What's "obvious" and undeniable is that the US intended to drive the British out of Canada.
What's debatable is what might have been done with Canadian territory once the British were driven out.
So, you suggest that having fought a war to drive the British out, US negotiators would then negotiate them back in -- but in exchange for what, exactly?
And why?
You forget how much our Founders hated the British, having suffered under and fought them for a generation, they wanted the Brits out of North America.
So why, having conquered Canada would they negotiate the Brits back in?
Castlebar: "Secondly, you err in stating that our invasions were all failures."
I said no such thing.
Including the Revolutionary War, by my count the US invaded Canada eleven times.
Of those eleven, US forces were successful at the Battles of York and Fort George in spring 1813, before defeat at the battle of Beaver Dams.
In the fall of 1813 US was again successful at the Battle of the Thames -- aka Moraviantown.
But with his army's enlistments expiring, General Harrison soon withdrew from Canada, and so gained nothing there.
All other US invasions of Canada, including two more after Thames / Moraviantown, were defeated.
What's "obvious" and undeniable is that the US intended to drive the British out of Canada.
It was not feasible, given the astronomical disparity of forces at that time, that the tiny United states Military could have "driven the British out of North America." What seemed at least in the realm of the possible was to take something the British didn't what to give up, and force them to pay a price to return it. This is the way wars were fought at that point in history; a look at the wars of the first, second, third fourth, and fifth coalitions will tend to confirm.
What's debatable is what might have been done with Canadian territory once the British were driven out. So, you suggest that having fought a war to drive the British out, US negotiators would then negotiate them back in -- but in exchange for what, exactly? And why?
The United States negotiators would have liked to have had de jure as well as de facto assurance as to the end of impressment. As it was, Impressment was prevented on a go-forward basis by the Royal Navy's memory of possible defeat at the hands of the United States. Certain historians (with contempt for history) will deny this, and claim that impressment ended because of the end of the Napoeonic Wars. The proof of the falsity of this claim lies in the facts that:
1- Impressment of U.S citizens continued during the 1802-03 Peace of Amiens;
2- The Royal navy did not impress a single US sailor during 'The 100 Days', and
3- While the Royal Navy stopped ships of ever other nation during the Africn slavery patrols, U.S. ships were never stopped.
Castlebar: "Secondly, you err in stating that our invasions were all failures." I said no such thing.
Your words were, "despite defeat after defeat." Thank you for your clarification.
I am afraid that this line of discussion may be distaracting from this thread. Would you care to continue on a private e-mail chain, or shall we save it for another thread?