A
Andrew
Guest
The War Of 1812 was between the U.S. and Canada(Great Britain).
Official British Account of the
Capture of Washington D.C.
As reported in The Columbian Centinel December 7, 1814
Great Britain London Downing Street, Sept. 27
I have the honor to communicate to your Lordship, that on the night of the 24 th inst. After defeating the army of the United States that day, the troops under my command entered and took possession of the city of Washington. It was determined between Sir A. Cochrane and myself, to disembark the army at the village of Nenedict, on the right bank of the Patuxeut, with the intention of Co-operating with Rear-admiral Cockburn, in an attack upon a flotilla of the enemy?s gun boats, under of the command of Com. Barney. On the 20th instant, the ar-my command its march, having landing the previous day without opposition: on the 21st it reached Nottingham, and on the 22nd moved on to Upper Marlborough, a few miles distant from Pig Point on the Patuxent, where Admiral Cockburn fell in with and defeated the flotilla taking and destroying the whole. Having advanced to within 16 miles of Washington, and ascertaining the force of the enemy to be such as might authorize an attempt at carrying his capital, I determined to make it, and accordingly put the 1200 men appeared to oppose us but retired after firing a few shots.
On the 24 th the troops resumed their march, and reached Bladensburg, a village situated on the left bank of the eastern branch of the Pofowmac, about five miles from Washington. On the opposite side of that river the enemy was strongly posted on very commanding heights formed in two lines, his advance occupying a fortified house, which, with artillery, covered the bridge over the eastern branch, across which the British troops had pass. A broad and straight road, leading from the bridge to Washington ran through the position, which was carefully defended by artillery and riflemen. The disposition for the attack being made, it was commenced with so much impetuosity by the list brigade, consisting at the 85th light infantry and the army, under the command of Col. Thornton, that the fortifired house was shortly carried, the enemy retiring to the higher grounds. In support of the light brigade I ordered up a brigade under the command of Col. Brooke, who with the 44th regiment, attacked the enemy?s left, the 4th regiment pressing its right with such effect as to cause him to abandon his guns. His first line giving way, was driven on the second, which, yielding to the irresistible attack of the bayonet, and the well directed discharge of rockets, got into confusion and fled. The rapid flight of the enemy, and his knowledge of the country, precluded the possibility of many prisoners being taken, more particularly as the troops had, during the day, undergone considerable fatigue.
The enemy?s army amounting to 8 or 9000 men, with 3 or 400 cavalry, was under the command of Gen. Winder, being formed of troops drawn from Baltimore and Pennsylvania. His artillery, ten pieces of which fell into are hands, was commanded by Com. Barney, who was wounded and taken prisoner. The artillery I directed to be destroyed. Having halted the army for a short time, I determined to march upon Washington, and reached that city at 8 o?clock that night. Judging it of consequences to complete the destruction of the public buildings with the least possible delay, so that the army might retire without loss of time, the following buildings were set fire to and consumed- the capitol, including the Senate house and House of representation, the Arsenal, the Dock-Yard, Treasury, War office, President?s Palace, Rope-Walk, and the great bridge across the Potewmac: In the dock-yard a frigate nearly ready to be launched, and a slope of war, were consumed. The two bridges leading to Washington over the eastern branch, had the enemy been destroyed by the enemy who apprehended an attack from that quarter.
The object of the expedition being accomplished, I determined, before any greater enemy force could be assembled, to withdraw the troops, and accordingly commenced retiring on the night of the 25th. On the evening if the 29th we reached Benedict, and re-embarked the following day. In the performance of the operation I have detailed, it is with the utmost satisfaction I observe to your Lordship that cheerfulness in undergoing fatigue, and anxiety for the accomplishment of the object, were conspicuous in all ranks
An attack upon an enemy so strongly posted could not be effected without loss. I have to lament that the wounds received by Col. Thornton, and the others officers and soldiers left at Bladensburg, were such as prevented their removal As many of the wounded as could be brought off were removed, the others being left with medical care and attendants. The arrangements made by Staff Sueg?n Baxter for their accommodation have been as satisfactory as circumstances would admit of. The Agent for British prisoners of war very fortunately residing at Bladensburg, I have recommended the wounded officers and men to his particular attention, and trust to his being able to effect their exchange when sufficiently recovered. -- Robert Ross, Major General
Andrew
Official British Account of the
Capture of Washington D.C.
