Town Of Fort Nelson- Chief Administrative Officer: Fill & Download for Free

Here’s a history lesson for you. The war of 1812 was for the entire North American Continent, not just for the land area that was the United States, the United States was trying to expand after feeling hard done by with the peace treaty that granted them independence. The US didn’t win the war with Great Britain, it ended in a stalemate, and only got as far as it did because Britain was already fighting a global war on many fronts and didn’t send reinforcements to North America as we had better things to be doing, namely, protecting India.Canada was swept up in the War of 1812 and was invaded several times by the Americans. The war was fought in Upper Canada, Lower Canada, on the Great Lakes and the Atlantic, and in the United States. The peace treaty of Ghent (1814), which ended the war, largely returned the status quo. However, in Canada, the war contributed to a growing sense of national identity, including the idea that civilian soldiers were largely responsible for repelling the American invaders. In contrast, the First Nations allies of the British and Canadian cause suffered much because of the war; not only had they lost many warriors (including the great Tecumseh), they also lost any hope of halting American expansion in the west, and their contributions were quickly forgotten by their British and Canadian allies (seeFirst Nations and Métis Peoples in the War of 1812).The origins of the War of 1812 were in the conflict that raged in Europe for almost two decades after Napoleon Bonaparte became First Consul (later Emperor) of France. These Napoleonic Wars(1799–1815) caused Great Britain to adopt measures that greatly aggravated the United States.On 21 November 1806, Napoleon ordered a blockade of shipping (the Berlin Decree) aimed at crippling British trade. He ordered all European ports under his control closed to British ships and further decreed that neutral and French ships would be seized if they visited a British port before entering a continental port (the so-called Continental System).Great Britain responded to Napoleon with a series of orders-in-council requiring all neutral ships to obtain a licence before they could sail to Europe. Following the victory of Lord Nelson at Trafalgar on 21 October 1805, Great Britain had the sea power to enforce its blockade of France.For many years the Americans had grappled with the problems of being a neutral nation in the great European war. Tensions mounted as the British began stopping American ships from trading in Europe. Even more vexing was the British practice of searching American vessels for “contraband” (defined by the British as goods they declared illegal) and of searching for deserters who had fled the harsh conditions of the Royal Navy. Many of these deserters had taken jobs on American ships, but American certificates of citizenship made no impression on the British. Moreover, some British captains even tried to impress (seize) native-born Americans and put them into service on British ships.These maritime tensions exploded, literally, in 1807 off the shore of Chesapeake Bay. While a British naval squadron was watching the area for French ships, several British sailors deserted and promptly enlisted in the American navy. The captain of the American 38-gun frigate Chesapeakeknew that he had deserters on board when HMS Leopard tried to board and search his ship. When the Chesapeakerefused to heave to, the 50-gun Leopardopened fire, killing three and injuring 18 of the crew. The British boarded and seized four men. Known as the “Chesapeake Affair,” the event outraged even temperate Americans. Several years later, on 1 May 1811, officers from the British ship HMS Guerriere impressed an American sailor from a coastal vessel, causing further tension.This dispute over maritime rights might have been resolved with diplomacy; in fact, the new British government of Lord Liverpool rescinded the orders-in-council a few days before the US declared war, though the news hadn’t reached America in time. Moreover, not all Americans wanted war with Great Britain, notably the merchants of New England and New York.However, President James Madison was intrigued by the analysis of Major General Henry Dearbornthat in the event of war, Canada would be easy pickings — even that an invasion would be welcomed by the Canadians. Furthermore, the “War Hawks,” a group of Congressmen from the south and west, loudly demanded war. Motivated by Anglophobia and nationalism, these Republicans encouraged war as a means to retaliate against Britain for the economic distress caused by the blockade, and for what they perceived as British support for the First Nationsin resisting American expansion into the West. On 18 June 1812, President Madison signed a declaration of war against Great Britain, supported by both the Senate and Congress.As American leaders planned their invasion of Canada, they quickly decided that Upper Canada was the most vulnerable to attack. The Atlantic provinceswere protected by British sea power, and Lower Canada was protected by its remoteness and by the fortress of Quebec (see Quebec City in the War of 1812). In contrast, Upper Canada seemed to be an easy target. The population was predominantly American, and the province was lightly defended.Upper Canada was defended by about 1,600 British regulars, formed mostly from the 41st Regiment of Foot and detachments from other units. However, the badly outnumbered British were in fact better prepared than the Americans knew. The 41st Regiment of British regulars had been reinforced by a number of militiaunits (although their loyalty and reliability was uncertain). The Provincial Marine controlled Lake Ontario. Much of the preparation was thanks to the foresight of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock, administrator of Upper Canada. Brock had a thorough grasp of the challenges of the upcoming conflict and had been preparing for five years, reinforcing fortifications, training militia units and, perhaps most important, developing alliances with the First Nations.Sir Isaac Brock was dissatisfied by the number of troops at his disposal, with only some 1,600 regulars in the province. But he was not prepared to simply wait passively for the Americans to act. He believed that a bold military stroke would galvanize the population and encourage First Nations to come to his side. He therefore sent orders to the commanding officer of Fort St. Josephon Lake Huron to capture a key American post at Michilimackinac Island on 17 July. Nearly 400 Dakota (Sioux), Menominee, Winnebago, Odawa and Ojibwewarriors, along with 45 British soldiers and some 200 voyageurs (including Métis) captured the fort quickly and without bloodshed.Meanwhile, an American force under General William Hull had crossed from Detroit into Canada, forcing Brock to quickly march his men from the town of Yorkto counter the invasion. When he arrived at the British fort at Amherstburg, Brock found that the American invasion force had already withdrawn to Detroit (see Fort Amherstburg and the War of 1812). With the great Shawnee chief Tecumseh at his side, he boldly demanded that Hull surrender Detroit, which the hapless general did on 16 August, in effect giving the British control of Michigan territory and the Upper Mississippi (see Capture of Detroit, War of 1812).At this point Thomas Jefferson’s remark that the capture of Canada was “a mere matter of marching” returned to haunt Washington. Having lost one army at Detroit, the Americans lost another at Queenston Heights(13 October 1812) after their militia refused to cross into Canada, citing the constitutional guarantee that it would not have to fight on foreign soil. (However, during the engagement, Brockwas killed — a significant loss to the British and Canadian cause.)A new American army under William Henry Harrison struggled up from Kentucky to try to retake Detroit. One wing was so badly mauled at Frenchtown(22 January 1813) by a force of British, Canadians and First Nations under Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Procter, that further attempts at invasion that winter were abandoned. The only Americans in Canada were prisoners of war.With the death of Brock, British strategy was to act defensively and allow the invaders to make mistakes. Governor Sir George Prevost conserved his thin forces carefully, keeping a strong garrison at Quebec and sending reinforcements to Upper Canada only when additional troops arrived from overseas.The Coloured Corps was a militia company of Black men raised during the War of 1812 by Richard Pierpoint, a formerly enslaved man from Bondu (Senegal) and military veteran of the American Revolution. Created in Upper Canada, where enslavementhad been limited in 1793, the corps was composed of free and enslaved Black men. Many were veterans of the American Revolution, in which they fought for the British (see Black Loyalists). The Coloured Corps fought in the Battle of Queenston Heightsand the Battle of Fort George before it was attached to the Royal Engineers as a construction company.The company was disbanded on 24 March 1815, following the end of the war. In claiming rewards for their service, many faced adversity and discrimination. Sergeant William Thompson was informed he “must go and look for his pay himself,” while Richard Pierpoint, then in his 70s, was denied his request for passage home to Africa in lieu of a land grant. When grants were distributed in 1821, veterans of the Coloured Corps received only 100 acres, half that of their White counterparts. Many veterans did not settle the land they were granted because it was of poor quality. Despite these inequities, the Coloured Corps defended Canada honourably, setting the precedent for the formation of Black units in future (see The Coloured Corps: Black Canadians and the War of 1812).As the campaign of 1813 opened, an American flotilla of 16 ships landed at York(now Toronto), the capital of Upper Canada. The Americans briefly occupied the town, burning the public buildings and seizing valuable naval supplies destined for Lake Erie(see The Sacking of York); however, the British frustrated the American plan to appropriate a half-completed warship at York by burning it instead. Had the Americans succeeded, they might have gained greater control over Lake Ontario. As it was, neither side totally controlled that lake for the balance of the war.The Americans soon abandoned York and on 27 May 1813 their fleet seized Fort George at the mouth of the Niagara River. While this was the bleakest period of the war for the British, the military situation was not irretrievable. The Americans did not take advantage of their success, and failed to immediately pursue General John Vincentand his army as they retreated from Fort George to Burlington