Forgotten Conflicts Volume 2

[Kulaloe]

I'm not an expert, but I think it was a successful defence by Canada/Britain.

thats because america didnt have much of an army and if Britian wasnt fighting Napoleon they would have raped america

If Britain wasn't fighting Napoleon that war wouldn't have happened. Also New Orleans happened after the official end of the war. Neither side got word until after the battle ended. Both sides decided to not get worked up about it.

[Waldo followers]

thats because america didnt have much of an army and if Britian wasnt fighting Napoleon they would have raped america

If Britain wasn't fighting Napoleon that war wouldn't have happened. Also New Orleans happened after the official end of the war. Neither side got word until after the battle ended. Both sides decided to not get worked up about it.

there was alot more problems than were caused by the war with france including the british giving indians weapons, their refusal to abandon forts in US territory and the US wanting land in Canada

[Vandengaarde]

Had anyone here actually heard of the Dakota War before I made this thread? Just wondering.

[Waldo followers]

Had anyone here actually heard of the Dakota War before I made this thread? Just wondering.

i had but thats just because im a history buff
its also called the sioux uprising or the sioux outbreak of 1862

[Vandengaarde]

Had anyone here actually heard of the Dakota War before I made this thread? Just wondering.

i had but thats just because im a history buff
its also called the sioux uprising or the sioux outbreak of 1862

Yeah, I know. It's actually an interesting, yet short, conflict.

[Waldo followers]

i had but thats just because im a history buff
its also called the sioux uprising or the sioux outbreak of 1862

Yeah, I know. It's actually an interesting, yet short, conflict.

what i find most interesting about it is that some call it the sioux outbreak like its a disease
but sadly thats what they thought of them

[Vandengaarde]

Yeah, I know. It's actually an interesting, yet short, conflict.

what i find most interesting about it is that some call it the sioux outbreak like its a disease
but sadly thats what they thought of them

The natives started it anyways. All it did was make their conditions worse.

[Waldo followers]

what i find most interesting about it is that some call it the sioux outbreak like its a disease
but sadly thats what they thought of them

The natives started it anyways. All it did was make their conditions worse.

that seemed to happen through all the indian wars
even when the cherokee tried peace they were sent to oklahoma
a fate worse than death

[Yootwopia]

The natives started it anyways.

That's a slightly bold claim.

[Vandengaarde]

The natives started it anyways.

That's a slightly bold claim.

On the Sioux Uprising? Not really.

"On August 17, 1862, four Dakota killed five American settlers while on a hunting expedition. That night a council of Dakota decided to attack settlements throughout the Minnesota River valley to try to drive whites out of the area. There has never been an official report on the number of settlers killed, but estimates range from 400 to 800"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sioux_Uprising

[Yootwopia]

I think any war where the Europeans get attacked by the injuns is kind of started by the whole imposition of people from Europe, but there we go.

[Waldo followers]

The natives started it anyways.

That's a slightly bold claim.

well they had reason to
the whites were treating them like inferior a-holes

[Vandengaarde]

I think any war where the Europeans get attacked by the injuns is kind of started by the whole imposition of people from Europe, but there we go.

It was in 1862, so were they really Europeans?

[Kulaloe]

If Britain wasn't fighting Napoleon that war wouldn't have happened. Also New Orleans happened after the official end of the war. Neither side got word until after the battle ended. Both sides decided to not get worked up about it.

there was alot more problems than were caused by the war with france including the british giving indians weapons, their refusal to abandon forts in US territory and the US wanting land in Canada

Yes, but the Americans likely wouldn't have tried taking Canada if Napoleon wasn't wreaking havoc in Europe. They would have still went after the Shawnee though, which is itself a forgotten conflict. Poor Tecumseh just wanted a united native nation, but the Americans destroyed their capitol just as they had finished building it.

