Since this is the 200th Anniv of the War of 1812...I thought I'd see what you guys thought of the comments on this British History Podcast. Towards the end it takes some shots at American High School Teachers and says our big Hero's, William Henry Harrision and Andrew Jackson really only beat some Indians. It's on this page and it's the May 10th Podcast, you have to scroll down a little bit. JO'Co, Gip and BuckeyeT are history buffs as was the late G-Man. Be curious as to your thoughts. British History of the War of 1812 edit: Link is fixed. Thanks Sid.
Terry, When I clicked on the link, I got an ESPN article on Mark Emmert, with video of the noted sports expert Stephen A. Smith commenting on the Penn State situation.
As I recall the Battle of New Orleans involved British regulars. The box score showed that the Americans inflicted multiple times the casualties on the British than they sustained. The claim that the British force was mostly Indians is wrong although I believe some of the British troops were made up of freed slaves from the West Indies. As to Harrison and his victory over the British, I had to do a little reading. From the little that I read, he ended up fighting indians under Tecumseh because the British general had fled with his family. I think that the prime prize in that campaign was possession of Detroit. (some prize!) The way I look at it, the British didn't want to dirty their hands in the upper midwest and relied on the Indians to do the dirty work.
The Americans were fighting with smooth bore guns while the British had the more accurate rifled bore guns. The Americans dod more with less than the British.
I listened to it. Very interesting slant on how everything the Americans did failed because the British were better except for the few times the Americans won because they had better equipment. He didn't say the Jackson defeated indians at the Battle of New Orleans. He said he made his fame by defeating indians earlier, which he did. He mentioned that after a number of defeats the Americans "ran away" however he forgot to mention that in Harrison's victory at the Thames the british commander took off before the battle even started. I did find his description of that short violent sea battle to be facinating. Oh, and I would suggest to you Terry this link. It teaches how to hit the stinger like Tiger. The instructor is responding to a request about it from one Terry O'Keefe. http://www.golfchannel.com/media/golf-fix-tip-sting-it-like-tiger-woods-071612/
LOL...how'd you ever find that. It is of course not me as I can hit that stinger off the tee or the deck with pretty much any club. Many call it topped or bladed in my case though!
That would be the HMS Shannon defeating the Chesapeake with Capt William Broke. He said that due to Brokes superior training and discipline that they defeated the Chesapeake in 11 minutes ( I wonder who was timing). Also thought it funny that he was very impressed with the fact that the British defeated and towed the USS Chesapeake back home to use as headquarters of the Royal Navy Reserve and eventually the timbers used for a tavern or something.
From his description of the early butt kicking the Royal Navy I think Broke had 2 thoughts in mind. First towing the Chesapeake back gave pride to his crew which he obviously worked very hard to get ready and second to bring some honor back to the navy that had taken some licks. The story of his training and tactics reminded me of the movie Master and Commander.
Oh and the Golf Channel link was something that caught my eye when I was on their site looking up tee times for the Open on Thurs.
That was a great movie, powerful ocean scenes. Have you watched any of the fictional "Horatio Hornblower" series on the Royal Navy? I like them.
In high school I read a few of the Hornblower books. I watched at least one of the movies with Gregory Peck I believe playing Hornblower. UUUhhhhem!
Wow. I listened to it and it's just a screed that has no academic value at all. His presentation was filled with so many one-sided distortions and outright lies that I wonder if he really believed anything that he was saying. Many of us here could make a similar presentation in reverse that would mirror his, but what would be the point? The whole idea of studying history is to uncover the truth, not twist it to a more comfortable modern interpretation. You might also consider the source. These are the same people who hung on to Northern Ireland like grim death...even as they gave away their capitol city to Pakistan. Just last week, the head of security for their Olympic games was forced to admit publicly, that they don't have enough trained English speaking people to provide adequate security for the games. Let's examine some of this fellow's claims and assumptions. He claimed that American high school history textbooks trumpet a great victory by the United States over Great Britain. Really? Well I just happen to have one of those textbooks sitting right here next to me. It's the same one that I use in my class, and it's the same one that my grandkids have used at Upland HS, Damien HS, and St. Lucy's HS. There's no such claim in the book. On the contrary, the textbook presents the war as a stalemate, that caused huge changes in American politics and culture, which is true. The Brits and Canucks might want to check the accuracy of their own textbooks. Is it true that the Americans went to war to grab Canada and the West Indies? Really? He failed to mention ANY of the reasons that the combatants actually commenced hostilities. Great Britain had never recognised the new United States of America as a real country. The British army still occupied some forts in the mid-west, in violation of the Treaty of Paris, while other army units were stationed just across the border in Canada. These military forces were used to threaten and intimidate the Americans and to control trade. They were also used to arm the indians who were encouraged to attack and plunder frontier settlers wherever they could. At sea, the British Navy needed more men to fight Napoleon, so they stopped any American vessel they chose and grabbed young American men to serve in the British Navy by force. Their reasoning was that "They're really British anyway." The war split the country from north to south, and along party lines. It was another red flag that a civil war was coming. There were as many arguments about trade, foreign policy and taxes as there were about slavery and the dividing line was always north-south. In the end, the political party of New England, the Federalists, the party of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton simply disappeared forever. They had opposed the war in favor of trade with the British and the American people never forgave them. That's why the next eight year presidency of James Monroe would be known as "The Era of Good Feelings." There was only one political party, the "Democratic-Republicans" which would eventually split into two parties in the dirtiest election in American history between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams...but that's another story. I won't waste much space on this guy's comments about the American Navy or the practice of privateering, except to state the obvious: privateering was the only way that the Americans could trade freely with the world. The British Navy controlled the Atlantic/Caribbean and the British Army controlled American trade along the borders and in the Northwest Territory with forts along the Mississippi River. The grand prize was the port of New Orleans. If the British could obtain or control that city, they would cap American expansion forever and control all of the trade of the new United States as if it were still a collection of colonies... His brief observations about Andrew Jackson are contemptable and dishonest. There's a reason that "Old Hickory" is on the $20 bill: he never lost a battle. He beat the British, the Spanish, the Indians and anybody else who got in his way. He obliterated all Indian resistance in the south at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and got revenge for previous Indian massacres of white troops. He took Florida away from Spain on his own authority and he defeated both the Spanish and the British at various forts along the Gulf. Let's talk about the Battle of New Orleans... General Andrew Jackson was assigned to defend New Orleans from the predations of the greatest military power on planet earth. He had no army, no navy and no hope. All he had was himself and whatever he could collect along the way. He began by taking Tennesse militia that he had commanded and whatever few regular army troops that he could find. Along the way he picked up frontiersmen, with their Kentucky long rifles, and mountain men volunteers. He enlisted free blacks who wanted to fight for their country and Cajuns who hated the British as well as friendly Indians and local New Orleans businessmen who were told to bring their own weapons. For a navy, he enlisted Jean Lafitte and his Pirates of the Caribbean, who were delighted to kill British sailors and soldiers at every opportunity. The pirates eventually engaged the Royal Navy at sea, as well as lending many cannon for Jackson's use on land. The British army was composed of many of their finest troops, which were shipped directly to New Orleans from France and the West Indies. These units included the Royal Fusiliers, the 44th Irish and the famous "Black Watch" Highlanders. The result of this mismatch, was one of the greatest military defeats in British history. Total losses for the British side included more than 2,000 dead, wounded and missing, with more than 400 captured. Jackson's little army lost 13 killed and 53 wounded. They chased the Brit survivors all the way back to their ships without their cannon, which they had left on the field. They also left behind their commander, Major General Sir Edward Pakenham, the brother-in-law of the Duke of Wellington, who was killed along with many of the other senior British officers. Great Britain failed in all of it's wartime goals. The American Navy kept the Great Lakes open. Andrew Jackson kept the Mississippi open with his capture of New Orleans. The defeat of Tecumseh drove the British and their Indian allies from the Northwest Territory and back into Canada where they belonged and the United States had established an international reputation as a "real country" that could play hardball with anyone. The United States continued to expand and trade with the world any way that it wanted to...without consulting Great Britain or anyone else... Call it a stalemate...call it victory or defeat. You can call it a banana if you want, but the United States achieved it's goals and the British didn't. Out in Baltimore harbor, the American poet Francis Scott Key was being taunted by British sailors, who told him to keep an eye on the American flag which wouldn't be there in the morning. After an all night bombardment, Key awoke to discover that they were wrong and gleefully wrote a poem to taunt them in return: Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming? And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there. O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? The British mouths have been silent now...for 200 years.
Mike wins the prize for best research work in SB history with that find. Terry, I watched the Hornblower series when it was on A&E and loved it. I am sure A&E received a ton of mail from French-American groups protesting how the French were portrayed in the series. Re 1812, here is a link for all the SB hockey fans, even those who discovered the game while living in Los Angeles, of the Canadian perspective of the war: http://www.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2012/01/the-war-that-saved-canada/
This just in.. the British are sore losers who like to re-write history. I actually learned more about this war living in the South than I ever did in any classroom. That's because there's so much history through this area and those landmarks/tablets are much, much older than anyone reading this thread. Some of them are older than the great, great, great grandparents of the people reading this thread... But whatever, podcasts are fun. Was this some sort of satire?
8) re: Canada What a bunch of fags...burp. re: French Canada Their definition of Canadian "diversity" is that all English speaking Canucks are fags......burp. re: British sore losers Here is the official picture of the signing of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution. Please note: the British commissioners never showed up for their portrait... BTW- My favorite story from the American Revolution is the British surrender at Yorktown. General Cornwallis and his officers had never seen the American army up close, and they were curious about this force which had combined with the French to defeat them. As they drew close, the American army came into view. The Yanks were lined up on either side of the road, and the British Army was expected to walk in between the American and French lines to stack their arms and leave them on the field. When they saw the Americans, they stopped. The young British officer turned to Lord Cornwallis...with tears streaming down his face...and said, "Oh sir! Irishmen and negroes!" That's what the American army looked like; so Cornwallis turned around and headed back. He refused to surrender his sword to George Washington and his low-born army. Instead, he ordered Gen. O'Hara to surrender his sword, which he first offered to the French, who refused it...then to Washington, who refused it and who ordered Gen. Benjamin Lincoln to accept it, which he finally did...