 |
| |
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Not really not British, but here is a view from the North for your edification, Toby.
http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Ca...e_loyalists.htm
quote:
The story of the United Empire Loyalists really began with the prolonged fighting known as the French and Indian War, the American part of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) in which British and some colonial troops protected the Thirteen Colonies, and finally, with the fall of Quebec, took possession of the French colony of Quebec (stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to Detroit -- "the straits" -- in the heartland of the continent) which lay ominously north of the British colonies and their anticipated frontier.
With the capture of Quebec, England, mother of the Thirteen Colonies of America, but heavily in debt, unwisely resorted to the infamous Stamp Act to help meet her obligations; the colonists found themselves free of the threat from the north, but with anti-monarchist elements anxious to make the most of the taxation-without-representation grievances.
Conditions were perhaps tolerable when the agitators professed to be seeking only constitutional change and men of standing such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington claimed they were not seeking complete independence.
But, when open rebellion became apparent, surely the Loyalists' right to support what they felt most worthy of allegiance, became a duty and deserved the respect of honourable men.
However, the vociferous and organized minority with its Association Test and Committees of Safety soon subjected the Loyalists to indignities, imprisonment, confiscation of property, and death. In addition, many thousands of colonists, well-established, content, and without strong political convictions, who would have been happy to stay neutral, but, who, fearful of losing their property, their worldly goods, and even their lives, took the Association Test and declared for the rebels.
In the end, might was right, and tens of thousands of Loyalists left the Thirteen Colonies to return to England, to settle in the West Indies, and in the other North American Colonies.
Approximately 30,000 Loyalists settled in the Maritimes and 10,000 in the Colony of Quebec (including many in what is now the Canadian Province of Ontario). Those Loyalists coming from the east to this region were transported up the rapid-filled St. Lawrence River in sturdy, flat-bottomed bateaux to the general area where they were to settle. The raw land granted to them by the Crown was to replace the well-developed farms they had lost, left behind.
After division of the land by surveyors and the random drawing of lots, the families, with a tent and a few tools and modest supplies issued to them by the King, proceeded to their forest properties. The first task was to build a log shanty to provide shelter for the first winter. These huts were small, only 10 or 12 feet long, built of round logs, and frequently with only a hole in the roof to serve as a chimney.
This crude beginning was followed by labourious clearing the land, building of a log house, and cultivation of the virgin soil. All of these advances were accomplished with extreme hardship, primitive tools, great determination, and faith in British institutions.
Other insights:
The American Revolution (1775-1783) created not one country but two. Without the infusion of almost 60,000 American Loyalists into the remaining British North American colonies, what was to become Canada could have offered little resistance to the expansion of the American Republic.
Canada has been the haven for many political refugees, of which the United Empire Loyalists were first.
Representing a wide mix of ethnic and religious backgrounds originally from Europe, settlers in the American Colonies since the early 1600s, they brought with them to the future Canada their common loyalty to the Crown, their respect for the rule of law, and their determination to make new lives for themselves and their families.
The multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicity of the Loyalists is often ignored and they are stereotyped as 'English' because of their support of the Crown and their spoken language. But in a review of its members' records, the Toronto Branch of the U.E.L found where national origin of a member's Loyalist ancestor could be ascertained, 28 percent were originally from Germany, 23 percent from Scotland,18 percent from England, 12 percent from Ireland, 8 percent from Holland, 5 percent from France,4 percent from Wales, 1 percent from Switzerland and less than 1 percent from Denmark and Sweden.
In what has been called the 'first' American Civil War, more than 50 provincial corps of Loyal Americans opposed the rebellion. Loyalist corps were raised in all colonies from Georgia to Massachusetts and fought with the British throughout the war. To name only a few, there were the 1st Battalions of DeLancey's Brigade, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of Skinner's New Jersey Volunteers, Simcoe's Queen's Rangers (1st American Regiment), the Pennsylvania Loyalists and the Maryland Loyalists. These and other Loyalist corps fought in the skirmishes and battles around New York City, Philadelphia and in the southern colonies until hostilities ended at Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781.
In the Northern Department, Sir John Johnson's King's Royal Regiment of New York, Butler's Rangers, Jessup's Loyal Rangers and McLean's Royal Highland Emigrants 84th Regiment, were raised from among the Loyalists of the northern frontier. The troops of the Northern Department were stationed at posts from Sorel, east of Montreal, to Fort Michilimackinac. They fought in General Burgoyne's campaign that ended at Saratoga and led many excursions into the Mohawk Valley of New York Province. In most of these forays they were joined by Iroquois Indians led by legendary chiefs such as Joseph Brant and John Deseronto.
