Attachment 15620
Attachment 15621
I believe this is General Hull but no one wants to remember him because he surrendered Detroit in 1812.
Printable View
Attachment 15620
Attachment 15621
I believe this is General Hull but no one wants to remember him because he surrendered Detroit in 1812.
What do the French have to do with this event? They were out of Detroit by
November, 1760. It was the good strategies of British General Brock that
forced Governor Hull to give up Detroit without a fight in 1812. Let's hope
that the commemoration of the War of 1812 leads to an interest in Fort
Wayne. It is interesting to note that this year's license plates in Maryland commemorate the War of 1812. Michigan territory played a more significant
role in that war but our license plates to not mention the War of 1812.
What's really pathetic is considering the war was almost our second independence and also really shaped the Great Lakes region yet the federal government does nothing to celebrate it's bicentennial.
I wonder if it's because the war is considered an embarrassment by many U.S. historians. Did it shape events to come? Hells, yeah. But was it our greatest moment. Prolly not.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5speedz34
Hull surrendered Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by renf
Ft. McHenry's battle saw the creation of the Star Spangled Banner - I think Maryland played the more significant role.
Don't forget the British burned Washington, DC also!Quote:
Originally Posted by leapfrog
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by winstonst
I'm not trying to minimize the impact of the war on Detroit, but I'm not sure what sort of license plate we could field in commemoration of the war: Michigan: We surrendered!!
We invaded Canada while the Brits were busy fighting Napoleon. It wasn't the "second war of independence" it was the first US war of conquest. The result? our capital was burned, we gained no new territory. Canada kept us out and the Brits almost re-conquered us. We lost the war we started.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5speedz34
Yeah, the star-spangled banner - a third-rate bit of doggerel set to the tune of a British drinking songQuote:
Originally Posted by leapfrog
No argument from me that what you say is true. It still doesnt change the fact this it is the National Anthem, which I think makes it more significant than Detroit handing over the keys without a fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
It was acutally more of a war "for independence" for Canada than it was for us, as you noted. It was the war that decided that Canada would never be part of the United States - that is a source of pride for many Canadians. The war also produced Canadian war heroes such as Laura Secord.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
The United States declared War on Britain in 1812, after years of insults perpetrated via their navy, i.e. outright piracy and illegal impressment of American sailors into the British navy.
Also, the Brits, [[and Spain as well) since the Revolution had continued to encourage and enable the Native Americans to harass, provoke, and, dare I say it? YES, *murder*, innocent citizens on every frontier on the continent. Using them as pawns, and ultimately deserting them to the wrath of those who had lost family and friends to their depredations throughout their lifetimes.
It made total sense to attack the base and supply center of those operations...
To my Canadian brothers, you were used by the Brits too, and your competitive derision of the US is understandable, but if you want we Americans to accept the responsibility of "starting the war by attacking Canada", y'all should accept some responsibility for your King's actions during the preceding years.
If our true objective was to annex Canada, after the English left America after an ass kicking at New Orleans, what stopped us from pressing the point?
Rhetorical question, the Treaty of Ghent may have adressed that...
On a side note, I'd like the Brits to receive more of the blame and derision for instituting slavery in the Colonies in the first place. The Americans take all the heat from history and Black America for not stopping it fast enough...
Yeah Mr. Jones because The USA wasn't sending goods to the French during this time right? Plus the Brits never recognized American Independance [[when it came to the Navy).
And Americans didn't squeeze us Natives out of our own land did they? That was the British fault too? Sorry but that dog don't hunt. They wanted the friendship of the Natives for the fur trade.
If I were the Brits I would have helped them as well because the population of the USA was/is so much greater than Canada and they knew that eventually the Americans would come knocking [[which they did din't they? The USA goal was one of conquest.; 54-40 or fight right? Canada's goal was one of keeping the Americans out...how did it end?
What stopped you from pressing the point was that battle of New Orleans was AFTER the signing of the Treat of Ghent.
