  Sun May 01, 2016 3:15 am Reply with quote

I have read and re read that post, but still can't see how it was a Canadian victory.

1190387.  Tue May 03, 2016 1:01 am Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
I have read and re read that post, but still can't see how it was a Canadian victory.

I suppose that it could be more clearly explained, but the author of that post would seem to be arguing that it could be considered a Canadian victory down to the fact that the US failed to achieve one of their larger goals, which was annexing Canada.

That said, it could be argued that it was, in some ways, an American victory given that it forced the British to drop their support for the Native American tribesmen, opening the way for continued expansion to the west, whilst also leading to the lifting of trade restrictions with France and the cessation of impressment by the Royal Navy.

1190459.  Tue May 03, 2016 11:12 am Reply with quote

The way it was taught when I was in school, the war between Canada and the USA was a 1-1 draw. (Three points on your war pools coupon.)

Britain wasn't really very interested since it had more a pressing engagement with Napoleon closer to home, but France and the Native Americans would have to be considered as the main losers.

1190496.  Tue May 03, 2016 12:43 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
(Three points on your war pools coupon.)

Come on now Suze - there is NO WAY you can be old enough to remember what that meant!


1190537.  Tue May 03, 2016 5:24 pm Reply with quote

Sadly, I am.

Canada doesn't have war pools - or even football pools - but Britain actually still does. The door to door coupon collectors of husband's youth are no longer a thing, but it is still possible to play online or at betting shops.

While I don't share your general disdain for gambling, I see no reason to bet on what are in effect random numbers and so I don't play football pools. But husband does, basically because he has done ever since he was old enough to gamble. He's never won, and so he won't stop playing in case the numbers come up next time ...

There's no need to explain why this is daft, because I know. But since he only spends £2 a week on it I'm perfectly happy to consider it harmless if pointless.

1190541.  Tue May 03, 2016 5:34 pm Reply with quote

To be fair, I only have a disdain for "random" gambling. I won't play the lottery because the odds are just silly, but there have been times when I've played poker for money because a skilled player can make it pay over time (cf Ms Coren-Mitchell). You can't predict the fall of the cards, but you can ensure that you lose less than you win, which is the skill bit.

For me it's only fun where the money as a scoreboard of skilled achievement - I won't play where the amounts are large enough that the losers suffer hardship from losing. The one time I won a LOT I ended up giving the money back at the end of the evening, because it had gotten out of hand and going home after losing that much would have cost one of the losers his marriage. I just couldn't have that on my conscience.


1190546.  Tue May 03, 2016 5:51 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
There have been times when I've played poker for money because a skilled player can make it pay over time (cf Ms Coren-Mitchell).

I've never played poker for money, but that's mainly because I don't really understand the game.

When I was a student, the gambling game of choice was seven card brag. Since we were all students none of us had much money and so we played for pennies rather than dollars, but a few times I made a pile of pennies big enough that I took it to the post office to exchange for more useful currency.

These days, my gambling activities mostly concern politics. Husband and I reckon to know more about the subject than most who use online gambling sites, and the returns suggest that our confidence is not misplaced. OK, so we did screw up in buying UKIP at 5.5 seats at last year's general election, but we more than made up for it on the SNP!

1190548.  Tue May 03, 2016 5:59 pm Reply with quote

Now that's reminded me of something interesting. Sunday morning on Radio 4 (IIRC in the "Broacasting House" programme) they interviewed a guy who apparently called every single state correctly in the last two US presidential elections. He was a numbers man rather than a political analyst - he just worked with the data.

His prediction for this year was that if it comes to a Trumpy McTrumpface vs Clinton campaign she will win by around 3:1 because the trumper has upset too many women and persons of non-caucasiety. But if it's Clinton vs the other guy it will resemble the recent "nearly hung" elections and be too close to call.


1190749.  Wed May 04, 2016 1:50 pm Reply with quote

My first husband went to university much against his father's will (dad was a painter and decorator and wanted his only child to go into the business). Consequently, my former pa-in-law refused to support his son financially. This was of course in the days of student grants, and in the first year it was not that difficult, because grants were allocated on the basis of parental income and his dad had had a bad year the previous year, so Rich got a full grant and just about made it through the year. The following year, though, his dad had had a good year, so in his second year the grant dropped to the minimum, which was just enough to cover hall fees and nothing more for things like transport or lunch or books.

He made most of his additional income that year from playing bridge. He was lucky enough to have a friend who was a rather wealthy Kuwaiti guy, Vijay, who liked to play bridge but was a terrible player. Rich was a pretty good player, so Vijay asked him to be his partner and they struck a deal whereby if they won Rich kept his share of the winnings, but if they lost Vijay would stand the losses (I might add that this guy had been given a toy factory or something like that for his twentyfirst birthday, and drove a rather expensive sports car, so money wasn't an issue for him). They didn't win often, but because they played for absurdly high stakes, when they did win it was enough to keep Rich in lunches and bus fares for a while.

After that year, his grant improved a little and his mother went out and got a part-time job for the first time in her entire married life and sent him the odd £5 (worth a lot more in 1968/9 than it is now of course) so he stopped gambling altogether, saying it was far too stressful as a source of income.

1190777.  Wed May 04, 2016 5:20 pm Reply with quote

As a source of income, I'm sure it would be.

But for most people who bet on (for instance) horses, it is no more nor less than a hobby. Sure, it's a hobby that usually costs money - but then so do most hobbies. If some guy with a mundane industrial job chooses to spend his Saturday afternoons in Ladbroke's and this hobby costs him (say) 3% of his income, that's not really any different than his boss spending 3% of his income on playing golf.

We're not planning to bet on this, not least because the odds available are prohibitive, but it now looks almost certain that the US election will indeed be between Trumpy McTrumpface and Mrs Rodham Clinton.

I have little doubt that Mrs Clinton will win it, since McTrumpface quite simply cannot win in the states that matter. The vote count will not be 3:1 or anything like - the winner has never recorded even twice the number of popular votes of the loser - but the electoral college result easily might be. Such a comprehensive result last occurred in 1988.

1190778.  Wed May 04, 2016 5:30 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
The vote count will not be 3:1 or anything like - the winner has never recorded even twice the number of popular votes of the loser - but the electoral college result easily might be.

Thinking about it that's probably what the chap on the radio said, and I mentally changed it to "votes" rather than "delegates", because I'm an idiot (as you know).


Alfred E Neuman
1190799.  Thu May 05, 2016 3:00 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
I have little doubt that Mrs Clinton will win it, since McTrumpface quite simply cannot win in the states that matter.

The Republican Party must be wondering how they got to this point - a candidate who is out of control and who is destroying their credibility.


Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group