Heights. The American forces did not set out from Fort George until 2 June, allowing the British time to recover and prepare. On the night of 5 June 1813, Vincent’s men attacked the American forces at Stoney Creek. In a fierce battle, the British dislodged the Americans, capturing two of their generals. The dispirited American force retired towards Niagara.The Americans suffered another defeat three weeks later at Beaver Dams, where some 600 men were captured by a force of 300 Kahnawake and a further 100Mohawk warriors led by Captain William Kerr (see Mohawk of the St. Lawrence Valley). The British had been warned of the American attack by Laura Secord, a Loyalist whose husband had been wounded at the Battle of Queenston Heights.Finally, worn down by sickness, desertion and the departure of short-term soldiers, the American command evacuated Fort George on 10 December and quit Canada. On leaving, the militia burned the town of Newark (Niagara-on-the-Lake), an act that drove the British to brutal retaliation at Buffalo. These incendiary reprisals continued until Washington itself was burned by the British the following August (see The Burning of Washington).The Americans fared better on the western flank. The British tried and failed to take William Henry Harrison’s stronghold at Fort Meigs on the Maumee River. A struggle for control of Lake Eriefollowed (see War on the Lakes). The two rival fleets, both built of green lumber on the shores of the lake, met 10 September 1813 at Put-in-Bay. The British were hampered by the American seizure of naval supplies at Yorkthe previous spring and by the loss, early in the battle, of several senior officers. American commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, a bold seaman, used unorthodox tactics to turn defeat into victory and become the first man in history to capture an entire British fleet.The Americans gained dominance over the upper Great Lakes and Lake Erie in effect became an American lake. The British army abandoned Detroit and retreated up the Thames River. Henry Procter delayed fatally in his retreat, however, and Harrison caught up with him at the Battle of the Thames (Moraviantown). There, the exhausted British regulars and First Nations warriors were routed and scattered. Procterfled and Tecumseh was killed. The defeat was not fatal to the province, as Harrison could not follow up his victory (his Kentuckians were eager to get back to their farms at harvest time), but it effectively ended the First Nations alliance.On Lake Huron, the American fleet searched for British supply vessels, which led to the sinking of the Nancy; they also razed Sault Ste. Marie on 21 July 1814, and attempted to recapture Fort Michilimackinac (see Battle of Mackinac Island). The British regained a presence on the lake in early September with the capture of the Tigress and Scorpion.America forces also invaded Lower Canada during the war. The Americans could potentially have struck a mortal blow against the British in Lower Canada, but their invading armies, which outnumbered the British 10–1, were led with almost incredible ineptitude by Generals James Wilkinson and Wade Hampton. A miscellaneous force of British regulars, Voltigeurs, militia and First Nations harassed the advancing Americans and turned the invasion back at Châteauguay(25–26 October 1813) under Lieutenant-Colonel Charles de Salaberry, and at Crysler’s Farm(near Cornwall, ON) on 11 November 1813, under Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Wanton Morrison.The Canadian Voltigeurs was a volunteer corps raised and commanded by Charles-Michel d’Irumberry de Salaberry, a British army officer born in Beauport, Lower Canada. The Voltigeurs were initially assigned to defend the Eastern Townships.In November 1812, they faced American Major General Dearborn and his 6,000-strong force, who invaded the region from Plattsburgh. De Salaberry rushed with a company of Voltigeurs and 230 Kahnawake Mohawk warriors to staunch the invasion at Lacolle. While they could not halt the invasion, days of skirmishing increased the cost, and Dearborn retreated days later.In the spring of 1813, the Voltigeur units split, with some bolstered the defences at Kingston and others participating in the failed assault on Sackets Harbor.The following year, 1814, the Americans again invaded Upper Canada, crossing the Niagara Riverat Buffalo. They easily seized Fort Erie on 3 July, and on 5 July turned back a rash attack by the British under General Phineas Riallat Chippawa.The whole Niagara campaign came to a climax with the bloodiest battle of the war, at Lundy’s Lane on 25 July. Fought in the pitch dark of a sultry night by exhausted troops who could not tell friend from foe, it ended in a stalemate.The American invasion was now effectively spent, and they withdrew to Fort Erie. Here they badly trounced the forces of the new British commander, Lieutenant-General Gordon Drummond, when he attempted a night attack (14–15 August 1814). With both sides exhausted, a three-month standoff followed (see Siege of Fort Erie). Finally, on 5 November, the Americans again withdrew across the Niagara River, effectively ending the war in Upper Canada.On the Atlantic front, Nova Scotia’s Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John Sherbrooke, led a force from Halifax into Maine, capturing Castine on 1 September 1814. By the middle of September, British forces held much of the Maine coast, which was returned to the US only with the signing of the peace treaty in December 1814.The most formidable effort by the British in 1814 was the invasion of northern New York, in which Governor Sir George Prevost led 11,000 British veterans of the Napoleonic Warsto Plattsburgh on Lake Champlain. However, Prevost was hesitant to attack, and the defeat of the British fleet in Plattsburgh Bay by the American commodore, Thomas Macdonough, on 11 September led Prevost to withdraw his troops.Prevost’s decision to withdraw from American territory affected peace negotiations in Ghent, which had begun in August 1814. Had Prevost’s invasion succeeded, much of upper New York State might be Canadian today. However, his withdrawal forced the British peace negotiators at Ghent to lower their demands and accept the status quo. When the treaty was signed on Christmas Eve 1814, all conquests were to be restored and disputes over boundaries were deferred to joint commissions (see Treaty of Ghent).Hostilities continued after the peace treaty was signed, however. The last battle of the war is often cited as the Battle of New Orleans (8 January 1815), but British and American forces also clashed on 11 February 1815 at Fort Bowyer on Mobile Bay. Several naval engagements also followed the signing of the treaty, including the final battle of the war, between the US sloop Peacock and East India cruiser Nautilus in the Indian Ocean, four-and-a-half months after the peace treaty was signed.Washington had expected the largely American population of Upper Canada to throw off the “British yoke” as soon as its army crossed the border. This did not happen. Lured northwards by free land and low taxes, most settlers wanted to be left alone. Thus the British and Loyalistelite were able to set Canadians on a different course from that of their former enemy.Several units of the Canadian militia actively participated in the war; this included the Coloured Corps, a small corps of Black Canadians that fought at the Battle of Queenston Heights (see also Richard Pierpoint Heritage Minute). Although the majority of the fighting was done by British regulars and First Nationswarriors, a myth developed that civilian soldiers had won the war, and this helped to germinate the seeds of nationalism in the Canadas.Canada owes its present shape to negotiations that grew out of the peace, while the war itself — or the myths created by the war — gave Canadians their first sense of community and laid the foundation for their future nationhood. To this extent the Canadians were the real winners of the War of 1812.For the Americans, the outcome was more ambiguous. Since the issues of impressment and maritime rights were not resolved in the peace treaty, the war could be considered a failure; however, the Americans had some spectacular victories at sea, which were indicators of the future potential of American power. The war was certainly a failure for the “War Hawks,” who wanted to annex, or take over, Canada — the war proved that this was not militarily feasible. The conclusions that the war was a “second war of independence” or a war of honour and respect are less easy to judge.If the winners are qualified, the losers are easier to identify. The death of Tecumsehand the defeat of the First Nations at the Battle of the Thamesbroke apart Tecumseh’s confederacy (see First Nations and Métis Peoples in the War of 1812). Similarly, in the related defeat of the Creek Nation, any hope of halting American expansion into First Nations territory effectively ended. While in Canada the First Nations fared better in preserving their land and culture, in the end the British abandoned their Indigenous allies in the peace, just as they had several times before.Real history is incredibly different to the history that seems to be taught in the US, does one not agree?