As for slavery, at least they abolished it before the USA. Plus I didn't see your compatriots helping out any slaves either after the Brits left the USA to itself.
I'm glad its over and we have had 200+ years of peace!
I'm sure they did sell goods, cotton, wood or whatever they had to anyone who wanted it. Even to the British before they decided to blockade the east coast...
And no one can deny early pioneers pressed the limits and beyond, of the treaty boundaries, settling on land and arranging to legally acquire it after the fact.
The peoples who did so were derived from British citizenry, basically.
I say that if Spain had populated the continent in the numbers the Brits did, the same thing would have happened. If the French had, the outcome would have been the same. This was never an American anomaly.
All those people come from a system of society whereby land is the most basic part of government-accepted, legal wealth. The land was always something to be possessed, used for the perpetuation of wealth, of people, of government and society in general.
Don't mean to offend by stating that Native Americans were destined to lose the land to whomever could get the most people over here to occupy and ultimately, possess it. Hasn't the same thing happened in Canada?
In all honesty, tribes often took hunting grounds and lands from each other by force as well. Perhaps to some degree, it's human nature.
The Battle of New Orleans did occur after the Treaty of Ghent was signed, but neither side knew it at the time. Word had not travelled across the ocean yet.
Slavery had been denounced in northern states like PA and Connecticut during colonial rule. Frankly, it was easier for them to air their conscience on the issue because their economies were not, pardon the pun, "chained" to the practice as it was in the south. Many people who were born into the practice of slave ownership were able to grasp that it was wrong, even evil, but were only able to MINIMIZE it in their lifetimes, and free some or all of their slaves after they died. Granted, some didn't care. The fact remains that it was a time bomb left over from the British, purposefully or not, destined to blow.
What can anyone say to someone else who was moved off their land? Or whose freedom was sold for a lifetime of slavery? Nothing. Thank God we never have to deal with that because the victims and perpetrators have all passed on a century or more ago.
Where are the pictures at the start of this thread from?
I'm wondering about the woman and child at the foot of the wall not far from cannon...it doesn't even look like they are at the safest place to hide from incoming balls, there is one in the dirt. Weird.
I think they are representative of a community under attack, not an actual event.
Perhaps they are there, cowering under the British bombardment, to symbolically justify General Hull having second thoughts about engaging in the battle. After all, spooked by the bombardment and the unknown number of British troops and Native American warriors, and worried about the fate of civilians in the fort, he did surrender Detroit without a fight.
I think there were only about 100 settlers at the time there. Their city had just burned to the ground nine years earlier. They must have been doing the early 19th century equivalent of mulling that move to Portland... ;)
wow, leave it to THIS forum to start flaming over a war that ended 200yrs ago....wow, lol
anyway, yeah. it is all too common to just blame Hull and call him a coward. taht is what we were taught in our public school textbooks, where those illustrations likely came from. but if you read the actual documents of the day and look into what actually went down, you'll see that Hull really had no other choice. there was no army, no equipment, no supplies for him to conduct a siege. idk who illustrated that 2nd one, but there was no huge long line of crying american soldiers laying down their arms without a fight because Hull was a pussy.
the War Dept in Washington DC failed us here in MI at every turn. communications were poor or nonexistent. let's not forget Mackinac was surrendered the same way as Detroit, because it was almost completely unmanned at the time war was declared, and its "acting commander" was not aware that war had been declare until the british commander knocked on the gates and informed him that they had him check-mated. General Hull was sentenced to hang as a coward, but he did not. he was pardoned. why? because he took the fall for the blunders in Washington. over and over again he tried to rectify Detroit's vulnerabilities, and over and over again Washington failed to supply what was needed. rather than bumbling dumbassery be exposed at the higher levels of US military command, they decided some lowly guy from Michigan can take one for the team.
pick up a book out on Wayne State Press called "The Fall and Recapture of Detroit in the War of 1812: In Defense of William Hull" by Richard Yanik