As reported in The Columbian Centinel December 7, 1814
Great Britain London Downing Street, Sept. 27
I have the honor to communicate to your Lordship, that on the night of the 24 th inst. After defeating the army of the United States that day, the troops under my command entered and took possession of the city of Washington. It was determined between Sir A. Cochrane and myself, to disembark the army at the village of Nenedict, on the right bank of the Patuxeut, with the intention of Co-operating with Rear-admiral Cockburn, in an attack upon a flotilla of the enemy?s gun boats, under of the command of Com. Barney. On the 20th instant, the ar-my command its march, having landing the previous day without opposition: on the 21st it reached Nottingham, and on the 22nd moved on to Upper Marlborough, a few miles distant from Pig Point on the Patuxent, where Admiral Cockburn fell in with and defeated the flotilla taking and destroying the whole. Having advanced to within 16 miles of Washington, and ascertaining the force of the enemy to be such as might authorize an attempt at carrying his capital, I determined to make it, and accordingly put the 1200 men appeared to oppose us but retired after firing a few shots.
On the 24 th the troops resumed their march, and reached Bladensburg, a village situated on the left bank of the eastern branch of the Pofowmac, about five miles from Washington. On the opposite side of that river the enemy was strongly posted on very commanding heights formed in two lines, his advance occupying a fortified house, which, with artillery, covered the bridge over the eastern branch, across which the British troops had pass. A broad and straight road, leading from the bridge to Washington ran through the position, which was carefully defended by artillery and riflemen. The disposition for the attack being made, it was commenced with so much impetuosity by the list brigade, consisting at the 85th light infantry and the army, under the command of Col. Thornton, that the fortifired house was shortly carried, the enemy retiring to the higher grounds. In support of the light brigade I ordered up a brigade under the command of Col. Brooke, who with the 44th regiment, attacked the enemy?s left, the 4th regiment pressing its right with such effect as to cause him to abandon his guns. His first line giving way, was driven on the second, which, yielding to the irresistible attack of the bayonet, and the well directed discharge of rockets, got into confusion and fled. The rapid flight of the enemy, and his knowledge of the country, precluded the possibility of many prisoners being taken, more particularly as the troops had, during the day, undergone considerable fatigue.
The enemy?s army amounting to 8 or 9000 men, with 3 or 400 cavalry, was under the command of Gen. Winder, being formed of troops drawn from Baltimore and Pennsylvania. His artillery, ten pieces of which fell into are hands, was commanded by Com. Barney, who was wounded and taken prisoner. The artillery I directed to be destroyed. Having halted the army for a short time, I determined to march upon Washington, and reached that city at 8 o?clock that night. Judging it of consequences to complete the destruction of the public buildings with the least possible delay, so that the army might retire without loss of time, the following buildings were set fire to and consumed- the capitol, including the Senate house and House of representation, the Arsenal, the Dock-Yard, Treasury, War office, President?s Palace, Rope-Walk, and the great bridge across the Potewmac: In the dock-yard a frigate nearly ready to be launched, and a slope of war, were consumed. The two bridges leading to Washington over the eastern branch, had the enemy been destroyed by the enemy who apprehended an attack from that quarter.
The object of the expedition being accomplished, I determined, before any greater enemy force could be assembled, to withdraw the troops, and accordingly commenced retiring on the night of the 25th. On the evening if the 29th we reached Benedict, and re-embarked the following day. In the performance of the operation I have detailed, it is with the utmost satisfaction I observe to your Lordship that cheerfulness in undergoing fatigue, and anxiety for the accomplishment of the object, were conspicuous in all ranks
An attack upon an enemy so strongly posted could not be effected without loss. I have to lament that the wounds received by Col. Thornton, and the others officers and soldiers left at Bladensburg, were such as prevented their removal As many of the wounded as could be brought off were removed, the others being left with medical care and attendants. The arrangements made by Staff Sueg?n Baxter for their accommodation have been as satisfactory as circumstances would admit of. The Agent for British prisoners of war very fortunately residing at Bladensburg, I have recommended the wounded officers and men to his particular attention, and trust to his being able to effect their exchange when sufficiently recovered. -- Robert Ross, Major General
Andrew
S
sgt.shmedly102
Guest
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You are kidding right? (about the ontario militia not the color.) See this is what I mean; what do they really teach up there, or more to the point what is believed?
Seriously, how is it that Canada defines it‘s victory?
It is not ignored here because we ‘lost.‘ It was just plain insignificant. And the Mexican War, which was a resounding victory and gained much territory for the US is also overlooked. As for Vietnam, the US was never defeated on the battlefield, it was the politicains who lost that one.