The War of 1812 (which lasted from 1812 to 1814) was a military conflict between the United States and Great Britain. As a colony of Great Britain, Canada was swept up in the War of 1812 and was invaded several times by the Americans. The war was fought in Upper Canada, Lower Canada, on the Great Lakes and the Atlantic, and in the United States. The peace treaty of Ghent (1814), which ended the war, largely returned the status quo. However, in Canada, the war contributed to a growing sense of national identity, including the idea that civilian soldiers were largely responsible for repelling the American invaders. In contrast, the First Nations allies of the British and Canadian cause suffered much because of the war; not only had they lost many warriors (including the great Tecumseh), they also lost any hope of halting American expansion in the west, and their contributions were quickly forgotten by their British and Canadian allies (see First Nations and Métis Peoples in the War of 1812).Note: This article focuses primarily on land campaigns; for more detailed discussion of naval campaigns, see Atlantic Campaign of the War of 1812 and War on the Lakes in the War of 1812.The Battle of New Orleans, by Moran(courtesy Library of Congress/LC-USZC2-3796)This painting by Edward Percy Moran depicts the last major confrontation of the War of 1812, the Battle of New Orleans. The battle is best remembered for General Andrew Jackson's stiff resistance to British incursion and for the death of British Major General Edward Pakenham (courtesy Library of Congress/LC-USZC2-3796).Causes of the War of 1812The origins of the War of 1812 were in the conflict that raged in Europe for almost two decades after Napoleon Bonaparte became First Consul (later Emperor) of France. These Napoleonic Wars (1799–1815) caused Great Britain to adopt measures that greatly aggravated the United States.On 21 November 1806, Napoleon ordered a blockade of shipping (the Berlin Decree) aimed at crippling British trade. He ordered all European ports under his control closed to British ships and further decreed that neutral and French ships would be seized if they visited a British port before entering a continental port (the so-called Continental System).Great Britain responded to Napoleon with a series of orders-in-council requiring all neutral ships to obtain a licence before they could sail to Europe. Following the victory of Lord Nelson at Trafalgar on 21 October 1805, Great Britain had the sea power to enforce its blockade of France.For many years the Americans had grappled with the problems of being a neutral nation in the great European war. Tensions mounted as the British began stopping American ships from trading in Europe. Even more vexing was the British practice of searching American vessels for “contraband” (defined by the British as goods they declared illegal) and of searching for deserters who had fled the harsh conditions of the Royal Navy. Many of these deserters had taken jobs on American ships, but American certificates of citizenship made no impression on the British. Moreover, some British captains even tried to impress (seize) native-born Americans and put them into service on British ships.HMS Leopard, USS Chesapeake(painting by F. Muller, courtesy American Memory, Library of Congress)The battle between the British warship HMS Leopard (left) and the American warship US Chesapeake (right) on 22 June 1807, in which the British attacked and boarded the Chesapeake, was a catalyst for all-out war a few years later (painting by F. Muller, courtesy American Memory, Library of Congress).These maritime tensions exploded, literally, in 1807 off the shore of Chesapeake Bay. While a British naval squadron was watching the area for French ships, several British sailors deserted and promptly enlisted in the American navy. The captain of the American 38-gun frigate Chesapeake knew that he had deserters on board when HMS Leopard tried to board and search his ship. When the Chesapeake refused to heave to, the 50-gun Leopard opened fire, killing three and injuring 18 of the crew. The British boarded and seized four men. Known as the “Chesapeake Affair,” the event outraged even temperate Americans. Several years later, on 1 May 1811, officers from the British ship HMS Guerriere impressed an American sailor from a coastal vessel, causing further tension.This dispute over maritime rights might have been resolved with diplomacy; in fact, the new British government of Lord Liverpool rescinded the orders-in-council a few days before the US declared war, though the news hadn’t reached America in time. Moreover, not all Americans wanted war with Great Britain, notably the merchants of New England and New York.However, President James Madison was intrigued by the analysis of Major General Henry Dearborn that in the event of war, Canada would be easy pickings — even that an invasion would be welcomed by the Canadians. Furthermore, the “War Hawks,” a group of Congressmen from the south and west, loudly demanded war. Motivated by Anglophobia and nationalism, these Republicans encouraged war as a means to retaliate against Britain for the economic distress caused by the blockade, and for what they perceived as British support for the First Nations in resisting American expansion into the West. On 18 June 1812, President Madison signed a declaration of war against Great Britain, supported by both the Senate and Congress.American and British PlanningAs American leaders planned their invasion of Canada, they quickly decided that Upper Canada was the most vulnerable to attack. The Atlantic provinces were protected by British sea power, and Lower Canada was protected by its remoteness and by the fortress of Quebec (see Quebec City in the War of 1812). In contrast, Upper Canada seemed to be an easy target. The population was predominantly American, and the province was lightly defended.Upper Canada was defended by about 1,600 British regulars, formed mostly from the 41st Regiment of Foot and detachments from other units. However, the badly outnumbered British were in fact better prepared than the Americans knew. The 41st Regiment of British regulars had been reinforced by a number of militia units (although their loyalty and reliability was uncertain). The Provincial Marine controlled Lake Ontario. Much of the preparation was thanks to the foresight of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock, administrator of Upper Canada. Brock had a thorough grasp of the challenges of the upcoming conflict and had been preparing for five years, reinforcing fortifications, training militia units and, perhaps most important, developing alliances with the First Nations.First Nations and Métis Peoples in the War of 1812Six Nations Warriors War of 1812(courtesy Library and Archives Canada/C-085127)Studio portrait taken in July 1882 of the surviving Six Nations warriors who fought with the British in the War of 1812. (Right to left:) Sakawaraton - John Smoke Johnson (born ca. 1792); John Tutela (born ca. 1797) and Young Warner (born ca. 1794).First Nations and Métis peoples played a significant role in Canada in the War of 1812. The conflict forced various Indigenous peoples to overcome longstanding differences and unite against a common enemy. It also strained alliances, such as the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) Confederacy, in which some nations were allied with American forces. Most First Nations strategically allied themselves with Great Britain during the war, seeing the British as the lesser of two colonial evils (see Indigenous-British Relations Pre-Confederation) and the group most interested in maintaining traditional territories and trade (see First Nations and Métis Peoples in the War of 1812).Tecumseh, Shawnee chief(courtesy Metropolitan Toronto Library, J. Ross Robertson/T-16600)Tecumseh allied his forces with those of the British during the War of 1812, and his active participation was crucial. Painting by W.B. Turner (courtesy Metropolitan Toronto Library, J. Ross Robertson/T-16600).Two Shawnee brothers, Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa, implored Indigenous peoples to unite in order to defend their dwindling lands against the growing incursions of American settlers and the United States government. The promise of such an Aboriginal state never came to fruition. During negotiations for the Treaty of Ghent (1814) that ended the war, the British tried to bargain for the creation of an Indian Territory, but the American delegates refused to agree.The Meeting of Brock and Tecumseh(painting by C.W. Jeffreys, courtesy Library and Archives Canada/ C-073719)Meeting of Isaac Brock and Tecumseh, 1812 (painting by C.W. Jeffreys, courtesy Library and Archives Canada/ C-073719).For Indigenous peoples living in British North America, the War of 1812 marked the end of an era of self-reliance and self-determination. Soon they would become outnumbered by settlers in their own lands. Any social or political influence enjoyed before the war dissipated. Within a generation, the contributions of so many different peoples, working together with their British and Canadian allies against a common foe, would be all but forgotten (see Aboriginal Title and the War of 1812).The British AttackIsaac Brock, military hero(courtesy Library and Archives Canada/C-36181)Isaac Brock was long remembered as the fallen hero and saviour of Upper Canada (courtesy Library and Archives Canada/C-36181).Sir Isaac Brock was dissatisfied by the number of troops at his disposal, with only some 1,600 regulars in the province. But he was not prepared to simply wait passively for the Americans to act. He believed that a bold military stroke would galvanize the population and encourage First Nations to come to his side. He therefore sent orders to the commanding officer of Fort St. Joseph on Lake Huron to capture a key American post at Michilimackinac Island on 17 July. Nearly 400 Dakota (Sioux), Menominee, Winnebago, Odawa and Ojibwe warriors, along with 45 British soldiers and some 200 voyageurs (including Métis) captured the fort quickly and without bloodshed.Amherstburg Navy Yard(ЊсSunset at the Amherstburg Navy YardЊо by Peter Rindlisbacher)Britain's Upper Lakes Naval Base just before the Battle of Lake Erie. In the midst of supply shortages, the crew of the new flagship HMS Detroit is seen fitting a sail borrowed from the HMS Queen Charlotte anchored on the right. After their defeat on the Lake, the British abandoned this site, and located their new Upper Lakes naval base at Penetanguishene, on Lake Huron (“Sunset at the Amherstburg Navy Yard” by Peter Rindlisbacher).Meanwhile, an American force under General William Hull had crossed from Detroit into Canada, forcing Brock to quickly march his men from the town of York to counter the invasion. When he arrived at the British fort at Amherstburg, Brock found that the American invasion force had already withdrawn to Detroit (see Fort Amherstburg and the War of 1812). With the great Shawnee chief Tecumseh at his side, he boldly demanded that Hull surrender Detroit, which the hapless general did on 16 August, in effect giving the British control of Michigan territory and the Upper Mississippi (see Capture of Detroit, War of 1812).