User talk:EasyPeasy21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] GAN review: 2nd chance
Hi, similarly like u, I was on the receiving end of a crappy GA review done recently. Don't despair, all is not lost mate! Kindly refer to this talkpage for comments & the resolution outcome. As such, promptly highlight your case to Dihydrogen Monoxide or any of the senior reviewers listed here, so that they can follow-up on your case to give u a proper GA review which u rightly deserved in the first place. Kindly forward this message to anyone u knew who had went thru' similar experience previously. Rgds. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] War of 1812
Its probably too general a statement and you can find historians with other views, but there does seem a movement among some that would have it that the invasion of Canada was the primary reason for the war, if that is the position that you are proposing then we do have an issue. Simply put there is no historian that will back that claim, as it was the maritime issues that really brought about the war. I do not dispute that there was a section of the American Congress that wanted Canada, most saw it as the only way to reach the British Empire (the US Fleet sure wasn't going to do the job). I absolutely oppose the idea that this was the American/Canadian war, as that is really just an article high jack look at the number of times that this has been listed as a British/Canadian victory for proof of this.
I would suggest that a compromise is in order, that statement was too wide however that isn't a support for US Expansionism into Canada being a primary reason for the war. Tirronan (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- One of the more interesting aspects to the War of 1812 is that you can find several historians to back up just about any position. Read the section that already exists as there are several instances and an entire page devoted to just that subject. If you ever get the time the minutes of the US Congress are still available as well. Here is my take on what I think actually happened, see if you concur:
- There was an on going discussion on what to do in the 1st place, and no declaration was going to take place without the War Hawks section of Congress, make no mistake now, these guys did have every intention of taking over Canada. Even then however the American Congress was no less complex than the you'd find in your own Parliment today, the NE didn't want war it just wanted GB off its back to make money off the war in progress, yankee trader I believe the term was, and that was about all that was important to them. The frontier was ticked at what they saw as British support for the Indians (and they got some for sure). Nor is expansionism itself so easy to pass off, as the US just doubled in size and in fact GB was interested in ways to stop or slow it down. The literature of the British press expresses a good deal of fear of the future with a growing US across the Atlantic. The attempts of installtion of Indian nations was part of that as well as trying to secure navigation rights down the Mississippi. Maritime competition was something that GB never tolerated very well (see the anglo/dutch wars) and adding the fact that Napoleon might get help made it ever worse.
Here is what I believe the operations in Canada really came down to:
- There was an honest belief that the Canadian's really didn't have any more love for the crown than we did down here.
- Now where the fact that Canada never revolted when it could have nor the fact that many Canadians were ex Tories from the US and wanted no part of the US went I haven't a clue. Personally I think this was just wishful thinking, there is no way a nation of 8 million was going to run a counter-insurgency campaign across all of Canada no matter what else happened.
- There was simply no other way for the US to get at GB period and they expected to be welcomed with open arms. When that didn't happen they simply didn't have much other choice but to keep trying no matter what.
- What is really interesting is how at 1st everything went wrong for the US in that theater of operations, while Naval operations were an outstanding success and privateering never really ceased no matter what was done.
- In the 3rd year nothing was going right for Naval Atlantic operations and the US either fought and won or fought to a standstill the dreaded regulars with only an outright traitor giving any relief to the British in the Canadian operations.
Here is where I am at as to where the truth lies, for I think we can come to agreement here. The War Hawks would have loved to have taken Canada and I absolutely agree with that, I know pretty well that the excutive branch and Congress as a whole saw this as a barganing chip in a negoiation with GB.
I am equally certain without the maritime issues with GB and the country focused on westward expansion there isn't a way in hell that the US would have gone to war to take Canada even with the Indian issue, frankly they were too easy to beat in a concentrated war.
In less historic terms Britains newest independent off spring wasn't going to be contained by her mother and gave birth to Canada by accident and ended up being constrained on its northern border anyway. Tirronan (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have bothered to write this unless I was able to cite it. Tirronan (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Review
Hey, the website looks fine to me. God luck with the article and tell me if you need assistance in the future. Kyriakos (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