Yes, US forces performed pooly in the War of 1812. So did Canadian forces. Both sides were about equally sucessful on the frontier. And the bulk of the fighting on your side was by British regulars with considerable assistance from the Indians. The most significant American defeat, the burning of Washington, was an entirely British affair, and had as much to do with irresponsibly shortsighted defense policies of the government as the skill of the British forces.
I‘m not trying to take anything away from you guys, or diminish the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers of all wars who have so bravely defended freedom. But please explain to me how 1812 was a Canadian victory. At best it was a tie.
L
Linc
Guest
Ha ha! Nothing will generate more posts on a Canadian website than an Ugly American with his misplaced anti-everybody Yank patriotism! To my knowledge, there were no accounts of Canadian, Canadien (French) or British troops refusing to fight while their comrades were butcherd by the enemy, as many American militia and Volunteer units refused to cross the Niagara river and watched thier comrades butchered at Queenston.
The war could only be consedered a tie if the British/Canadian goal was to invade and conquer the US and was prevented from doing so, however this was never the case. Also, keep in mind that when the peace treaty was signed, Britian had just defeated Napoleon in Europe and massive amounts of available British troops had been shipped to Lower Canada (Quebec) and were poised to strike south and sever a sympathetic New England from the Union. If they wanted American territory, it was theirs to have.
Let me dumb it down for you:
AMERICAN OBJECTIVE: Capture Canada
OUTCOME: Failed, on three seperate occasions
CANADIAN OBJECTIVE: Defeat Invading Army
OUTCOME: Victory, on three seperate occasions
True, the US did prove more successful at sea than the all-British Royal Navy (there was no Canadian ‘sea militia‘). But Canadians and Brits won most of the land battles: Ogdensburg, Oswego, Queenston Heights, Lundy‘s Lane, Detroit, Washington DC, Frenchtown, Ft. Mackinac, Chrysler‘s Farm, La Colle Mill, Chateuguay, Seige of Ft. Meigs, Stoney Creek, etc, to name but a few.
The reason why Yanks don‘t like to talk about the war of 1812 or the Mexican war is that they were both wars of American expansion (imperialism), and Americans dont like to acknowledge the fact that at one time in thier history, they wanted to invade and conquer all thier neighbours (like that German guy with the Charlie Chaplin mustache
)
The war could only be consedered a tie if the British/Canadian goal was to invade and conquer the US and was prevented from doing so, however this was never the case. Also, keep in mind that when the peace treaty was signed, Britian had just defeated Napoleon in Europe and massive amounts of available British troops had been shipped to Lower Canada (Quebec) and were poised to strike south and sever a sympathetic New England from the Union. If they wanted American territory, it was theirs to have.
Let me dumb it down for you:
AMERICAN OBJECTIVE: Capture Canada
OUTCOME: Failed, on three seperate occasions
CANADIAN OBJECTIVE: Defeat Invading Army
OUTCOME: Victory, on three seperate occasions
True, the US did prove more successful at sea than the all-British Royal Navy (there was no Canadian ‘sea militia‘). But Canadians and Brits won most of the land battles: Ogdensburg, Oswego, Queenston Heights, Lundy‘s Lane, Detroit, Washington DC, Frenchtown, Ft. Mackinac, Chrysler‘s Farm, La Colle Mill, Chateuguay, Seige of Ft. Meigs, Stoney Creek, etc, to name but a few.
The reason why Yanks don‘t like to talk about the war of 1812 or the Mexican war is that they were both wars of American expansion (imperialism), and Americans dont like to acknowledge the fact that at one time in thier history, they wanted to invade and conquer all thier neighbours (like that German guy with the Charlie Chaplin mustache
) 
Jungle
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 430
Posted by Army-al: "You can have New Orleans and all that french because we have enough of it up here!"
Well, I would like you to explain what you mean by that comment. Do you think there is no place in Canada for French-canadians ??? Are you too stupid to learn french as a second language, and take your frustration out on others ? I think that sounded like a racist comment, and there is no place in the CF for people like you. If you really are a Sgt, then you are a disgrace to the rank and to the senior NCO corps. Just my very opinion.
Well, I would like you to explain what you mean by that comment. Do you think there is no place in Canada for French-canadians ??? Are you too stupid to learn french as a second language, and take your frustration out on others ? I think that sounded like a racist comment, and there is no place in the CF for people like you. If you really are a Sgt, then you are a disgrace to the rank and to the senior NCO corps. Just my very
opinion.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Plainly it is quite evident why I will never raise children in the American school system, when the day comes that I should have them to raise!