During the hostilities, Loyalists had left the colonies for England, Florida, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Nova Scotia and
Quebec. It is estimated that 100,000 American colonists, loyal to the Crown, were driven into exile by persecution, confiscation of their properties and threats upon their lives.
At the end of the war, Sir Guy Carleton, later Lord Dorchester, was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the British forces and was responsible for the evacuation of the troops and Loyalists remaining in New York City.
Approximately 35,000 Loyalist troops and civilian Loyalists, 'Incorporated' or 'Associated' into groups, were transported to Nova Scotia by ship. The influx of disbanded troops and Loyalists into the St. John River valley brought demands for their own government. In 1784, the 'Loyalist' Province of New Brunswick was separated from Nova Scotia and Thomas Carleton, brother of Sir Guy Carleton, was appointed Governor.
In the spring of 1784, 6,000 of the 10,000 disbanded troops and Loyalists who had gathered in Quebec, were settled in townships along the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, west of Montreal, and around the Bay of Quinte. Some 900 'Associated' Loyalists, the Van Alstine and Grass groups, who were taken by ship from New York City to Quebec where they wintered at Sorel, were settled on the bay of Quinte (at Adolphustown and Kingston). Butler's Rangers, stationed at Fort Niagara, had settled some Loyalists across the Niagara River in what later became Ontario as early as 1781, and when disbanded in 1784, settled mainly in the Niagara Peninsula and along the north shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.
Transportation, provisioning, and settlement of the disbanded troops and civilian Loyalists was conducted by the military establishment. The method of raising troops and assembling the civilian groups had brought together neighbours, friends, and relatives who were later settled together for their mutual benefit.
On the 9th of November 1789, in Council at Quebec City, Lord Dorchester, Governor-in-Chief of British America, gave particular recognition to the 'First Loyalists' by differentiating them from other Loyalists and settlers, (i.e. 'Late' Loyalists, 'Treasury' Loyalists, 'Simcoe' Loyalists, and from regular British and German soldiers who were considered to be 'Military Claimants').
The Dorchester Resolution approved by the Council defined the 'U.E.L. Loyalists' as those:
"who had adhered to the Unity of the Empire, and joined the Royal Standard in America before the Treaty of Separation in the year 1783".
"Put a mark of Honour upon the Families" of the U.E. Loyalists.
Approved the granting by the Land Boards of 200 acres of land (without fees) to the sons and daughters of the
U.E. Loyalists.
Accompanying the resolution to London to be laid before the King, was attached a "Form of Militia Roll for the Western Districts to discriminate the Families before mentioned "which included the following heading:
"N.B. Those Loyalists who had adhered to the Unity of the Empire, and Joined the Royal Standard [in America]
before the Treaty of Separation in the year 1783, and all their Children and their Descendants by either sex, are to be distinguished by the following Capitals, affixed to their names: 'U.E.' Alluding to their great principle 'The Unity of the Empire'.
In the covering letter, Lord Dorchester explained: "Care has been taken to reward the spirit of loyalty and industry, to extend and transmit it to future generations…".
The Loyalists in the newly settled western part of Quebec were not satisfied to be governed by the terms of the Quebec Act of 1774. Their petitions for English civil law, freehold tenure of land and elected assembly brought about the separation of the Old Province of Quebec into Lower and Upper Canada in 1791, with John Graves Simcoe, former colonel of the Queen's Rangers (1st American Regiment), as Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, now Ontario.
From 1783 to 1812, the U.E. Loyalists of Upper Canada were joined by many U.E. Loyalists from the Maritime
provinces; by 'late' Loyalists who may have supported the Crown but who were not within the British lines until after 1783; and those who came to swear allegiance to the Crown to escape what one settler termed the "Chaos, Taxes and Anarchy" of the new republic.
When the United States declared war on Great Britain in 1812, Upper Canada had a population of nearly 100,000, four-fifths of whom were American-born. The Upper Canada Militia and Indians who joined the British regular troops to resist the invasion were defending their homes and farms, as had their fathers and grandfathers in the American Revolution. Their success in turning back the invaders who would have severed the eastern provinces from the future western provinces ensured the development of Canada as a nation.