“Bombardment of Fort Detroit, 1812”, Rindlisbacher(ЊсBombardment of Fort Detroit, 1812Њо by Peter Rindlisbacher)The surprise capitulation of Fort Detroit in August, 1812 was preceded by a naval bombardment from the Detroit River. The brig HMS General Hunter and HMS Queen Charlotte sent volleys into the Fort and walled town of Detroit; damage was minimal, but the cannon fire had a powerful psychological effect nevertheless ("Bombardment of Fort Detroit, 1812" by Peter Rindlisbacher).DID YOU KNOW?Shawnee war chief Tecumseh (1768–1813) sided with the British, not because he fully trusted them, but because he saw them as a strategic ally with common interests. Tecumseh combined a passionate concern for his people with an acute strategic military sense. During the War of 1812, a large number of Indigenous nations fought under Tecumseh, who gained the alliance of the Potawatomi, Ojibwa, Shawnee, Odawa, Kickapoo and others, though not all groups supported him.Campaigns in Upper Canada (1812)At this point Thomas Jefferson’s remark that the capture of Canada was “a mere matter of marching” returned to haunt Washington. Having lost one army at Detroit, the Americans lost another at Queenston Heights (13 October 1812) after their militia refused to cross into Canada, citing the constitutional guarantee that it would not have to fight on foreign soil. (However, during the engagement, Brock was killed — a significant loss to the British and Canadian cause.)DID YOU KNOW?Outnumbered more than 10 to 1, Mohawk chiefs John Norton (Teyoninhokarawen) and John Brant (Ahyonwaeghs) and about 80 other Haudenosaunee and Delaware warriors held back American forces at Queenston Heights for several hours — long enough for reinforcements to arrive so that the British could retain the crucial outpost.Death of Isaac Brock, The Battle of Queenston Heights(painting by John David, courtesy Library and Archives Canada/C-000273)The Battle of Queenston Heights on 13 October 1812 was both a victory and a tragedy for the British and Canadian forces against the invading American army, and resulted in the death of Isaac Brock (foreground) (painting by John David, courtesy Library and Archives Canada/C-000273).A new American army under William Henry Harrison struggled up from Kentucky to try to retake Detroit. One wing was so badly mauled at Frenchtown (22 January 1813) by a force of British, Canadians and First Nations under Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Procter, that further attempts at invasion that winter were abandoned. The only Americans in Canada were prisoners of war.With the death of Brock, British strategy was to act defensively and allow the invaders to make mistakes. Governor Sir George Prevost conserved his thin forces carefully, keeping a strong garrison at Quebec and sending reinforcements to Upper Canada only when additional troops arrived from overseas.Prevost, Sir George(courtesy McCord Museum/McGill University)Portrait of Sir George Prevost, attributed to Robert Field, circa 1808-11. He led the Swiss de Meurons infantry in the War of 1812 (courtesy McCord Museum/McGill University).Coloured CorpsThe Coloured Corps was a militia company of Black men raised during the War of 1812 by Richard Pierpoint, a formerly enslaved man from Bondu (Senegal) and military veteran of the American Revolution. Created in Upper Canada, where enslavement had been limited in 1793, the corps was composed of free and enslaved Black men. Many were veterans of the American Revolution, in which they fought for the British (see Black Loyalists). The Coloured Corps fought in the Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battle of Fort George before it was attached to the Royal Engineers as a construction company.The company was disbanded on 24 March 1815, following the end of the war. In claiming rewards for their service, many faced adversity and discrimination. Sergeant William Thompson was informed he “must go and look for his pay himself,” while Richard Pierpoint, then in his 70s, was denied his request for passage home to Africa in lieu of a land grant. When grants were distributed in 1821, veterans of the Coloured Corps received only 100 acres, half that of their White counterparts. Many veterans did not settle the land they were granted because it was of poor quality. Despite these inequities, the Coloured Corps defended Canada honourably, setting the precedent for the formation of Black units in future (see The Coloured Corps: Black Canadians and the War of 1812).Black Soldier(painting by Robert Marrion, courtesy Beaverbrook Collection of War Art, Canadian War Museum/CWM19810948-008)A member of the 104th (New Brunswick) Regiment of Foot.Campaigns in Upper Canada (1813)As the campaign of 1813 opened, an American flotilla of 16 ships landed at York (now Toronto), the capital of Upper Canada. The Americans briefly occupied the town, burning the public buildings and seizing valuable naval supplies destined for Lake Erie (see The Sacking of York); however, the British frustrated the American plan to appropriate a half-completed warship at York by burning it instead. Had the Americans succeeded, they might have gained greater control over Lake Ontario. As it was, neither side totally controlled that lake for the balance of the war.The Americans soon abandoned York and on 27 May 1813 their fleet seized Fort George at the mouth of the Niagara River. While this was the bleakest period of the war for the British, the military situation was not irretrievable. The Americans did not take advantage of their success, and failed to immediately pursue General John Vincent and his army as they retreated from Fort George to Burlington Heights. The American forces did not set out from Fort George until 2 June, allowing the British time to recover and prepare. On the night of 5 June 1813, Vincent’s men attacked the American forces at Stoney Creek. In a fierce battle, the British dislodged the Americans, capturing two of their generals. The dispirited American force retired towards Niagara.The Battle of Stoney Creek(painting by Peter Rindlisbacher)British Red Coats on the field at the Battle of Stoney Creek. The engagement at Stoney Creek returned the Niagara Peninsula to British and Canadian control and ended the US attempt to conquer the western part of the province (painting by Peter Rindlisbacher).The Americans suffered another defeat three weeks later at Beaver Dams, where some 600 men were captured by a force of 300 Kahnawake and a further 100 Mohawk warriors led by Captain William Kerr (see Mohawk of the St. Lawrence Valley). The British had been warned of the American attack by Laura Secord, a Loyalist whose husband had been wounded at the Battle of Queenston Heights.DID YOU KNOW?Laura Secord walked 30 km from Queenston to Beaver Dams, near Thorold, to warn James FitzGibbon that the Americans were planning to attack his outpost. Secord took a circuitous route through inhospitable terrain to avoid American sentries on her trek and was helped by a group of Mohawk warriors she encountered along the way.Finally, worn down by sickness, desertion and the departure of short-term soldiers, the American command evacuated Fort George on 10 December and quit Canada. On leaving, the militia burned the town of Newark (Niagara-on-the-Lake), an act that drove the British to brutal retaliation at Buffalo. These incendiary reprisals continued until Washington itself was burned by the British the following August (see The Burning of Washington).War on the Western Flank (1813–14)The Americans fared better on the western flank. The British tried and failed to take William Henry Harrison’s stronghold at Fort Meigs on the Maumee River. A struggle for control of Lake Erie followed (see War on the Lakes). The two rival fleets, both built of green lumber on the shores of the lake, met 10 September 1813 at Put-in-Bay. The British were hampered by the American seizure of naval supplies at York the previous spring and by the loss, early in the battle, of several senior officers. American commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, a bold seaman, used unorthodox tactics to turn defeat into victory and become the first man in history to capture an entire British fleet.US Admiral Perry, The Battle of Put-in-Bay (Lake Erie)(painting by William Henry Powell, courtesy United States Senate)US Admiral Oliver Perry at Put-in-Bay during the Battle of Lake Erie, at the moment when he rowed his way through enemy fire from the severely damaged St Lawrence to the Niagara (painting by William Henry Powell, courtesy United States Senate).The Americans gained dominance over the upper Great Lakes and Lake Erie in effect became an American lake. The British army abandoned Detroit and retreated up the Thames River. Henry Procter delayed fatally in his retreat, however, and Harrison caught up with him at the Battle of the Thames (Moraviantown). There, the exhausted British regulars and First Nations warriors were routed and scattered. Procter fled and Tecumseh was killed. The defeat was not fatal to the province, as Harrison could not follow up his victory (his Kentuckians were eager to get back to their farms at harvest time), but it effectively ended the First Nations alliance.“Battle of the Thames” (Moraviantown), Emmons(courtesy W.H. Coverdale Collection of Canadiana, Library and Archives Canada/C-04103)In “Battle of the Thames”, artist William Emmons depicts the 5 October 1813 battle that resulted in the death of legendary Shawnee war chief Tecumseh (courtesy W.H. Coverdale Collection of Canadiana, Library and Archives Canada/C-04103).On Lake Huron, the American fleet searched for British supply vessels, which led to the sinking of the Nancy; they also razed Sault Ste. Marie on 21 July 1814, and attempted to recapture Fort Michilimackinac (see Battle of Mackinac Island). The British regained a presence on the lake in early September with the capture of the Tigress and Scorpion.The War in Lower Canada (1813)America forces also invaded Lower Canada during the war. The Americans could potentially have struck a mortal blow against the British in Lower Canada, but their invading armies, which outnumbered the British 10–1, were led with almost incredible ineptitude by Generals James Wilkinson and Wade Hampton. A miscellaneous force of British regulars, Voltigeurs, militia and First Nations harassed the advancing Americans and turned the invasion back at Châteauguay (25–26 October 1813) under Lieutenant-Colonel Charles de Salaberry, and at Crysler’s Farm (near Cornwall, ON) on 11 November 1813, under Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Wanton Morrison.VoltigeursThe Canadian Voltigeurs was a volunteer corps raised and commanded by Charles-Michel d’Irumberry de Salaberry, a British army officer born in Beauport, Lower Canada. The Voltigeurs were initially assigned to defend the Eastern Townships.Canadian Voltigeurs(artwork by Eugene Leliepvre, courtesy Parks Canada/PD No. 501)Canadian Voltigeurs performing target practice, c. 1812-1813 (artwork by Eugene Leliepvre, courtesy Parks Canada/PD No. 501).In November 1812, they faced American Major General Dearborn and his 6,000-strong force, who invaded the region from Plattsburgh. De Salaberry rushed with a company of Voltigeurs and 230 Kahnawake Mohawk warriors to staunch the invasion at Lacolle. While they could not halt the invasion, days of skirmishing increased the cost, and Dearborn retreated days later.In the spring of 1813, the Voltigeur units split, with some bolstered the defences at Kingston and others participating in the failed assault on Sackets Harbor.Last Invasion of Upper Canada (1814)The following year, 1814, the Americans again invaded Upper Canada, crossing the Niagara River at Buffalo. They easily seized Fort Erie on 3 July, and on 5 July turned back a rash attack by the British under General Phineas Riall at Chippawa.The whole Niagara campaign came to a climax with the bloodiest battle of the war, at Lundy’s Lane on 25 July. Fought in the pitch dark of a sultry night by