I won‘t argue points that others have already, but I will add that, for the newfound Republic, the War of 1812 was very significant on the grand scale. Several reasons:
- Manifest destiny: It had always been the desire of the Americans to expand their influence throughout the entire continent, by force if necessary. To this end, land was taken from the Natives, deal were broken, etc. British North America sought to stand by their agreements with Natives and allow them all the land which had not been bought for the Crown. Natives harassed expanding U.S. pioneers west of Detroit from camps and villages in Canadam which the Americans grieved.
- The Royal Navy frequently pressed American sailors into service, which the U.S. took as harmful to their rights on the high seas, and to their expanding trade across the Atlantic. Despite protests, the practice continued. Taking Canada was a bargaining chip, since the British were too busy with their Peninsular War to send troops to help Canada - or so they thought.
- The Americans, being a relatively new power on the world scale, desired a chance to flex their muscle to Britain in order to perish any ideas of further British involvement in their affairs.
- Madison was an arrogant idiot.
Also, someone mentioned that Canada took Detroit without a shot being fired, and gave it back under similar circumstances. I also recall territory further west that was held until the end of the war by Canada (or technically, Indians loyal to the Crown). And the American fort opposite Niagara was also still held by Canadian militia at the close of hostilities.
It stands that when British troops were suddenly available for use in Canada, and once the production of lake ships was well underway and financed at Kingston, the Americans were eager to end hostilies, as they realised they had bitten more than they could chew!
I won‘t argue points that others have already, but I will add that, for the newfound Republic, the War of 1812 was very significant on the grand scale. Several reasons:
- Manifest destiny: It had always been the desire of the Americans to expand their influence throughout the entire continent, by force if necessary. To this end, land was taken from the Natives, deal were broken, etc. British North America sought to stand by their agreements with Natives and allow them all the land which had not been bought for the Crown. Natives harassed expanding U.S. pioneers west of Detroit from camps and villages in Canadam which the Americans grieved.
- The Royal Navy frequently pressed American sailors into service, which the U.S. took as harmful to their rights on the high seas, and to their expanding trade across the Atlantic. Despite protests, the practice continued. Taking Canada was a bargaining chip, since the British were too busy with their Peninsular War to send troops to help Canada - or so they thought.
- The Americans, being a relatively new power on the world scale, desired a chance to flex their muscle to Britain in order to perish any ideas of further British involvement in their affairs.
- Madison was an arrogant idiot.
Also, someone mentioned that Canada took Detroit without a shot being fired, and gave it back under similar circumstances. I also recall territory further west that was held until the end of the war by Canada (or technically, Indians loyal to the Crown). And the American fort opposite Niagara was also still held by Canadian militia at the close of hostilities.
It stands that when British troops were suddenly available for use in Canada, and once the production of lake ships was well underway and financed at Kingston, the Americans were eager to end hostilies, as they realised they had bitten more than they could chew!
S
sgt.shmedly102
Guest
First of all, you assume that all Americans wanted to take Canada. This is the same as the assumption that the war was/is unpopular because we ‘lost.‘ In fact, the war was never popular in the US and was only pushed (and mostly supported) by Westerners who 1) did want land in Canada, and 2) were being harassed by British supported Indians operating out of Canada. The impressment of American sailors by British men-of-war was also a major contention, and really the only reason the government was able to get the Atlantic coast to go along. Whereas Canada was not taken, the Indians who had been a problem were broken, Tecumseh killed, and British impressment of American seamen ended. It should be noted that the reason given by the British as justification for impressing citizens of a soverign nation was that the United States were not a soverign nation and still possessions of the Crown. In that regard, the war was as much about the US defending its soverignty and proving its right to exsist as a free nation as territorial expansion. As the British never again tried to claim American sailors as subjects of the Crown, it can only be viewed on that front as an American victory.
It should be remembered that Britian was America‘s largest trading partner, and a vast number of Americans were engaged in overseas trade. These people (mostly along the coast and in New England) clearly had more to lose than to gain from a war with Britain. They never wanted a war, and never really supported one when it happened. At the Hartford Confrence, delegates from the New England colonies seriously considered making a seperate peace with Britain. This was not their war. This only goes to show how out of touch Madison‘s government was.