[Waldo followers]

there was alot more problems than were caused by the war with france including the british giving indians weapons, their refusal to abandon forts in US territory and the US wanting land in Canada

Yes, but the Americans likely wouldn't have tried taking Canada if Napoleon wasn't wreaking havoc in Europe. They would have still went after the Shawnee though, which is itself a forgotten conflict. Poor Tecumseh just wanted a united native nation, but the Americans destroyed their capitol just as they had finished building it.

both sides hated each other alot and the war hawks would have gotten someone in power to declare war

[Yootwopia]

I think any war where the Europeans get attacked by the injuns is kind of started by the whole imposition of people from Europe, but there we go.

It was in 1862, so were they really Europeans?

Plenty of them would've been. It was quite far into the 19th century when indigenous births outstripped migration as the leading factor of American population growth - not entirely sure on the year, mind.

[Vandengaarde]

It was in 1862, so were they really Europeans?

Plenty of them would've been. It was quite far into the 19th century when indigenous births outstripped migration as the leading factor of American population growth - not entirely sure on the year, mind.

Probably all the Irishmen fleeing from the loss of their potatoes. Curse you, Monarchy, for denying me my starches!

[Daistallia 2104]

war of 1812 between america and britian
you know when britian burned the white house then andrew jackson raped them at new orleans

Not forgotten at all.

It's not forgotten, it's just rather hazzy who won.

The Americans like to sing about the Battle of New Orleans, but forget about the White House burning and utterly failing to take Canada.

Taking Canada wasn't the primary US objective. Stopping the impressment of US merchant sailors and the arrming of hostile Indians was, and those were achived.

i thought it was a draw

Depends on who you ask. I'd say that as the US achieved it's primary goals but not all of it's secondary goals, it was a marginal US victory.

thats because america didnt have much of an army and if Britian wasnt fighting Napoleon they would have raped america

If Britain wasn't fighting Napoleon that war wouldn't have happened. Also New Orleans happened after the official end of the war. Neither side got word until after the battle ended. Both sides decided to not get worked up about it.

If Britain hadn't been fighting France, they'd not have been impressing US sailors.

Had anyone here actually heard of the Dakota War before I made this thread? Just wondering.

Moi.

[Waldo followers]

Plenty of them would've been. It was quite far into the 19th century when indigenous births outstripped migration as the leading factor of American population growth - not entirely sure on the year, mind.

Probably all the Irishmen fleeing from the loss of their potatoes. Curse you, Monarchy, for denying me my starches!

most irishmen were fighting the conferates down in the southmind you the american civil war was going on

[Vandengaarde]

Had anyone here actually heard of the Dakota War before I made this thread? Just wondering.

Moi.

...why?

[Serrland]

I think any war where the Europeans get attacked by the injuns is kind of started by the whole imposition of people from Europe, but there we go.

It was in 1862, so were they really Europeans?

A good chunk might have been Irishmen, the same ones that were more or less forced or coerced into enlisting as soon as they got off the boats.

[Yootwopia]

Curse you, Monarchy, for denying me my starches!

Also monoculture, but I guess that's a more tricky thing to hate.

[Vandengaarde]

It was in 1862, so were they really Europeans?

A good chunk might have been Irishmen, the same ones that were more or less forced or coerced into enlisting as soon as they got off the boats.

Nah, the conflict was in Minnesota, so it would've been Swedes, Frenchmen and maybe a few Finns.

[Hegstoria]

war of 1812 between america and britian
you know when britian burned the white house then andrew jackson raped them at new orleans

Definitely not forgotten, at least not where I live anyway.

That's so not forgotten that the UDF types and their pals have a march every year -_-

Talk to the idiotic Republican types and all you'll get is blank faces.

(Just so you know, the irish part of my Irish-German heritage is southern)

If theres one thing worse than a regular Plastic Paddy, it's a Plastic Paddy that thinks it knows what it's talking about.

It was less about the Irish and more about who would be the Monarch of England. (also, I wouldn't be too proud about the victory, after all it was the Protestant King William stole the rightful King James throne all because they were afraid of a Catholic royal line controlling the throne)

[Waldo followers]

It was in 1862, so were they really Europeans?

A good chunk might have been Irishmen, the same ones that were more or less forced or coerced into enlisting as soon as they got off the boats.

many also joined the US army so they would get expeirence so they could rebel against Britian