Canadian Burning of The American Whitehouse 1812 & The US National Anthems Origins

anthony · #1 19-01-2007, 12:59 AM

I think this must be raised, as most Americans I believe do not know this information, or deny it; so here are the facts of the only country to ever burn down the American White House in war, as victory.

Quote:

Canadians remember the war as a victory in avoiding conquest by the Americans as well as burning down the White House, while Americans celebrated a new spirit of national unity.

Next point... do most Americans know where their National Athem arose from? Well, here it is:

Quote:

Having destroyed Washington's public buildings, including the White House and the Treasury, the British army next moved to capture Baltimore, a busy port and a key base for American privateers. The subsequent Battle of Baltimore began with a British landing at North Point, but the attack was repulsed, and General Ross was killed. The British also attempted to attack Baltimore by sea on September 13 but were unable to reduce Fort McHenry, at the entrance to Baltimore Harbor. All the lights were extinguished in Baltimore the night of the attack, and the fort was bombarded for 25 hours. The only light was given off by the exploding shells over Fort McHenry, which gave proof that the flag was still over the fort. The defense of the fort inspired the American lawyer Francis Scott Key to write a poem that would eventually supply the lyrics to "The Star-Spangled Banner", which became the national anthem of the United States in 1931.

TinCanCommando · #2 19-01-2007, 04:49 AM

Hell yes, we claim victory in that war! :-) I am damn proud to hail from the only country that has ever successfully destroyed the White House...

I remember learning of the origin of the US national anthem in school. I thought it was quite common knowledge. Then again, maybe not.

Cheers, Brian

Scott_Fraser · #3 19-01-2007, 07:41 AM

From what I remember it was solely British Forces who came down from Canada to fight this war. As I believe that Canada did not have an army then.
Scott

cookie · #4 19-01-2007, 09:24 AM

yeah, canada was "owned" by the british then, just llike the us was in the beginning. i live about an hour from Ft. McHenry, and DC, etc. lots of history info up here. and 10 min.s down the road is Harper's Ferry (civil war), and the town i live in is where John Brown was tried, same courthouse still there.

becvan · #5 19-01-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Fraser

From what I remember it was solely British Forces who came down from Canada to fight this war. As I believe that Canada did not have an army then.
Scott

Canada WAS British until ohhh.. the 1950's or there about... We are still part of the commonwealth now.. So uh yeah, that was us...

bec

anthony · #6 19-01-2007, 02:27 PM

There are 50+ countries in the Commonwealth, 30+ of these member countries are small states most of which the population numbers less than 1.5 million people. There are more than 1.7 billion people in the Commonwealth though.

The Commonwealth is made up off: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

If you wanted to talk factual data, the Commonwealth is actually the most powerful conglomerate upon the Earth, more powerful than the USA or Russia.

USA Population: Approx 298 million
Russian Population: Approx 143 million

China is the only country that comes close to the populous of the Commonwealth, at around 1.4 Billion people.

TinCanCommando · #7 19-01-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Fraser

From what I remember it was solely British Forces who came down from Canada to fight this war. As I believe that Canada did not have an army then.

Well actually it wasn't soley British forces Scott, there were also Canadian provincial forces of the time, mainly from what was then Upper and Lower Canada, a militia made up of Canadian settlers and British loyalists, and the native Indians, who fought alongside as well.

I agree with bec and anthony, the Commonwealth is a very large entity, of which Canada is a part. In fact Canada was not completely self-governing until British parliament passed the Canada Act in 1982. So, if you want to use the argument that the British "owned" Canada, then you would also have to say that no Canadians fought in WWI, WWII or Korea.

Scott_Fraser · #8 19-01-2007, 10:17 PM

I think that the people in Quebec have a different view, they've wanted self rule for years. Are the Canadians still as loyal to the Queen as the Brits are?
Cheers
Scott

Marlene · #9 20-01-2007, 09:59 AM

You know, it's funny. What's a major point of national pride/historical significance to one country or group is a lot of times barely even a blip on the radar of the other parties involved.

Examples:

The American Revolution is big time for history teachers here in the states. In England, it's just barely touched on. This was the birth of our nation (and big stuff to us), but no big woo to history teachers in England.

The war of 1812 is also big history for us, but hardly any mention in English history. The signing of the Treaty of Ghent (ended war of 1812) was overshadowed by the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. Bigger news gets bigger headlines.

Reading that it's a point of Canadian pride about their part in the war of 1812-that wasn't taught to me in my history class. Never would have known it until I read up on it. I guess that covers my 'learn something new everyday' for today.

Here in Florida, the two Seminole Wars are barely written about in the history books, but are listed as victories. The tribal history has a much different take on it.

There's a lot more examples and I could go on and on...but I won't. LOL Being the daughter of a military historian, I cut my teeth on this stuff and it's something that's always interested me.

History has always had one major flaw...it's written by the winners.

anthony · #10 20-01-2007, 10:53 AM

Marlene, not the wikipedia, which is where this information is. That is written from actual archives and only factual references, not just pulled from websites on the net or the like. I believe if your an American, and did not know this information, and this war is taught too you in history, then there is a reason for that, and IMHO that reason would be the brainwashing that Americans receive through education about their country, and are NOT taught all the facts, nor are they taught to look outside of their own country.

Australia is not loyal to the Queen, yet we don't oppose it either, we just really don't care about all the UK royal BS, and most of the Commonwealth just don't give a rats anymore.

In Australia we are taught history, and that is history of Australia, America, England, China, etc etc... we are taught world history, not just Australian history. Why? Because it allows its population to look outside of its own country, to the world itself, without belief that any one country is better than another, but instead we all makeup the world as one. Whilst Australians are patriotic to Australia, we are taught to ensure we are not ignorant of the world itself. I believe America is quite different to this thinking though... and even change their history as taught to ensure the population are not shown the truth at all costs, but instead are only taught how powerful the Nation is, though really have lost most wars ever involved in. That begs a bigger question though really... Does anyone actually win a war?