As for the performance of the American Army, in perticular the militia, here we see the results of the disasterous policies of Jefferson and Madison. Jefferson‘s idea of national defense was to rely on the patriotic fervor of the common citizen serving in the militia to carry the day. He and his followers were so scared ot the threat of a standing army to liberty as to never build any kind of professional force. Hence the abysmal performance of the American army as it had to learn the art of war on the battlefield. It should not be believed, however, that the war was simply a list of American defeats. The army did learn and by the latter campaigns, were standing toe-to-toe with the British regulars. At the Battle of Chippeway, US regulars under GEN‘s Brown and Scott drove the British from the field. COM Perry won a resounding victory on Lake Erie and COM MacDonough captured the British fleet on Lake Ontario thus thwarting the 1814 attempt on Plattsburg.
In any case, a careful reading of the campaigns in the north will show that neither side won an overwhelming victory and in fact both were fairly evenly matched.
As this post has already grown too long, I‘ll leave it at that for now. Just one other thing; where have I displayed the arrogance or "ugly Americanism" of which I have been accused?
It should be remembered that Britian was America‘s largest trading partner, and a vast number of Americans were engaged in overseas trade. These people (mostly along the coast and in New England) clearly had more to lose than to gain from a war with Britain. They never wanted a war, and never really supported one when it happened. At the Hartford Confrence, delegates from the New England colonies seriously considered making a seperate peace with Britain. This was not their war. This only goes to show how out of touch Madison‘s government was.
As for the performance of the American Army, in perticular the militia, here we see the results of the disasterous policies of Jefferson and Madison. Jefferson‘s idea of national defense was to rely on the patriotic fervor of the common citizen serving in the militia to carry the day. He and his followers were so scared ot the threat of a standing army to liberty as to never build any kind of professional force. Hence the abysmal performance of the American army as it had to learn the art of war on the battlefield. It should not be believed, however, that the war was simply a list of American defeats. The army did learn and by the latter campaigns, were standing toe-to-toe with the British regulars. At the Battle of Chippeway, US regulars under GEN‘s Brown and Scott drove the British from the field. COM Perry won a resounding victory on Lake Erie and COM MacDonough captured the British fleet on Lake Ontario thus thwarting the 1814 attempt on Plattsburg.
In any case, a careful reading of the campaigns in the north will show that neither side won an overwhelming victory and in fact both were fairly evenly matched.
As this post has already grown too long, I‘ll leave it at that for now. Just one other thing; where have I displayed the arrogance or "ugly Americanism" of which I have been accused?
S
sgt.shmedly102
Guest
Good point Korus, but like I‘ve said, it‘s really not taught here at all. In fact, in my high school history class, it was covered about as much as the quasi-war with France. Of course learning does not stop at graduation.
A
ArmyAl
Guest
To Jungle Veteran
Am I racist...... no, because I hate everybody, so how does that make me a racist?
Am I stupid..... well we all are in some shape or form.
Am I a disgrace to the Snr Nco corp...... nope!
I say what I think and I do what I say, I don‘t have to kiss people‘s A‘ss to make them happy, if they don‘t like it then oh well, it‘s my problem not yours.
I have a question for you, people that can‘t speak english, are they stupid?
Am I racist...... no, because I hate everybody, so how does that make me a racist?
Am I stupid..... well we all are in some shape or form.
Am I a disgrace to the Snr Nco corp...... nope!
I say what I think and I do what I say, I don‘t have to kiss people‘s A‘ss to make them happy, if they don‘t like it then oh well, it‘s my problem not yours.
I have a question for you, people that can‘t speak english, are they stupid?
A
ArmyAl
Guest
Jungle Vet
P.S.
I would be amazed to believe that you have never made a racist or derogatory remark in your life, ie f**king f*g
because if you haven‘t then your a‘ss must be so tight it could snap wire!
P.S.
I would be amazed to believe that you have never made a racist or derogatory remark in your life, ie f**king f*g
because if you haven‘t then your a‘ss must be so tight it could snap wire!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
sgt.shmedly102, to be perfectly honest they also barely taught anything about the war of 1812 in my jr and sr high schools up here in Canada. It was briefly skimmed over, but not in any detail. I‘m not sure what other schools where like, though.
C
Coniar
Guest
Yes we Ive never heard it mentioned I just know about it from my own research and CBC documentarys that ive watched. But it is definitley signifigant to americans and Canadians...
Coniar
Coniar
L
Linc
Guest
Actually, as a point of fact, the British ended their maritime acts long before the war broke out. First of all, the Brits were grabbing sailors they believed were actually deserters from the Royal Navy, they were not just openly kidnapping Americans for the sake of it.
