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?
This thread has pretty much run its course so I doubt that anyone would object to a little “scope creep” ;-)
Both of you are way more knowledgeable about the current subject but I’ll continue to lurk if you continue to post.
;-)
Thanks for a most interesting and informed debate.
Doubtful if there are enough Americans who even remember the War of 1812 to pick sides, pro and con, on some issue about it.
And no Americans who think Canada should be invaded a twelfth time.
So the question here is our Founders' motivations in sending eleven -- count them, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven different invasions into Canada from 1775 through 1813.
Now you wish us to believe, oh, that was no big deal, they weren't really serious, they just wanted a "bargaining chip" to get the Brits to stop taking our seamen -- eleven invasions for a few seamen?
And you dismiss as irrelevant the opinion of President Jefferson, that taking Canada would be as simple as a walk in the park, and his obvious satisfaction anticipating British defeat and: "final expulsion of England from the American continent".
But I would suggest Jefferson's feelings are "unfinished business" left over from the Revolutionary War, and were therefore shared by most Founders, even as late as 1813.
Of course, it turned out that Jefferson and they were all wrong, that Canada was no push-over, and so we can only speculate what might have resulted had Jefferson been correct.
Seems to me the obvious answer is, our Founders would have done in 1813 just what they intended to do in 1775 when they first sent Montgomery and Arnold to conquer Canada -- annex it.
But since apparently there is no proof, the question cannot be resolved, and we'll just have to agree to disagree, agreeably, I trust.
;-)