Never heard of that battle. I’ve heard of the 1812 war but knew nothing really if the actual fighting. Typical British foreign policy nightmare preceding it. “Hey! We’re in a war with the French empire with one of the greatest commanders of all time! Let’s go wind up a load of other folks as well! That should work!” (And at least we got our cannons back:)
@@vandpubsellHardly! I really loved how you delved into the history on this, drew me in hard lol! looking forward to more : ) going to drop a link to this vid in my discord also, hope it gets you some more traffic : )
Lundy's Lane is a fascinating battle. The location, the time of day it was waged, the participants, and its outcome. It is a microcosm of what makes the War of 1812 both a unique and futile piece of history.
@@vandpubsell lol. Yeah, we had to put how many people were in each army (American, British) and what war it was. I picked Lundy’s lane, because I’m a sucker for brutal wars.
York was already captured twice. The US left twice willingly. But good video and subbed, (btw a man from the Niagara area who’s fiancé and kids are British)
The US left willingly because they were conducting raids - very successful raids, but raids nonetheless. The point is that a permanent occupation of Burlington Heights would sever the communications to everything west of York, and that would have inevitably led to the loss of upper Canada.
@@TheIceman567 No I'm sorry the US very definitely wanted to annex Canada. Not official policy perhaps, or even one endorsed by the general public, but there are more than enough letters and statements from American politicians and leaders who state quite unequivocally they wanted to drive Britain off the continent completely.
@@vandpubsell nope it didn’t. Today historians generally agree that an invasion and seizure of Canada was the central American military strategy once the war began. Given British control of the oceans, there was no other way to actively fight against British interests. President Madison believed that food supplies from Canada were essential to the British overseas empire in the West Indies, and that an American seizure would be an excellent bargaining chip at the peace conference. During the war, some Americans speculated that they might as well keep all of Canada. Thomas Jefferson, for example, although now out of power, argued that expulsion of British interests from nearby Canada would remove a long-term threat to American republicanism. New Zealand historian J.G.A. Stagg argues that Madison and his advisers believed that conquest of Canada would be easy and that economic coercion would force the British to come to terms by cutting off the food supply for their highly valuable West Indies sugar colonies. Furthermore, possession of Canada would be a valuable bargaining chip. Stagg suggests frontiersmen demanded the seizure of Canada not because they wanted the land (they had plenty), but because the British were thought to be arming the Indians and thereby blocking settlement of the west. As Reginald Horsman concludes, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it." Donald Hickey flatly states, "The desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war." George Brown (1964) concludes, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve negotiation not to annex Canada." John A. Burt, a Canadian scholar, but also a professor at an American university, agrees completely, noting that Augustus Foster, the British minister to Washington, also rejected the argument that annexation of Canada was a war goal. In fact, The Senate held a series of debates and twice voted on proposals that explicitly endorsed annexation, neither of which passed.
Never heard of that battle. I’ve heard of the 1812 war but knew nothing really if the actual fighting. Typical British foreign policy nightmare preceding it. “Hey! We’re in a war with the French empire with one of the greatest commanders of all time! Let’s go wind up a load of other folks as well! That should work!”
(And at least we got our cannons back:)
:)
Excellent presentation. Thank you very much for this.
You're welcome! I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Rather enjoyed that! Thank you for the excellent video!
A mere amateur effort compared to your own sterling output my friend!
@@vandpubsellHardly! I really loved how you delved into the history on this, drew me in hard lol! looking forward to more : )
going to drop a link to this vid in my discord also, hope it gets you some more traffic : )
@@LackofForesightGaming Thank You!
I live near Lundys lane and sometimes hear muskets and cannons late at night
Often hear of such things near events of great significance.
@@vandpubsell it’s common where I’m from I’m on the border of the USA where the most gruesome fighting occurred
@@CanadianGooseWithagun bro its just the reenactment
@@stansfieldmcelroy I don’t think theres re enactments at 3 in the morning 😂
those aren't muskets, they are Glocks lmao
Such an underrated channel.
Aw...gosh....thanks so very much!
Lundy's Lane is a fascinating battle. The location, the time of day it was waged, the participants, and its outcome. It is a microcosm of what makes the War of 1812 both a unique and futile piece of history.
I agree. Well put.
Thanks! Working on war of 1812 Pokémon cards for school, lol.
1812 Pokemon cards...theres two concepts I thought I would never see together!
@@vandpubsell lol. Yeah, we had to put how many people were in each army (American, British) and what war it was. I picked Lundy’s lane, because I’m a sucker for brutal wars.
@@Velociraptor. A very brutal battle from a very uncomfortable war
@@vandpubsell I’m sure it was.
Thanks for this awesome video, it gave a lot of information which helped me on my assignment. Again, thank you!
Glad it helped! Thank you for your feedback!
Well put together and informative without any frills.
Thank you for your kind comment, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Very interesting
I'm glad you found it interesting.
Can you do th3 Battle or Queenston Heights?
Nice suggestion! Ill put it on the list!
York was already captured twice. The US left twice willingly. But good video and subbed, (btw a man from the Niagara area who’s fiancé and kids are British)
The US left willingly because they were conducting raids - very successful raids, but raids nonetheless. The point is that a permanent occupation of Burlington Heights would sever the communications to everything west of York, and that would have inevitably led to the loss of upper Canada.
@@vandpubsell The US goal wasn’t to annex Canada. But I agree, to be honest I don’t think the US was powerful enough to even take Burlington Heights.
@@TheIceman567 No I'm sorry the US very definitely wanted to annex Canada. Not official policy perhaps, or even one endorsed by the general public, but there are more than enough letters and statements from American politicians and leaders who state quite unequivocally they wanted to drive Britain off the continent completely.
@@vandpubsell nope it didn’t. Today historians generally agree that an invasion and seizure of Canada was the central American military strategy once the war began. Given British control of the oceans, there was no other way to actively fight against British interests. President Madison believed that food supplies from Canada were essential to the British overseas empire in the West Indies, and that an American seizure would be an excellent bargaining chip at the peace conference. During the war, some Americans speculated that they might as well keep all of Canada. Thomas Jefferson, for example, although now out of power, argued that expulsion of British interests from nearby Canada would remove a long-term threat to American republicanism. New Zealand historian J.G.A. Stagg argues that Madison and his advisers believed that conquest of Canada would be easy and that economic coercion would force the British to come to terms by cutting off the food supply for their highly valuable West Indies sugar colonies. Furthermore, possession of Canada would be a valuable bargaining chip. Stagg suggests frontiersmen demanded the seizure of Canada not because they wanted the land (they had plenty), but because the British were thought to be arming the Indians and thereby blocking settlement of the west. As Reginald Horsman concludes, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it." Donald Hickey flatly states, "The desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war." George Brown (1964) concludes, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve negotiation not to annex Canada." John A. Burt, a Canadian scholar, but also a professor at an American university, agrees completely, noting that Augustus Foster, the British minister to Washington, also rejected the argument that annexation of Canada was a war goal. In fact, The Senate held a series of debates and twice voted on proposals that explicitly endorsed annexation, neither of which passed.
@@vandpubsell historian Donald Hickey th-cam.com/video/GrCzcI0_JaY/w-d-xo.html
Bill the Butchers father fought this fight
Ah yes, from "Gangs of New York" - I believe that it has been calculated Lundy's Lane is the conflict Daniel Day-Lewis' character is referring to.
Thank you
You're welcome!
I served on the 25th inf
Oh well done. Thank you for your service.