exhausted troops who could not tell friend from foe, it ended in a stalemate.The Battle of Lundy's Lane(courtesy New York State Military Museum)Lundy's Lane was the site of a battle fought between American troops and British regulars assisted by Canadian Fencibles and militia on the sultry evening of 25 July 1814. It was one of the most important battles of the war, halting the American advance into Upper Canada (courtesy New York State Military Museum).The American invasion was now effectively spent, and they withdrew to Fort Erie. Here they badly trounced the forces of the new British commander, Lieutenant-General Gordon Drummond, when he attempted a night attack (14–15 August 1814). With both sides exhausted, a three-month standoff followed (see Siege of Fort Erie). Finally, on 5 November, the Americans again withdrew across the Niagara River, effectively ending the war in Upper Canada.Invading the United States (1814)On the Atlantic front, Nova Scotia’s Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John Sherbrooke, led a force from Halifax into Maine, capturing Castine on 1 September 1814. By the middle of September, British forces held much of the Maine coast, which was returned to the US only with the signing of the peace treaty in December 1814.The most formidable effort by the British in 1814 was the invasion of northern New York, in which Governor Sir George Prevost led 11,000 British veterans of the Napoleonic Wars to Plattsburgh on Lake Champlain. However, Prevost was hesitant to attack, and the defeat of the British fleet in Plattsburgh Bay by the American commodore, Thomas Macdonough, on 11 September led Prevost to withdraw his troops.The Treaty of GhentPrevost’s decision to withdraw from American territory affected peace negotiations in Ghent, which had begun in August 1814. Had Prevost’s invasion succeeded, much of upper New York State might be Canadian today. However, his withdrawal forced the British peace negotiators at Ghent to lower their demands and accept the status quo. When the treaty was signed on Christmas Eve 1814, all conquests were to be restored and disputes over boundaries were deferred to joint commissions (see Treaty of Ghent).Hostilities continued after the peace treaty was signed, however. The last battle of the war is often cited as the Battle of New Orleans (8 January 1815), but British and American forces also clashed on 11 February 1815 at Fort Bowyer on Mobile Bay. Several naval engagements also followed the signing of the treaty, including the final battle of the war, between the US sloop Peacock and East India cruiser Nautilus in the Indian Ocean, four-and-a-half months after the peace treaty was signed.Who Won or Lost the War of 1812?Washington had expected the largely American population of Upper Canada to throw off the “British yoke” as soon as its army crossed the border. This did not happen. Lured northwards by free land and low taxes, most settlers wanted to be left alone. Thus the British and Loyalist elite were able to set Canadians on a different course from that of their former enemy.Several units of the Canadian militia actively participated in the war; this included the Coloured Corps, a small corps of Black Canadians that fought at the Battle of Queenston Heights (see also Richard Pierpoint Heritage Minute). Although the majority of the fighting was done by British regulars and First Nations warriors, a myth developed that civilian soldiers had won the war, and this helped to germinate the seeds of nationalism in the Canadas.Canada owes its present shape to negotiations that grew out of the peace, while the war itself — or the myths created by the war — gave Canadians their first sense of community and laid the foundation for their future nationhood. To this extent the Canadians were the real winners of the War of 1812.For the Americans, the outcome was more ambiguous. Since the issues of impressment and maritime rights were not resolved in the peace treaty, the war could be considered a failure; however, the Americans had some spectacular victories at sea, which were indicators of the future potential of American power. The war was certainly a failure for the “War Hawks,” who wanted to annex, or take over, Canada — the war proved that this was not militarily feasible. The conclusions that the war was a “second war of independence” or a war of honour and respect are less easy to judge.If the winners are qualified, the losers are easier to identify. The death of Tecumseh and the defeat of the First Nations at the Battle of the Thames broke apart Tecumseh’s confederacy (see First Nations and Métis Peoples in the War of 1812). Similarly, in the related defeat of the Creek Nation, any hope of halting American expansion into First Nations territory effectively ended. While in Canada the First Nations fared better in preserving their land and culture, in the end the British abandoned their Indigenous allies in the peace, just as they had several times before.Sorry if it is too long. I just copy paste it from: War of 1812 | The Canadian Encyclopedia. :)

Let’s look at actions and forget its words:Note: In its 200 year history, the USA has intervened in, invaded or militarily occupied the following Western Hemisphere nations:Canada, Confederate States of America, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, Surinam, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, Puerto Rico, Grenada.While the dates most associated with the Central Intelligence Agency are the 1953 coup against Iran’s Mohammed Mossadeq and the following year against Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz, the world’s most notorious–and possibly ignoble–spy agency actually was chartered on this day, 18 September, in 1947.Since then, the CIA has played a role in hundreds of assassinations, military coups, and rebellions around the globe, from Argentina to Zaire.Despite it’s championing of freedom, the CIA’s true objective has always been imperialist in nature. Whether oil in Iran or bananas in Guatemala, the U.S. has a material interest in every country in whose affairs it has meddled.In order to meet its goals, the CIA recruits influential, intellectual and charismatic personalities. The agency also resorts to threats, kidnappings, torture, enforced disappearances and assassinations. The organization incites violence, uprisings and military rebellion, and causes economic chaos and misery to the people through scarcity of basic foods, etc..The CIA has been exposed on a number of occasions through documented evidence, leaks of information and whistleblowing by active and former agents.Che Guevera, the revolutionary face of resistance against U.S. homicidal interventions. Two years after leading a rebellion against Washington’s intervention in Bolivia, Che was murdered.1. 1954 – GuatemalaIn 1944, the violent U.S.-backed dictatorship of Jorge Ubico was overthrown by a popular uprising. The people of Guatemala were sick and tired of the brutal injustices of his regime, although in reality Ubico was merely a puppet of The United Fruit Company, which obeyed Washington’s orders. They basically enslaved the population. They stripped campesinos and Indigenous people of their lands and forced them to work their own parcels and paid them bread crumbs. Those who dared to disobey were brutally punished by a police force working for the U.S. fruit company.The victory of the uprising brought peace to the country but it only took 10 years for U S President Dwight Eisenhower (and two of Ike’s cabinet members [who were also United Fruit Company insiders] Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and CIA Chief Allen Dulles) to implement a plan to overthrow the government.In 1954, (US President Dwight Eisenhower’s) CIA launched the so-called Operation PBSuccess. The country’s capital, Guatemala City, was bombed by U.S. warplanes. The young Ernesto “Che” Guevara was there and witnessed the ordeal first hand. Hundreds of campesino leaders were executed and many campesino and Mayan Indigenous communities were completely wiped out. The brutal CIA intervention wasn’t complete until 200,000 had been killed. U.S. companies were again enjoying huge profits in the Central American country and Washington was happy.U.S.-backed and financed military tyrants of Guatemala 19542. 1959 – HaitiHaiti is equally strategic to the United States as are the Dominican Republic and Cuba. So, Washington doesn’t hesitate when their brutal control appears to wane in the Caribbean. Under no circumstance, would the U.S. allow governments in the region to lean to the left, and if they dare to, (US President Dwight Eisenhower’) CIA steps in to push them back to the right. Of course, Cuba is a rare example of resilience to U.S. efforts to achieve hegemony in the area. Since 1959, the Cuban revolution of Fidel Castro has repealed the relentless U.S. attacks.But in Haiti, the story is different. In 1959 as well, popular discontent rose against the brutal puppet of the U.S., Francois Duvalier. The CIA stepped in and stopped it immediately. With the help of the intelligence agency, Duvalier wasted no time and created an army to violently repress all those who rose up against him. He and his heir to the regime, Jean Claude Duvalier, ordered massacres that were so horrendous they defy words. Over 100,000 people were murdered. And in 1986, when a new but uncontrollable rebellion took over, a U.S. Air Force plane rescued Jean Claude and took him to France so he could live in peaceful luxury.U.S. puppet Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier—a CIA murderer3. 1964 – BrazilThe year of 1964 was one of incredible transformation in Brazil. Democratically-elected President Joao Goulart implemented his “Plan of Basic Reforms.” Even though the U.S. had exerted much of its power through ensuring people weren’t lifted from ignorance and illiteracy, Brazil implemented real changes that made Washington very uncomfortable. Firstly, a tax reform was put in place that would hugely carve into the profits of the multinational corporations of the United States and its allies. Washington was also very unhappy with a reform by which land would be given back to their legitimate owners and would redistribute other lands to poor people.It was now time to send in (US President Lyndon Johnson’s) CIA to take action against the government of Goulart, which they did in 1964. They put in power a brutal dictatorship that lasted 19 years. During this regime, thousands were tortured and hundreds executed. The CIA also made sure all those leaders who had leftist tendencies were eliminated, particularly Marxists.4. 