(excerpted and adapted from the Introduction to 'Loyalist Lineages of Canada 1783-1983'
by Audrey F. Kirk, U.E. and Robert F. Kirk, with thanks to the Toronto U.E.L Branch) |
I say not really not British due to the phenomena that parts of Southern Ontario and British Columbia are said to be more British than the Brits. But perhaps you'll detect that from the quoted bit. |
Notyoueither!!
Thankyou for taking the time to reply to this- The above is excellent.
How my reply to your first reply is below this excellent original post is annoying, mainly as I can't delete the thing.
I suspected "something was abroad" in this BBC series, but couldn't work out exactly what, due to lack of knowlege.
Thanks to your post I now know what was niggling me- it was the simple fact that they "dumbed down history" for popular consumption.
Shame on the BBC for doing so.
My interest in having to pay £106 every 12 months is beginning to annoy me- only tonight a programme I watched constantly referred to "railways" as "railroads", us British call them the former, what international audience was I paying for in that programme I wonder?
Toby 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Hardly. I seem to recall quite a few other nations involved in those amphibious landings.
And how come it took so long for the Yanks to get there, hmm ?  |
Molly,
We don't talk about WWII and how the US was prepared to utterly ignore Europe once the Japanese attacked, but took the Nazi's to declare war upon them before they'd even consider fighting in Europe.
On that we could gloat. Better I think to be an American gloating over the stupity of Europeans who once again were at war with each other.
The Yanks simply didn't think that "democracy was at stake" in 1939, it's still a relatively modern concept.
Us British, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwi's and Indians etc pretty well held the line until the US and Russia were forced to join, until that point, for every one male 18 year old we produced, Germany, Italy and Japan alone produced 3, Ignoring India, which was breaking away more or less at the time in recruitment terms. The Nazi's also raised large amounts of European soldiers within the occupied nations.
We all suffer Hollywood telling us how "they" won the war, whilst in fact the 4 1/2 million Empire troops actually outnumbered US troops, but were dispersed worldwide- but that is entirely missed by the simple fact that Russia won the war, and the Cold War was a result.
Toby
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
Immran,
Didn't it take until the Monroe- something line in 1862-ish before the US and Canada realised they'd be forever mates, not enemies? About the sametime the US declared South America (the entire continent) was the backyard of them, to all and sundry, and the Yanks somehow got Hawaii from the British? on the Western "offshore backyard".
Toby ;-)!!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Obviously we gave you a Hell of a long time to repay .
Lend/Lease was also instrumental in the Soviet counterattack.
While we didn't do all we could do, we did help a little bit, as the economic powerhouse of the Allies . |
Yep,
You sadly arrived as the economic powerhouse in 1917, due to a European war the two European superpowers were fighting each other for, the exact position you ended up with by default (Britain and Germany).
Now what was the cause that allowed the USA to become such?- oh, a single bullet in Serbia: stupid Europeans, millions died.
WWII was a different ball game and the US got even mightier than WWI, until then they had no equivilant to Vickers-Armstrong or Krupp, after you did, we didn't.
In a nutshell, the wealth of the modern USA is built upon two European wars, nothing more, but the companies that grew from WW1 saved us lot in WW2 once the Nazi's decided we shood all be so.
That I thank the US for most of all, and I'm sure my Grandfather who repaired mainly American built tanks on the frontline (not early Shermans of course!) during the war, at least we got some when needed, just like the Lancaster bombers the Canadians built more of than us.
However, each plane and tank needed a crew.
Toby
PS; It's also worth pointing out that upto the Great War the Yanks were pretty well locked out from the Empire market- we traded with each other, without need of another, whilst Europe was considered "German" territory in the tacturn agreement both had, But unwritten for industrial products.
Viewing the tool and die machinery ages against British and German products within the industrial revolution period, the German factories had modern equipment by 1870, hence the British Government wanting a war by 1914.
Once the factoies were rebuilt in Germany and Japan by US money after WWII, the effect on British Industry using old machines was devastating- both nations (Jap/Ger) began from scratch, with modern US machines, we were left with the same machines from 1939.
By other means, the US finally got the markets they were so deserious of, and Canada was well and truely industrialised by then, no longer needing UK goods.
As we say in Britain with some bitterness, "we won the war, but lost the peace"
Losing 40,000 civilians in just 9 months in London in 1939/40 due to German bombs helps you put the nutters that killed 55 into perspective.
