Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by v***@gmail.comPost by m***@gmail.comOn Monday, January 21, 2019 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-5,
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 9:07:13 AM UTC-5,
Post by v***@gmail.comWhat battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had
surrendered in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.
"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be more apt.
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical
telegraph to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a
month to get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.
What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long time
allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to drive us
apart.
The British lost the revolution and the war of 1812
Who told you British lost the War of 1812?
The Americans lost more troops, had more ships
destroyed, saw more land occupied and it's trade
routes eliminated. The US army could not even
defend Washington DC.
Which, at the time, was a small town with nobody living
there but some government employees, and the folks who
had been living in Georgetown before the District was
set up. Baltimore, a major seaport that would have to
be taken if the British tried to HOLD Washington City,
was defended.
The burning of Washington was a reprisal for US troops disobeying
orders and burning York, ON (now part of Toronto.)
Post by Mitchell HolmanBoth sides were spending
themselves into debt for no gain, so it ended in
a stalemate.
The attempt to invade northern New York, and use the Hudson route to
divide New England from the mid-Atlantic states failed, however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh
These two American victories convinced Britain that making peace
was wiser than continuing the war. Wellington advised the politicians
that a settlement more favorable to Britain than status quo ante bellum
could not be justified by the military results.
[quote]
"I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any
concession of territory from America... You have not been able to
carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military
success, and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even
cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on
any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession of territory
except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power...
Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis?
You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military pperations,
however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any."
-Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington
[/quote]
https://sites.google.com/site/ttreatyofghent/overview-diagram/duke-of-wellington
The UK government might have wanted to continue the war,
and either take the States back, or defeat us seriously
enough that we would have had to make concessions at the
treaty table: give up rights to fish the Grand Banks, or
push the border of British North America below the Great Lakes.
Making the US cede Louisiana back to Spain was another point.
Britain had forced France out of Spain at serious cost
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War
Some in Spain thought that France did not have the right to
sell Louisiana, as the whole point of the cession was to
protect Spanish colonies from US encroachment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Treaty_of_San_Ildefonso
If Britain could force that, then later it might buy that territory
from the Spanish, and deny American settlers use of the Mississipi
and "the right of deposit" at New Orleans. As a result, the USA's
only avenue for export would be via East Coast ports, and, unless
we decided to build a big navy, US merchant ships would be sailing
on a British lake. A USA confined to the eastern seaboard, unable
use the Ohio-to Mississipi route for internal communications, would
be a much less potent rival, and might well be snapped up by the
Empire years or decades down the road, if only as a client state.
Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by v***@gmail.combecause they were
thinking like Europeans. They figured they would win just by capturing
Washington DC. Parliament did not realize just how big North America
is. In order to win those 2 wars, they'd have to control Washington,
New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, SC and all the territory West of
those cities. They didn't have the money or the manpower to do all
that. It took them a while to realize just what they were up against.
The Foreign Office would have also liked to have set up a buffer
state between the Ohio and the southern shores of the Great Lakes
for their native tribal allies.
See:
https://www.historynet.com/clumsy-war-lasting-peace-treaty-ghent.htm
or ad-lite @ https://outline.com/hUTU4K
There's a saying among those who have studied the 1812-1815
Us/UK war: The "Canadians" won, the US and UK tied, and the
Native Americans lost. "Canada" didn't yet exist as a state,
though Canadian national identity calls back to the 1812 war.
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Post by Mitchell HolmanPost by v***@gmail.comThe US Constitution defines Treason as "waging war against the United
States, or adhering to it's enemies, providing them aid and comfort."
We are not even officially at war with anybody.
The "declaration of war" by the US is essentially extinct in
the modern age. We haven't used one since WWII.
If one gave "aid and comfort" to Al-Qaeda or ISIS, one might get
charged with it. The Justice Department could always charge on
the basis of being an accessory to terrorist acts, or to homicide
or attempted homicide, or state governments could, if one helped in
setting up an attack in the 50 states. "There's no declared war,
so it can't be treason" wouldn't help as an argument if one is
facing death penalty charges on non-treason counts.
Standards of treason are tough in court, too.
[quote]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but
no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture
except during the Life of the Person attainted.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason
The "two witness rule" might be hard to adhere to, in some cases.
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310