It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1812 so who won?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: crazyewok


Not because of the war of 1812 though. Only because the war in France ended in a UK victory and we didnt need the manpower anymore.


Then why didn't they resume the practice during the Crimean War? Ha, gotcha!


No need too.

The UK did not need to blockade all of Europe like in the Napoleonic war and nor were they facing much in the way of credible naval strength. Not only that but we had the French Navy (stop laughing it does exist) as allies.

Plus conditions on Royal navy ships were improving at the time so more volunteers.


Didn't the Brits have the French Navy as allies at Yorktown? I thought Cornwallis was laughing at them as the World Turned Upside Down.


Erm no quite the opposite.

At that time we (britain) were bitter enemies with France.
The whole reason the USA is the United States of America and not the United Kingdom of America is because the french turned up and tipped the balance.


Yes. My post was a jest. The French Navy was no laughing matter for Cornwallis at that time and after his surrender to the Americans, the band played " The World Turned Upside Down" because it had turned upside down for the British Empire.




posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Money does not equal currency. There, was that hard you two?



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter

Money does not equal currency.


Yes, it does:


Simple Definition of currency

1 the money that a country uses : a specific kind of money

2 something that is used as money

3 the quality or state of being used or accepted by many people Source



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
A monetary system backed one to one by precious metals can increase the amount of currency without causing inflation. By removing large bills from circulation and replacing them with smaller denominated bills to the same sum as the removed bills, the total dollar amount of all money issued remains the same but the number of notes is increased.

The only way a gold backed system can inflate is by reducing the gold content per coin. Which is the same as fiat money, in essence.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Did the folks who started the war of 1812 achieve their objectives?

What were the results of the War of 1812?

New England was given the Tariff as a remedy for all of the trade it lost during the war.

The Second National Bank was chartered to finance the War Debt.

The Federal Government got more precedents of power.

I would wager that the folks who started the war got what they wanted from it. They won.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Tempter

Money does not equal currency.


Yes, it does:


Simple Definition of currency

1 the money that a country uses : a specific kind of money

2 something that is used as money

3 the quality or state of being used or accepted by many people Source




Not the best link, but one of many.
www.differencebetween.info...



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The only way a gold backed system can inflate is by reducing the gold content per coin. Which is the same as fiat money, in essence.


Gold has no intrinsic value, therefore it is also fiat currency. If demand for goods and/or services in an economy exceeds supply, prices go up, in other words, inflation happens, whether you pay in dollars, gold, or chicken eggs.

On the other hand, when supply exceeds demand, deflation happens. This is what caused the Great Depression: the agricultural economy tanked, which is why the Federal government began buying excess farm products. It continues to do so, even though such subsidies are no longer necessary... but that's a completely different issue.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The only way a gold backed system can inflate is by reducing the gold content per coin. Which is the same as fiat money, in essence.


Gold has no intrinsic value, therefore it is also fiat currency. If demand for goods and/or services in an economy exceeds supply, prices go up, in other words, inflation happens, whether you pay in dollars, gold, or chicken eggs.

On the other hand, when supply exceeds demand, deflation happens. This is what caused the Great Depression: the agricultural economy tanked, which is why the Federal government began buying excess farm products. It continues to do so, even though such subsidies are no longer necessary... but that's a completely different issue.


Gold is NOT fiat currency. It is the opposite of fiat. It has value whether it is tied to anything or not because people will always value it for its beauty.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
Not the best link, but one of many.


You are right, it is not a good site as it is a blog.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
US didn't win because
A: They were attacking Canada instead of UK whom they should have to end the Imperial power.
B: Fighting a two way war against Indians and Canadians.
C: Too busy watching their slaves which makes them have less man power.
D: Not the entire US was united.
E: Backstabbing their Indian allies while at it.

War of 1812 was like Nazi Germany during WW2 when it comes to battles. Fighting too much conflict at once.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: makemap
A: They were attacking Canada instead of UK whom they should have to end the Imperial power.


Uh, do you mean British North America since there was no Canada in 1812?



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The only way a gold backed system can inflate is by reducing the gold content per coin. Which is the same as fiat money, in essence.


Gold has no intrinsic value, therefore it is also fiat currency.


Gold has the value of gold. Gold has never been worthless.

Fiat currency is a piece of paper or computer bits. Both of which are inherently worthless compared to gold.



If demand for goods and/or services in an economy exceeds supply, prices go up, in other words, inflation happens, whether you pay in dollars, gold, or chicken eggs.


Demand always exceeds supply, that is why nothing is free. The price system coordinates all of human wants with all of the products and services offered.



On the other hand, when supply exceeds demand, deflation happens. This is what caused the Great Depression: the agricultural economy tanked, which is why the Federal government began buying excess farm products. It continues to do so, even though such subsidies are no longer necessary... but that's a completely different issue.