1969 – UruguayDuring the sixties, revolutionary movements spread through Latin America. Uruguay was drowned in crises. United States saw influential socialist leaders emerge in this South American nation. For example, the urban revolutionary guerrilla known as the Tupamaros. Jose “Pepe” Mujica was part of it, and so was his wife Lucia Topolansky. Washington became obsessed with eliminating them, fearing the influence and power they were achieving.Nelson Rockefeller went to Uruguay to observe first-hand how they were, generating a growing anti-Yankee sentiment. He returned to Washington to alert authorities that something needed to be done urgently.Of course, (US President Richard Nixon’s) CIA responded immediately. They sent their special agent Dan Mitrione. He trained security forces in the art of torture and other highly macabre practices that are indescribable in nature. And then the CIA put in power Juan Maria Bordaberry and his military dictatorship. He ruled under direct order from Washington the next 12 years, during which he killed hundreds of people and tortured tens of thousands more. Repression was so brutal and Uruguayans were so traumatized and fearful they no longer carried out their traditional dances, which symbolize happiness and victory.5. 1971 – BoliviaThe vast Latin American natural resources are the envy of the greedy and powerful politicians of the United States, who resort to any means to control them for their own benefit, and never for the people and countries they brutally exploit. During decades, U.S. multinational corporations enslaved people in vast regions of Chile, Bolivia and Peru. When those living under slavery conditions dared to rebel against their oppressors, they were annihilated in bulk. Che Guevara felt compelled to go to Bolivia and help the people rise in revolution.This was 1967. By then, U.S. mining companies had enslaved entire communities, including children, who they banned from school. Two years later, Che Guevara was murdered by (US President Richard Nixon’s) CIA. Once out of their way, CIA officials established a military regime.However, the people again turned on Washington. General Juan Jose Torres took power and implemented reforms to benefit workers and those living in poverty. Hope returned to Bolivia and its people, but the CIA would not allow this to continue. The agency recruited General Hugo Banzer. He led the coup against Torres and in 1971, he kicked off his violent dictatorship. He ordered the torture of a number of opposition leaders and the execution of hundreds of influential political leaders. He sent about 8,000 other leaders to jail. Washington was happy.6. 1973 – ChileChilean President Salvador Allende was just another of the many victims of the many coups on democracy carried out by the United States (Note the date: 9/11/73)Chile was another country brutally exploited by U.S. corporations.Washington (US President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger) made sure the people lived in utter misery. The CIA used different tactics but the results were the same. The agency led a smear campaign against the government of Chile, as it is currently doing in Venezuela. They used national and international media to demonize President Salvador Allende. They made sure people who had once been loyal to him because of his benevolent way of governing turned on him.How you ask? The same way they’re doing it in Venezuela. By causing scarcity through extortion, through torture, imprisonment, enforced disappearances and by assassinating all those who refused to bow to them. Washington was irritated beyond control after Allende nationalized natural resources. They were also annoyed because Allende built houses for those who couldn’t afford homes. He made sure his people had access to education. When Allende’s popularity was successfully undermined, the next step was to plan a coup against him. It would now be easy. And on September. 11, 1973, Gen. Augusto Pinochet led the military all the way to the presidential palace with the backing of the CIA, who provided him with all the necessary weapons and armored vehicles.War planes dropped bombs on the palace. Before he died, Allende told his people: “I will not give up! Placed in a historic transition, I will pay for the loyalty of the people with my life. And I tell you with certainty that that which we have planted in the good conscience of thousands and thousands of Chileans will not be shriveled forever. They are strong and they may be able to dominate us, but the social processes cannot be halted nor with crime nor by force.”Pinochet ruled for 17 years. He jailed 80,000 people, tortured 30,000 and murdered 3,200.7. 1976 – ArgentinaThe Argentine people endured arguably the bloodiest dictatorship of South America. It was so terrible that reading about it can be traumatic. Concentration camps, torture centers, massacres, massive rape of women and children, the beating of pregnant women, and the execution of boys and girls. In total, 30,000 people were executed. Behind it all: the CIA.In 1973, Argentina was going through a political crisis so grave that President Juan Peron collapsed and ultimately died of a heart attack in 1974. His wife, Eva Peron, took power only to confront conflicts everywhere, even within her own Peronist party.The CIA waited like a cat hunting its prey until 1976, when the situation they themselves provoked was so bad their intervention would be a walk in the park. Of course, as usual, a key recruitment was in order. The right-wing military dictator-to-be was Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla. The next step – a coup d’etat in yet another Latin American nation, and again another dictatorship at the service of the United States.This time, (US President Richard Nixon’s) nefarious Henry Kissinger would be in charge of supervising the brutal regime. The rest is history: genocide, massive human rights violations, enforced disappearances, child theft, among other heinous crimes. All this, with the approval of the hypocritical and shameless owners of power in Washington.8. 1980 – El SalvadorSalvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero broke with Catholic tradition by caring for the poor. He paid for it with his life.The people of this Central American country suffered no less than Argentina under the U.S. intervention that was carried out by you know who: the CIA. Washington had already backed a brutal dictatorship that lasted 50 years from 1931 to 1981. Campesinos and Indigenous were smashed without mercy. More than 40,000 were massacred.Things were so bad a rare incident occurred. The Catholic church tried to intervene in favor of the poor and oppressed. At this point in time, El Salvador was controlled by 13 mafia-style families who had expropriated about half of the national territory. The 13 families were closely linked to Washington. And (US President Jimmy Carter’s and later US President Ronald Reagan’s) CIA, just in case, made sure the military was very well trained in everything horrific.They were provided with all the right lethal equipment. And when the CIA found out that Jesuits were helping out the masses, they made sure they were killed. They also asked Pope John Paul II to speak to Archbishop Óscar Romero to try to persuade him to desist. Romero refused to comply and so they murdered him when he was officiating mass in 1980. When the U.S. intervention was over, 75,000 people were reported murdered, but the U.S. was at peace.9. 1989 – PanamaCIA agent and Washington-backed drug trafficker Manuel Noriega enraged the U.S. when he refused to obey their orders, prompting an invasion that left 3,500 innocent civilians dead.Another unprecedented incident occurs in this Central American country. A (US President George H. W. Bush’s) CIA agent rises to power as a dictator in the form of Manuel “Pineapple Face” Noriega. Washington’s interest here, among others, is the inter-oceanic canal.When President Omar Torrijos tried to take over control of the Panama Canal, the CIA planted a bomb on his plane and that was the end of that.In 1983, Noriega took power. He was a drug trafficker for the CIA. He had been for some 30 years. That was fine with Washington. He was of huge service to them. In fact, he was instrumental in the Iran-Contra affair, by which the CIA circumvented Congress’ prohibition to provide the Nicaraguan contras with weapons to be used against the leftist Sandinista movement.Noriega helped with cocaine to be sent mainly to Los Angeles, California, where it was sold in form of crack and served to poison vast Black communities, another of the devious objectives of the CIA. The money was used to buy arms in Iran to provide the contras with them.Money and power transforms the weak and devious. Noriega wasn’t exempt. It went to his head. He now believed he was untouchable and felt he could ignore Washington’s orders and instead of helping the U.S. place Guillermo Endara in power in Nicaragua, he decided he would impose a president of his own choosing: Francisco Rodriguez. Noriega also began harassing U.S. military bases in Panama. The U.S. was not about to put up his unruly behavior. Washington deployed troops to invade Panama in December 1989.They captured Noriega and locked him up in a Miami jail, but before that, they killed 3,500 innocent civilians and displaced 20,000 more… (The CIA called the operation against Panama « Operation Just Cause.”)10. 1990 – PeruFinally, we arrive at Peru (and US President George H. W. Bush’s CIA). First we need to understand that this list by no means represents the end of U.S. interventions worldwide. The CIA continues to cause havoc across Latin America and the rest of the world. However, these 10 cases may enlighten those who refuse to believe that the United States is responsible for death and destruction. It also serves to show how they operate and can be easily detected in places where there is instability, hunger and chaos. Instability, hunger and chaos is their specialty.In Peru another CIA agent rose to power. Alberto Fujimori was elected president in 1990. The reason why his election is highly suspicious is because he was a mediocre person with no education and no charisma. He had no political influence, and he was known to nobody but his family.But he did show some intelligence when he asked Vladimiro Montesinos to be his associate. Montesinos was a lawyer and a very intelligent person with above average strategic thinking. He was also a CIA man.Fujimori named him National Intelligence Service director. A paramilitary group was created only to murder leftist and Marxist leaders. Fujimori dissolved Congress and locked up all the members of the Supreme Court of Justice. The CIA helped him with his plan, they financed him and supervised all his atrocities. Today, Fujimori is in jail.Note: The 10 sovereign Latin American nations that were discussed in some detail above were just the Ten Most Lethal CIA-led Coups. The article did not include the militarily-invaded Latin American nations of Mexico, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Venezuela, Surinam, Paraguay, Puerto