Our population then was 40 million total, now it is 60 million.
Last edited by Toby Rowe on 05-08-2005 at 07:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Yep,
You sadly arrived as the economic powerhouse in 1917, due to a European war the two European superpowers were fighting each other for, the exact position you ended up with by default (Britain and Germany).
Now what was the cause that allowed the USA to become such?- oh, a single bullet in Serbia: stupid Europeans, millions died. |
Not really. If you examine production and GNP statistics you'll find that in many areas the US had become the world's economic leader by the beginning of the 20th century. In fact, the US was Britain's best investment arena, far outstripping any part of her empire in monetary yield. What really hurt Britain by the end of WWI was that Wilson required that the entire British investment portfolio, both public and private, be sold off to American interests before the US would give her war aid.quote:
WWII was a different ball game and the US got even mightier than WWI, until then they had no equivilant to Vickers-Armstrong or Krupp, after you did, we didn't. |
Had the Brits and Frenchies listened to Woodrow Wilson instead of ridiculing him and his 14 points there need not have been a WW2, but insteads you found his high ideals to be too effiminant to satisfy your manly needs for revenge. Did you know that even Sigmund Freud, an Austrian citizen who logically stood to benefit from Wilson's plea for leniency towards the Central Powers, labelled Wilson a neurotic fairy because of his insistance upon liberal democratic ideals, self-determination, and fair play. quote:
In a nutshell, the wealth of the modern USA is built upon two European wars, nothing more, but the companies that grew from WW1 saved us lot in WW2 once the Nazi's decided we shood all be so. |
Would it not be more accurate to say that Europe's twice temporary impoverishment was due to the then prevalent predominance of good old fashioned nationalistic bigotry and chauvinism wedded to hyper-militaristic macho-imperialistic culture? quote:
That I thank the US for most of all, and I'm sure my Grandfather who repaired mainly American built tanks on the frontline (not early Shermans of course!) during the war, at least we got some when needed, just like the Lancaster bombers the Canadians built more of than us.
However, each plane and tank needed a crew.
Toby |
Yeah, you were great cannon fodder. If you don't believe me, just ask Monty! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually it has been put forth by many on your sides on the previous times we've had such a debate. The War of 1812 was intended for the conquest of Canada and such claptrap. So, no, no strawman at all.
Here is a recent example:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&highlight=1812
Where tecumseh seems to say the US lost the War of 1812 because the US didn't conquer Canada. Which would imply that such conquest was the primary cause of such a war.
I may ask, if the "thrist for the conquest of Canada" was not the primary cause of the revolution or War of 1812, then how can you, with the straight face, say there was a 'thirst for the conquest'? When, where, did this thirst manifest itself to make it so apparent to the Canadian mindset? |
There has always been a strong element in US ruling circles that desired the annexation of Canada. From time to time, they have excercised significant political power in Washinton.
A quote from the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY, UNITED STATES ARMY: "The seat of anti-British fever was in the Northwest and the lower Ohio Valley, where the land-hungry frontiersmen had no doubt that their troubles with the Indians were the result of British intrigue. Stories were circulated after every Indian raid of British Army muskets and equipment being found on the field. By 1812 the westerners were convinced that their problems could best be solved by forcing the British out of Canada."
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm
In 1812, the War Hawks, a group of powerful politicians from the western states who led the push for war with Britain, sought the conquest of Canada. Pierre Berton, admittedly a Canadian author, wrote: "The War Hawks are only a handful, yet they effectively control Congress." Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House, was their leader, Peter Porter was chairman of the foreign relations committee, and so on.
It is disingenuous to suggest that if the various US invasions of Canada during the War of 1812 had succeeded, the Americans would have meekly withdrawn once their other objectives had been achieved. It's worth noting in this regard that one of the major causes of the war, the infamous Orders in Council, were rescinded by Britain 5 days after the American declaration of war.
It seems obvious that the objective has ceased to be an objective since it was not achieved. Quintessentialy American.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
Of course what the War Hawks (all 12 or so of them in the entire Congress) wanted has no bearing on anything. Since in the Congressional reasons for going to war, annexation of Canada was not stated and, most importantly, under the US Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief and determines every aspect of a war after it has been declared (aside from ratification of the peace accord).