Supply never exceeds demand, that is why government programs are money pits. People will always take free stuff, whether they need it or not.


WW1 would have ended in 1915 without fiat money frauds. Ceteris paribus there would have been no Great Depression with a one to one gold backed currency.

The Great Depression followed "price stabilization" by the Federal Reserve and a bit of international banker cronyism. Prices would have dropped steadily in the '20s and no Great Depression but for the know-it-all Fed. The Fed printed money in the '20s until the price system became distorted to the point that no one knew what anything was really worth anymore. Widespread bad investment caused wide spread business failure.




edit on 28-3-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: makemap

Do you think at the time the US could of put together a well trained force of sufficient might to cause the UK any real difficulty at the time? its the reverse of the war of independence with the UK having home field advantage and orders from Washington DC taking 2-3 weeks to get to the UK and 2-3 weeks for news to get returned and considering the way the British army was in experience of long and bloody conflicts the poor US soldiers would of been cannon fodder as their military commanders would of had a fraction of the experience the British did.

Once any force had landed the RN would of made sure escape was impossible and left the rest upto our well trained generals.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Gold has the value of gold. Gold has never been worthless.


If you were on a desert island, which has value: gold or fresh water?


Fiat currency is a piece of paper or computer bits. Both of which are inherently worthless compared to gold.


Any medium of exchange is fiat currency. Nothing is of fixed value. Remember the desert island. If I had the ship's fresh water supply, and you had all the gold, who would determine the price of water?


Demand always exceeds supply, that is why nothing is free. The price system coordinates all of human wants with all of the products and services offered.


So no-one has a box of 8 track tapes in the garage they can't get rid of? One of the problems with classical economics is that it is based on the concept of scarcity, whereas the modern economy is based on unlimited consumption. We throw away things that would have been treasured just a few generations ago.


Supply never exceeds demand, that is why government programs are money pits. People will always take free stuff, whether they need it or not.


If supply never exceeded demand, there would be no need of TV commercials, would there? People would demand fifty different brands of toothpaste, and no business would ever fail because demand is limitless. Government programs can become money pits when statesmen are outnumbered by politicians.



WW1 would have ended in 1915 without fiat money frauds. Ceteris paribus there would have been no Great Depression with a one to one gold backed currency.


Most historians have the opposite opinion.


The Great Depression followed "price stabilization" by the Federal Reserve and a bit of international banker cronyism. Prices would have dropped steadily in the '20s and no Great Depression but for the know-it-all Fed. The Fed printed money in the '20s until the price system became distorted to the point that no one knew what anything was really worth anymore. Widespread bad investment caused wide spread business failure.


Banks failed because there was more money in the system than specie. It had nothing to do with how much gold the US had. In fact, the US was on the gold standard at the time.

ETA: What does any of this have to do with the War of 1812 a.k.a. "The Cousins' War?"
edit on 29-3-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Well, I think we won the war only through attrition. We technically only won one major victory (there were several small victories but lost the territory shortly after each victory) at the battle of New Orleans which ironically was after the cease fire was already signed. It took several months for word to come down to Jackson after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. However, that victory was a compelling victory as Jackson was extremely out manned but pummeled General Pekanham.

That being said, the US was lucky that Britain was in it's waning moments as we could have easily fallen back under the crown if the King had persisted.

P.S. Even though there was only one resounding victory, my understanding is our meager navy actually fared very well against the British Navy.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Bearack




That being said, the US was lucky that Britain was in it's waning moments as we could have easily fallen back under the crown if the King had persiste


The U.S. had an advantage in Britain was fighting against Napoleon in Europe at the same time. If this hadn't tied up thousands of British troops in Europe then the outcome may have been quite different.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Bearack

Hard to say with the Navy as we only sent over older small ships.

Our best and biggest ships were deployed in the blockade of France or raiding there trade routes.

So you never really got to see the RN try rely in action.

PS britains power was not wanning in 1812 it was stronger than ever and would remain so till WW1 and was not till WW2 the U.S. truly took over.
We were just distracted with France.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
like so many wars there are only losers with the wasted resources on 1812 that got no side no where. could have used those resources elsewhere.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   
All sides, for the reasons already posted by many members.

Although, to a lesser extent, does anyone ever really win when family fight? The animosity can't have been too bad as we were back to being friends in next to no time.

I suppose, critically thinking, the real winners were Canada though as it eventually allowed the formation of a nation.



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: makemap

War of 1812 was like Nazi Germany during WW2 when it comes to battles. Fighting too much conflict at once.


That also applies to Britain. Its best troops and commanders were in Spain fighting Napoleon at the time.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join