Comment: I do...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: No, the war of 1812 was (see in situ)

I do...

...understand about the impressments, etc. going on at the time, with the Napoleonic wars and all. But to react to that by seeking to aggressively conquer Canada, widening the scope of conflict and disagreement, propagandizing it at the time as if it was going to be a cakewalk with Canadians welcoming us with open arms -- do you think that was an appropriate course to take?

I guess, are you saying the British burning our capitol buildings was not at all a response to York (whatever the exact cause of the fire in York, it wouldn't have occurred if the invasion hadn't been unwisely pursued)?

Was just reading a speech by Rep. Samuel Taggart published in the Alexandria Gazzette, June 24, 1812, explaining why he thought this was a rash course to pursue (published in the paper in protest of the closed-door debate going on). Found it in Tom Woods's We Who Dared to Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now -- interesting speech.

Anyway, feel free to persuade me otherwise, though. :) I'm certainly not a War of 1812 scholar. Just skeptical of war propaganda, whatever era it came from.