Rico and Grenada. – GGK[1]Elliot Abrams, a convicted war criminal who was hired by the Reagan administration to help support the death squads which terrorized and murdered people who resisted the right wing factions in Latin American nations, including El Salvador and Nicaragua. Abrams is now responsible for trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela so U.S. oil companies can plunder the massive oil reserves for profit.The liberal American elites love the war criminal Elliot AbramsPractically the entire American political establishment and corporate press are repeating the Trump administration’s claims to have humanitarian motives in Venezuela. As that administration inches closer to full-blown military invasion, whether direct or by proxy, it behooves us to look into the track record of the officials steering this so-called “humanitarian policy.” None other are more deserving of scrutiny than Elliott Abrams, whose crimes have spanned the globe, from El Salvador to Nicaragua to Iraq.Before this month, Elliott Abrams was likely glad to have been largely forgotten by the U.S. public. When the Trump administration announced Abrams’ appointment as U.S. Special Representative in Venezuela in late January, the news caused some ripples on the Left, but across mainstream media outlets, the reaction was mostly sedate.Politico described Abrams as “a somewhat controversial figure,” while Bloomberg focused on his criticisms of Trump. In the wild world of Trump appointees, this was hardly exciting stuff. While Abrams has been associated with some of the darkest moments in American foreign policy over the last 40 years—from death squads in Central America to the Iran-Contra affair to the invasion of Iraq—his appointment failed to resonate with the media obsessions of the moment. This history was simply too long ago to generate much controversy today. A relic from another era, Abrams was on the verge of ascending to the coveted position of “elder statesman.”All of that changed February 13, when Rep. Ilhan Omar subjected Abrams to a withering interrogation. Citing his conviction in 1991 of withholding information from Congress concerning the Iran-Contra affair, Omar declared “I fail to understand why members of this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful.” When Abrams, incensed, replied, “If I could respond to that,” Omar casually informed him “It wasn’t a question.”She went on to question Abrams about his record, from supporting U.S.-backed military dictatorships in Central America in the 1980s to his recent role in promoting right-wing coup-plotters in Venezuela. Throughout, Abrams protested again and again about the unfairness of her line of questioning. This was simply not how things were done in polite society.Immediately following this exchange, Abrams and his record began attracting significantly more attention than they had when his appointment was first announced. Prodded by Omar, media outlets across the country suddenly remembered the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador, committed by the right-wing military forces that Abrams and the Reagan administration were backing.Yet even this rude intrusion of history into the public sphere only hinted at the full extent of the blood on Abrams’ hands. In her five minutes of questioning, Omar could merely reference his record in shorthand. Yet Abrams’ full career, and its memory in public life, are worth considering in further detail, as they reveal important truths about how foreign policy is made in America.Despite his bloody history, in the aftermath of Omar’s interrogation, a number of mainstream liberal commentators such as the Center for American Progress’s Kelly Magsamen and prominent Joe Biden ally Dave Harden jumped to Abrams’ defense. This exculpation by a sector of the liberal intelligentsia also reveals the continuity of U.S. foreign policy across political parties, and the threat posed to this consensus by Omar’s inquiry.A young counter-revolutionaryThough the famous novelist Thomas Pynchon once made reference to “Schachtmanite [sic] goons like Elliott Abrams,” Abrams, like most neoconservatives, had actually never been on the Left. His career as a counter-revolutionary began in college, when, as an undergraduate at Harvard, he openly opposed Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and other campus leftists, whom he despised as spoiled children of the elite. When SDS members shut down Harvard in the student strike of 1969, Abrams helped found (with fellow student Daniel Pipes, son of Harvard reactionary Richard Pipes, and later an Islamophobe of some note in his own right) the Ad Hoc Committee to Keep Harvard Open. On the furthest right flank of cold war liberalism, Abrams backed Democratic presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey, who was running on the platform of continuing the Vietnam War, in 1968, and worked closely with AFL-CIO operatives to combat the left-wing insurgency developing in the Democratic primaries.At Harvard, Abrams received his law degree and in 1975 he briefly worked for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the same committee from which Joseph McCarthy prosecuted his anti-communist crusade in the 1950s. When Abrams got there, the committee was headed by Henry “Scoop” Jackson, also known as “the Senator from Boeing” for his service to the defense industry. Jackson formed a pole in the 1970s around which the most bellicose and bloodthirsty voices in the Democratic Party gathered, figures who were obsessed with not “losing” Vietnam, no matter the price in lives. When Jackson ran for president in 1976, Abrams worked on his campaign.The Reagan yearsAbrams first came to major prominence in the Reagan administration, where, in late 1981, he was appointed Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. However, Abrams was not the administration’s first choice. Reagan had previously nominated the conservative political thinker Ernest W. Lefever, but his nomination had not gone smoothly. In 1979, Lefever had testified before the House that all human rights standards should be repealed. Questioned about this statement in 1981, he admitted that he had “goofed.” His nomination was finally sunk, however, when two of his brothers claimed that Lefever believed black people to be genetically inferior. This was too big a goof even for the Reagan administration, and in October, Abrams’ nomination was announced.Abrams started his career at the State Department with a lot to do. The day before he came on board, U.S.-trained forces had committed a massacre in the town of El Mozote, El Salvador, torturing, raping and slaughtering over 800 civilians. The killing was performed by the Altacatl Battalion, assembled and trained at Fort Bragg, and later described by the New York Times as having been “the pride of the United States military team in San Salvador.”The El Mozote massacre was but one moment in the Central American civil wars of the 1980s, when in country after country, poor peasants confronted their countries’ traditional military and economic elites, who responded with savage, American-backed violence. Abrams played a key role in directing American support for these regimes as well as running interference when evidence of their atrocities became too obvious for the corporate media to ignore. The main sites of action were as follows:El SalvadorIn 1979, amid mounting protests against an undemocratic government, El Salvador’s military leaders dispensed with the fig leaf of civilian rule and installed a military junta to crush the rising left-wing insurgency. The result was a civil war in which some 80,000 people died in a country with a population of less than 5 million. Later, a United Nations investigation estimated that 85 percent of civilian killings in the war were perpetrated by the military and its death squads. Atrocities such as El Mozote were commonplace. Less than a year later, the military killed over 200 civilians at El Calabozo.One of Elliott Abrams’ main jobs was to deny, distract from, or excuse these atrocities. When news of El Mozote reached the United States, Abrams testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there was reason for doubt, claiming “We find … that it is an event that happened in mid-December [but it] is then publicized when the certification comes forward to the committee.” Even a decade later, after irrefutable evidence had accumulated about the scale of the horror in El Mozote, Abrams still tried to obfuscate the truth, protesting, “If it had really been a massacre and not a firefight, why didn't we hear about it right off from the F.M.L.N.? I mean, we didn't start hearing about it until a month later.”When questioned by Rep. Omar last week, Abrams defended his record in El Salvador, proclaiming, “From the day that President Duarte was elected in a free election to this day, El Salvador has been a democracy. That’s a fabulous achievement.” Indeed, in 1984, José Napoleón Duarte became president after elections in which parties of the left could not campaign for fear of assassination. He defeated death squad leader Roberto d’Aubuisson. Though Washington supported Duarte in that election, Abrams had previously defended D’Aubuisson, contending that he was not an extremist and claiming that “anybody who thinks you’re going to find a cable that says Roberto d’Aubuisson murdered the archbishop [Oscar Romero] is a fool,” when in fact, cables showing precisely that had arrived in Washington from the U.S. embassy almost immediately after the assassination.Nonetheless, d’Aubuisson was indeed an embarrassment to the United States as it attempted to defend Salvadoran oligarchs. Along with his extravagant brutality in El Salvador, he was also far too undisciplined in talking to the press, telling some European reporters, “You Germans were very intelligent. You realized that the Jews were responsible for the spread of communism, and you began to kill them.” This kind of language was an embarrassment, and so Washington judged that Duarte would be a more effective point man for coordinating the war on the Salvadoran peasantry. Duarte’s verbal promises to restrain the excesses of the military, for Abrams and company, counted as a win for human rights, even as his “moderation” provided a fig leaf that would allow the U.S. government to continue backing the Salvadoran military until the Left had been sufficiently exterminated that “normal” politics could resume.Despite Abrams’ theatrics, the truth of the American intervention in El Salvador was told in rather plainer terms by the liberal New Republic in 1984, which explained that “there are higher American priorities than Salvadoran human rights,” and that “military aid must go forth regardless of how many are murdered, lest the Marxist-Leninist guerrillas win.”NicaraguaTo El Salvador’s southeast, Nicaragua was also going through a political transformation in the early 1980s. In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front overthrew the notoriously corrupt U.S.