Second of all, when the British Prime Minister died, his successor ended Britian‘s maritime ‘hostilities‘, and payed reparations to the US for the "USS Chessapeke incident" in 1811, before the war even broke out, yet congress was already on the war path and would not take yes for an answer.
As was alread mentioned, the North American war was a distraction for the British, who were at the same time fighting their main threat, Napoleon, in Europe. Once Napoleon was defeated, the Duke of Wellington shipped his remaining troops fresh from victory in Europe to North America, where they would have been able to march south unrivaled.
Finally, while the Yanks will forever claim that 1812 was a ‘moral‘ victory, for the simple fact that they were not annihlated and re-conquered (again this was never the aim of the Brits) it can not in any way be seen as an American military victory.
Second of all, when the British Prime Minister died, his successor ended Britian‘s maritime ‘hostilities‘, and payed reparations to the US for the "USS Chessapeke incident" in 1811, before the war even broke out, yet congress was already on the war path and would not take yes for an answer.
As was alread mentioned, the North American war was a distraction for the British, who were at the same time fighting their main threat, Napoleon, in Europe. Once Napoleon was defeated, the Duke of Wellington shipped his remaining troops fresh from victory in Europe to North America, where they would have been able to march south unrivaled.
Finally, while the Yanks will forever claim that 1812 was a ‘moral‘ victory, for the simple fact that they were not annihlated and re-conquered (again this was never the aim of the Brits) it can not in any way be seen as an American military victory.
S
sgt.shmedly102
Guest
Good points Linc. I‘ll have to check when the Brits stopped kidnapping our sailors. Yes they claimed the seamen were British deserters, but how would one prove otherwise back them when most Americans were of British ancestory and probably still talked like Brits?
As far as the moral victory, we can claim that because after the war, our sovereignty was never again challanged. Yes we didn‘t kick the Brits ^ss or take Canada, but it was more analogous to standing up to the bully in the school yard. You don‘t actually have to beat him, just proving you can stand up for yourself is a win. And if you don‘t believe that, you need to spend more time in schoolyards.
As far as the moral victory, we can claim that because after the war, our sovereignty was never again challanged. Yes we didn‘t kick the Brits ^ss or take Canada, but it was more analogous to standing up to the bully in the school yard. You don‘t actually have to beat him, just proving you can stand up for yourself is a win. And if you don‘t believe that, you need to spend more time in schoolyards.
C
Coniar
Guest
lol anyone else find it ironic an American is calling SOMEONE else the school yard bully???
Coniar
Coniar
S
sgt.shmedly102
Guest
Hey now, we weren‘t always on top. 
Well its like this. if you can styand toe to toe with the bully good for you, but when he throws a burner, ie. burns your capital and takes detroit w/out a shot, and knocks you flat on you prverbial ^ss then its not really a victory Moral or otherwise. and to the others i had the privelage of aquiring some american curriculum guides and their gov‘t has to a large extent attempted to brainwash their students into the "US is the Police force of the world" mentality.
Dixon 55-22
out
Dixon 55-22
out
C
Coniar
Guest
Well I just got back from the american recruiter chat, I was interested in what was going on over there and i had some questions like "are there any restictions for former Canadian citisens" and "Is dual citisenship allowed" as soon as I mentioned the words "Im Canadian" One of the recruiters booted me from the chat. Now if that isnt American ignorace I dont know what is. I had honest questions about enlisting, because my family may be moving to Seattle and I may be geting duel citisenship but after that little incident I think ill live mith my grandparents 
Well Im a student and theres my view so technically im not of topic
Coniar
Well Im a student and theres my view so technically im not of topic Coniar
S
sgt.shmedly102
Guest
??? 
???
I knew there was a reason I hated recruiters. US citizenship is not a requirement for enlistment in the US Armed Forces. As an example, in my squad we have one soldier who is Cambodian (not a US citizen), one who is Canadian (I think he may have dual citizenship), and the other team leader just recently became naturalized meaning he served about four years as a Polish citizen. That was terribly unprofessional of the recruiter to kick you off, and he was nothing a moron anyway not to answer your questions.
???I knew there was a reason I hated recruiters. US citizenship is not a requirement for enlistment in the US Armed Forces. As an example, in my squad we have one soldier who is Cambodian (not a US citizen), one who is Canadian (I think he may have dual citizenship), and the other team leader just recently became naturalized meaning he served about four years as a Polish citizen. That was terribly unprofessional of the recruiter to kick you off, and he was nothing a moron anyway not to answer your questions.
Similar threads
