1812 so who won?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: eriktheawful

Everyone's a winner then, or a loser, depending on your outlook.

Right. Think about it:

If Britain had "won" that war, the US would not exist now. They would have disbanded the US congress, occupied the states and install their own governors within each state.

If the US had "won" that war, Canada would now be part of the US.

Basically, both sides just got tired of the war. Britain no longer had a reason to do the things they were doing that was pissing off the US, they'd finally won their war with France and wanted to rebuild.
The US saw that they could trade again with France, their sailors were no longer being taken from US flagged ships, and they got the British to agree not to have a "Native American Buffer Zone". Also, I think the US was tired of having to rebuild the White House (hehehehe it's funny because Brits seem to think that's the end game, and us sneaky 'Mericans where diving off into the bushes going "We're still playing!"....it's kind of funny when you think about it. ).

The War of 1812 was really more of an exercise when you think about it. Until both sides got tired of it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Legal tender isn't a "money supply". It's value is based off its own existance. In essence when you buy something with a Pound, you're trading value for something else of value. With American money, you're collecting a debt that is owed to you. It's substantially different from a 'money supply'.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
If the US had "won" that war, Canada would now be part of the US.

Wait. It isn't?

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!

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Isn't this the war where some fella called William Tell shot an arrow off Isaac Newton's head, showing the world that Albert Einstein was right about gravity?

No, I believe you're thinking about the death of William Rufus, as described in "1066 and all that";

Rufus: A Ruddy king
This monarch was always very angry and red in the face and was therefore unpopular, so that his death was a Good Thing: it occurred in the following memorable way.
Rufus was hunting one day in the New Forest, when Wiliam Tell (the memorable crackshot, inventor of Cross-bow puzzles) took unerrring aim at a reddish apple which had fallen on to the king's head, and shot him through the heart. Sir Isaac Walton, who happened to be present at the time, thereupon invented the Law of Gravity.

"1066 and all that", ch12, W.C Sellars and R.J. Yeatman.

You see, it is very important to get the historical facts straight.

originally posted by: imjack
Legal tender isn't a "money supply".

You are playing semantics. The amount of currency in circulation, either printed or electronic, is the money supply. You can use dollars to purchase goods and/or services which immediately disproves your claim that it can only be used to satisfy a debt.

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.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's directly satisfying the debt to the mechanism that you were paid.

Under the gold standard you are given something equivalent to value and you trade that value and lose money you made.

Under the legal tender system you are given a worthless note that is used to facilitate fair trades of 'debt'.

The reason the merchant buys your gold is because he wants it. The reason he accepts your debt is because it's owed to you, and he can claim a debt owed to him once he owns it.

Saying they're the same is just untrue.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: eriktheawful
If the US had "won" that war, Canada would now be part of the US.

Wait. It isn't?

No.
The tip-off?
They call 'Ham' by the name 'Bacon'.
No way they are part of us.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I seriously thought that was Ethelred the unready who was always red! Once more back unto the books, dear friend!

originally posted by: imjack
Under the legal tender system you are given a worthless note that is used to facilitate fair trades of 'debt'. .

The note is worth what someone else will sell or do for it.

If you think your dollars are worthless send them to me. I bet you do not since they in fact have worth to you.

I like Canadian Bacon, ham...... whatever, just serve it with a couple of fried eggs and pancakes buttered toast




I'm hungry now

a reply to: crazyewok

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

Anyone who ate with their elbows on the table was carried gently to the nearest ship.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: imjack
Under the legal tender system you are given a worthless note that is used to facilitate fair trades of 'debt'. .

The note is worth what someone else will sell or do for it.

If you think your dollars are worthless send them to me. I bet you do not since they in fact have worth to you.

The notes value changes significantly based on how many notes there are. This is the literal definition of legal tender. A currency with a backed standard doesn't lose value when more money is created. So if inflation occurs your economy booms, while if it's tender it crashes. This alone is an enormous difference in the way the two currencies opperate.

Every dollar printed is worth less than the previous dollar. This is not true when they're each backed.

a reply to: crazyewok

The UK won, that's why we're all British.

Darned Queen! Thanks a lot Lizzie!

a reply to: crazyewok
Nobody won that war but the Rothschild's(bankers). It's as simple as that. Which means America lost, and we've been paying for it ever since.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: imjack
Under the legal tender system you are given a worthless note that is used to facilitate fair trades of 'debt'. .

The note is worth what someone else will sell or do for it.

If you think your dollars are worthless send them to me. I bet you do not since they in fact have worth to you.

Yeah, you are right.
I have used them to buy both ham and bacon.
But not gammon.

a reply to: Jonjonj
Ethelred the Unready was the one who was "taken completely unawares by his own death".

a reply to: DISRAELI

True to the end. Respect indeed.

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.