-backed dictator Anastasio Somoza. The coalition government the Sandinistas created immediately undertook vigorous campaigns in the areas of literacy and healthcare, expanding social service access to the Nicaraguan poor to an unprecedented degree. The government also provided aid to the peasant revolutionaries in El Salvador, and quickly established a close alliance with the Soviet Union and Cuba.This the Reagan administration could not abide. Shortly after coming into office, Reagan officials invited anti-Sandinista exiles to a meeting in Honduras, where the administration forced anti-Somoza opponents of the government to submit to the leadership of elements of the dictator’s hated National Guard. Troops were immediately assembled across the border in Honduras, with U.S. aid helping to put everything in motion. The anti-Sandinista army, popularly known as the Contras, soon accosted government targets, with special attention reserved for government social service locations, like schools and hospitals. Soon, evidence of Contra atrocities began to accumulate.In 1982, this evidence was so abundant that the U.S. Congress become convinced that funding for the Contras needed to be cut off. Abrams, fulminating over the tying of the United States’ hands in its battle against communism, immediately began looking for ways to overcome the ban on funding. One avenue came through soliciting funds from the Sultan of Brunei, whom Abrams convinced to donate $10 million to stopping communism in Nicaragua. But Oliver North’s secretary at the time fudged the transaction by copying the wrong numbers for the Swiss bank account to which the funds would be transferred, and the money ended up in the hands of an unusually virtuous Swiss businessman, who returned it, with interest.For the rest of the 1980s, Abrams essentially ran interference for Oliver North and the other Iran-Contra spooks. For this role, he was eventually indicted, and plead guilty to withholding information from Congress in 1991. At a time when the drug war was in full swing, and draconian sentences were all the rage, Abrams was sentenced to 100 hours of community service. President George H.W. Bush then pardoned him, completing Abrams’ official redemption.After the fallBy the time Abrams was pardoned, the world had changed considerably from the one in which he had been a leading cold warrior. The Soviet Union was no more, and Bill Clinton’s election had ended 12 years of Republican rule. Abrams needed a home in this new wilderness, and found one, ironically, in Ernest Lefever’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, which provided him with a comfortable sinecure. If Lefever’s views on racial fitness ever troubled Abrams, he didn’t comment on it.As the locus of American geopolitics shifted from Central America to the Middle East, Abrams reoriented his concerns accordingly. He was a signatory (along with assorted neocons from Paul Wolfowitz to Francis Fukuyama) to the Project for the New American Century’s infamous 1998 letter to Bill Clinton urging regime change in Iraq. The letter helped inspire the Iraq Liberation Act, which Clinton signed that same year and helped initiate the bipartisan consensus for the eventual war on Iraq.When George W. Bush was elevated to the presidency, Abrams found himself back on the inside. He was appointed to the National Security Council, and helped shape the administration’s Middle East strategy. He reportedly “lost” an Iranian peace proposal in 2003, and in 2006, helped shape the Fatah putsch against the democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine that helped lead to the current division between Gaza and the West Bank.During Trump’s rise, in 2015 and 2016, Abrams was a reliable “never-Trumper,” backing Marco Rubio’s doomed candidacy. In early 2017, Abrams was under consideration to be number two in the State Department under Rex Tillerson. However, the Trump team, under Steve Bannon, reportedly got Elliott Abrams confused with Eliot Cohen, a different hardcore neoconservative, and blocked his appointment.Now, thanks to Mike Pompeo’s appointment of Abrams as point person for the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, he’s back.Liberal enablersAs Rep. Omar dragged Abrams’ ugly past into the spotlight, millions of Americans were alerted to the country’s bloody footprints in Latin America. The El Mozote massacre in particular received renewed attention. Yet even as Americans heard about this record for the first time, a number of voices spoke up to defend Abrams’ honor.Some of these, like the neocon-turned-“resistance” member Max Boot, or the radical-turned-neocon Ronald Radosh, were predictable and uninspiring. Boot warned that Omar showcased the dangers of the “uber-progressive wing” of the Democratic Party, while Radosh compared her to white supremacist Rep. Steve King. National Review’s Jay Nordlinger put a bit more effort in, tweeting that “I’ve come back to my phone to find about 5,000 tweets libeling the great Elliott Abrams as a war criminal….I feel like I’m back in the dorm, listening to stoned undergrads repeat what they recently read in In These Times.” (Any stoned undergraduates reading this are invited to subscribe here).More surprisingly, Abrams also found a number of liberal defenders. Kelly Magsamen, Vice President for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress, called Abrams “a fierce advocate for human rights and democracy” who had made “serious professional mistakes.” Dave Harden, a former USAID administrator (and Biden 2020 supporter), agreed, describing Abrams as “a kind, thoughtful, non partisan mentor” and exhorting his followers to “see the best—rather than the worst—in people.” R. Nicholas Burns, a diplomat and Trump critic, also chimed in, declaring “It’s time to build bridges in America and not tear people down.” Edward Luce, the British liberal journalist and author of The Retreat of Western Liberalism, offered his support for poor beleaguered Abrams as well.Abrams’ liberal defenders were, thankfully, met with a tidal wave of condemnation on Twitter, as hundreds of thousands of tweets denouncing Abrams filled their mentions. Harden petulantly told “the 170k twitter responders who pillared [sic] me as a war criminal in the last 24 hrs” that he’s “doubling down.” The impact Omar’s questioning had in galvanizing opposition to the bloody track record of American imperialism could hardly be clearer.But why were there liberals defending Abrams in the first place? And not merely any liberals, but highly-credentialed figures in the liberal foreign policy establishment. The answer to this question reveals no small amount about the American foreign policy intelligentsia.As several of Abrams’ defenders stated, they had worked directly with him. Whether at the State Department or the National Security Council, they had been part of the same body making and carrying out American foreign policy. But even outside of government, Abrams rubbed shoulders with establishment liberals in plenty of capacities. At the Council on Foreign Relations, a premier centrist foreign policy think tank, Abrams is an accredited CFR “expert” along with Clinton Administration officials Martin Indyk and Robert Rubin. On the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Committee on Conscience, he serves with liberal academics like Deborah Lipstadt and Timothy Snyder (as well as Nicholas Burns).This latter appointment is particularly ironic, given Abrams’ lies on behalf of an outright fascist like d'Aubuisson. But Abrams made a habit of associating with truly despicable racists. As mentioned above, he worked for Ernest Lefever after his Iran-Contra disgrace. Abrams even married a particularly unhinged racist, the stepdaughter of neocon Norman Podhoretz. Rachel Abrams, who died in 2013, maintained a blog, “Bad Rachel,” where she offered reflections on the War on Terror such as the following:[T]his is where I have begun to wonder whether it is possible to help these benighted forgeries of humanity save themselves from themselves—for after all, isn’t that the point, once we’ve beaten our enemy, of continuing the fight?—and, more to the point…whether the attempting to do so has been worth the lives…of all those great, valiant, heroic, wonderful, Americans who’ve given them for that cause.Abrams’ links to disreputable characters like these, however, weren’t enough to disqualify him from association in the eyes of elite liberals. Once he made it inside the clubhouse gates, he established himself as a Serious Person, deserving of respect from the plebs. Foreign policy has always been the most mandarin wing of the U.S. state, and when elite liberals saw a properly credentialed and accomplished fellow of theirs under attack from the plebeians, they reacted quickly.Analysts like Noam Chomsky have long insisted that there is more continuity than discontinuity when it comes to foreign policy in the United States. The bonhomie liberal elites exhibit towards Abrams is what this continuity means on the level of personnel. It’s the same people, working together, who carry out American foreign policy. This placid continuity, the disruption of which by Trump is a chief reason for the enmity he has earned from this camp, helps ensure that the ship of state remains on a steady course.But Ilhan Omar’s refusal to let Abrams’ bloody past rest threatened that continuity. It suggested that the new generation of progressives and socialists will not be content to let their revolution stop at the nation’s borders. Much like Bernie Sanders’ declaration in a 2016 presidential debate that he was proud Henry Kissinger was not his friend, Omar’s questioning of Abrams signaled a radical break with the traditional etiquette of deference in foreign policy.If this is the type of direct challenge to U.S. foreign policy that left-wing elected officials like Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders have planned, establishment liberals are right to be nervous.[2]During Operation Condor the CIA supported right wing dictators who brutally killed tens of thousands of people, for the alleged purpose of “defeating communism.”[3] In actuality the purpose of Operation Condor was all about money. Right wing dictators were open to the neoliberal capitalist model the U.S. wanted so large U.S. corporations could make money exploiting new markets, cheap labor, and cheap natural resources.Alexander Finnegan's answer to What was the most overlooked event of the Cold War?Footnotes[1] The Ten Most Lethal CIA Interventions in Latin America[2] The War Criminal Elliott Abrams and the Liberals Who Love Him[3] Operation Condor - Wikipedia