behemoth79
Active member
inspired by a reply from charge_7, i thought about a fitting name for the war. lets hear some ideas.
name the war of 1812
WarMachine
Active member
you mean like something that covers the whole two years we actually fought? How about the anglo-american war, why not, there were plenty of other minorities in the usa by that time to not make that sound like an oxymoron.
The Other Guy
Spam King
Atlantic War?
WarMachine
Active member
but atlantic war wouldn't sound right since fighting in the sea was very limited to only the british. Most of the war was fought in the eastern part of north america, and new orleans.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Almost works, except it could just as easily refer to The War for Independence.
I'd suggest "The Second War for Independence" as it was the central issue of having Britain recognize us as a sovereign power that drove it.
Another thought that I've long had is that this was just one arena of what was actually the first world war and the succeeding world wars should be renamed WWII and WWIII. Of course nobody will go for that because we don't like changing names after getting used to them for over 60 years. However, a case could be made that this was indeed the first world war. Not only was Britain fighting in North, Central and South America but Europe as well, of course, and there was some limited actions in Asia and Africa involving the European powers and colonial holdings. There were alliances as in the 20th century as well. I suspect the reason it never came to be thought of as such is that communication made warfare much more localized in its impression in those days - that and we don't like to think of the fighting parties as grand scale enemies the way we do the Kaiser and Hitler for example.
I'd suggest "The Second War for Independence" as it was the central issue of having Britain recognize us as a sovereign power that drove it.
Another thought that I've long had is that this was just one arena of what was actually the first world war and the succeeding world wars should be renamed WWII and WWIII. Of course nobody will go for that because we don't like changing names after getting used to them for over 60 years. However, a case could be made that this was indeed the first world war. Not only was Britain fighting in North, Central and South America but Europe as well, of course, and there was some limited actions in Asia and Africa involving the European powers and colonial holdings. There were alliances as in the 20th century as well. I suspect the reason it never came to be thought of as such is that communication made warfare much more localized in its impression in those days - that and we don't like to think of the fighting parties as grand scale enemies the way we do the Kaiser and Hitler for example.
WarMachine
Active member
Charge_7 said:
I thought the war was about the french and british disrespecting our neutral shipping by impressing our sailors. It wasn't meant to declare us as a sovereign power since britain already felt that way, it was really for the respect a sovereign nation deserves, not to mention we pretty much had to pick a side. And we owed the french for lafayette and the battle of yorktown.
Whispering Death
Active member
The problemn with the War of 1812 is that it was started for many muddled reasons, so we where never really fighting FOR anything in the sense like we where in the war of independence of WW2.
What is significant about it, however, that the war of 1812 was like a continuation of the war of independence. The War of 1812 was basically America's puberty where we came out much different and on the road to a becomming very powerful.
Although the war of American Puberty doesn't sound very fitting does is? :?
What is significant about it, however, that the war of 1812 was like a continuation of the war of independence. The War of 1812 was basically America's puberty where we came out much different and on the road to a becomming very powerful.
Although the war of American Puberty doesn't sound very fitting does is? :?
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Can you explain the difference between
and
If you aren't respected you aren't recognized. Britain felt that the sailors were her subjects and as such could be pressed into service at their will.
BTW, the French weren't in this one with us, that was another issue about 15 years earlier and we were against the French in that one. It almost became a war.
and
If you aren't respected you aren't recognized. Britain felt that the sailors were her subjects and as such could be pressed into service at their will.
BTW, the French weren't in this one with us, that was another issue about 15 years earlier and we were against the French in that one. It almost became a war.
WarMachine
Active member
What you're saying is that britain could get away with pressing foreign sailors. That's not unrecognization, that's just feeling as though you're better than others and you can do whatever you want without reprocussion.
I'm pretty sure that there was a british ambassador to the U.S., and the treaty of paris recognized america as an independent country. Why would the uk feel as though we're not a real country? Sure there were british forts along the frontier on american soil at the time with soldiers in there, but that's just an example of america's inability to respond to a superior force. The british may not have respected us, but they did think we were an independent country.
I'm pretty sure that there was a british ambassador to the U.S., and the treaty of paris recognized america as an independent country. Why would the uk feel as though we're not a real country? Sure there were british forts along the frontier on american soil at the time with soldiers in there, but that's just an example of america's inability to respond to a superior force. The british may not have respected us, but they did think we were an independent country.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Yeah, what do the historians know anyways? So what if virtually every history book out there says exactly what I did.
Some selected reading choices:
British Generals in the War of 1812: High Command in the Canadas by Wesley B. Turner.
Select British Documents of the Canadian War of 1812 by William C. Wood
Burning of Washington: The British Invasion of 1814 by Anthony S. Pitch.
Oh, and for good measure here's a few web sites devoted to the statement I made about The War of 1812 being The Second War for Independence:
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/warof1812/
http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/subjects/warof1812.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_090500_warof.htm
Some selected reading choices:
British Generals in the War of 1812: High Command in the Canadas by Wesley B. Turner.
Select British Documents of the Canadian War of 1812 by William C. Wood
Burning of Washington: The British Invasion of 1814 by Anthony S. Pitch.
Oh, and for good measure here's a few web sites devoted to the statement I made about The War of 1812 being The Second War for Independence:
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/warof1812/
http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/subjects/warof1812.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/rc_090500_warof.htm
MontyB said:
It means the same, but it is not the same name. It depends which you prefer, sound or "flavour-"wise: the Latin "Anglo-" to represent the British, or the English word "British".
It's like:
- The American Revolution
The War of Independence
That Bit of Unpleasantness in the Colonies
Matter o' fack, is "Revolution" an apropos name for the war? Unlike the French or Russian Revolutions, it didn't remove the regime in power -- British monarchy -- but resulted in the secession of the colonies.
WarMachine
Active member
I know they called it that. But that's a symbolic name. If you're talking about an actual name for a conflict, You'd try to make it clearer. Like how the soviets had the great patriotic war, but everyone else calls it world war 2 since that's a clearer understanding of what happened. The second war for independence just sounds ambiguous that's all.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Right, it removed them from power here in the US. Thus, The American Revolution. If it had been in Britain then it would have been the British Revolution. Still a revolution. And besides all that, removing anybody from power has nothing to do with whether or not it's a revolution. Many in the southern parts of the US saw the Civil War as the Second American Revolution as they saw it as an attempt to remove themselves from the Federal power. Whether you even succeed in removing anybody from power doesn't change the fact that you are still in revolt and thus, a revolution.
As opposed to some other second war for independence?
WarMachine
Active member
How many people know what the war of attrition was? That could be any war. Maybe if they gave it a better name it would be easier to understand what was going on. Doing you think the war of the roses clicks in most people minds that it was about royal succession in the british crown? That's why i'm saying it was ambiguous, whose independece was it? You put the right names in there and people would know who's fighting who.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Only in the US is it common for us to say "The War for Independence" because we know we're talking about our independence. The proper term is "The War for American Independence" and as such, The War of 1812 would be titled "The Second War for American Independence". Clear enough for ya?
WarMachine
Active member
Wouldn't that imply however, that america was conquered and had to fight for sovereignity again? That was not the case and should not be mistaken as such.