And perhaps you and nye better get together and compare notes. Apparently he thinks that no one is seriously asserting that invasion of Canada was an objective of the war, but here you are doing so.
nye, I submit to you my evidence that I was not engaging in strawmen arguments (though I never asserted it was your specific view in this fallacy)
quote:
It's worth noting in this regard that one of the major causes of the war, the infamous Orders in Council, were rescinded by Britain 5 days after the American declaration of war. |
Why? You think it would have been allowed for the US to say... ooops. Never mind that part. Then again, there was still the whole impressment issue and the Brits not only staying in the Ohio River Valley, but building forts in it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Not really. If you examine production and GNP statistics you'll find that in many areas the US had become the world's economic leader by the beginning of the 20th century. In fact, the US was Britain's best investment arena, far outstripping any part of her empire in monetary yield. What really hurt Britain by the end of WWI was that Wilson required that the entire British investment portfolio, both public and private, be sold off to American interests before the US would give her war aid. Had the Brits and Frenchies listened to Woodrow Wilson instead of ridiculing him and his 14 points there need not have been a WW2, but insteads you found his high ideals to be too effiminant to satisfy your manly needs for revenge. Did you know that even Sigmund Freud, an Austrian citizen who logically stood to benefit from Wilson's plea for leniency towards the Central Powers, labelled Wilson a neurotic fairy because of his insistance upon liberal democratic ideals, self-determination, and fair play. Would it not be more accurate to say that Europe's twice temporary impoverishment was due to the then prevalent
predominance of good old fashioned nationalistic bigotry and chauvinism wedded to hyper-militaristic macho-imperialistic culture? Yeah, you were great cannon fodder. If you don't believe me, just ask Monty! |
Hi mate,
I'm getting a little too tired now to reply directly to all the points you raised.
Woodrow Wilson after WWI was the only giant amongst the leaders in the aftermath from the conference that left him deflated.
A Brit stated that the Treaty of Versailles led us straight into WWII, the French demanded the impossible of the German people to gain a brownie point from the previous century when they were trashed as I understand it.
My knowlege is of WWII, not WWI. Taking the wealth of a nation (the Ruhr) and demanding all that a nation produces outside of that region also doesn't bode well on the diplomatic front and must be seen as the biggest blunder France ever made, but the Allies paid for it in blood.
However harsh Woodrow was to the British, and however late he sent his "sons" off to be slaughtered in foreigh lands, he was the voice of reason, if I could imagine myself as sending my son off to war as any American might have.
He must have felt awful when he boarded that ship to go home and perhaps thought "how many did I send off to die".
To make a point clear, the British wanted nothing, like Wilson, the French got the heart of the German nation, which was what they wanted back then.
Britain went to war in WWI to ensure the independence of Belguim, in WW2 it was Poland, both were markers to Germany, both were ignored by dictators.
After WW2, the entire people of Britain finally got a vote- once radio occured the Government could no longer force us into wars so easily, by war-end, we got a health service for those still alive and "homes fit for heroes"- so that'll be the council estate I escaped from then, devoid of any community, and about 30 streets full of it that it replaced.
On the economic side of the US prior to WWI, I doubt the US would have got further than Germany as not only a late developer in the Industrial revolution- leaders in some fields maybe, not within the world as was then, in WW2, both Vickers and Krupp survived, as Boeing did for you- to the point of destroying the huge British Air industry, using technology us lot invnted!!
I'm skating on thin ice here however, and very tired. I don't know the size of the internal US market, plus South America?
Industrial output is a measure relative to the population? and also relative to the demands of it? a high population compared to the UK (you lot are about 5x larger than us) will give a higher output simply to serve your own population- ie, a US company will naturally be 5x larger than a British company where both have 20% of the home market?
Toby
Time to sleep methinks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I may ask, if the "thrist for the conquest of Canada" was not the primary cause of the revolution or War of 1812, then how can you, with the straight face, say there was a 'thirst for the conquest'? When, where, did this thirst manifest itself to make it so apparent to the Canadian mindset? |
Let's see... invaded during the Revolution... invaded multiple times during the war of 1812... presidential election fought with a major issue being war with the Empire over the border with Canada... sabre rattling during the Civil War, and raids launched from American territory...
The second mentioned is seen as an important set of events in Canada's history. We fought to remain part of the Empire. The last mentioned is a large part of the drive for Confederation. The Brits wanted to unload the expense of defending Canada and some Canadians saw some wisdom in gaining a status that might forestall another American invasion. It is no coincidence that Confederation was being pushed during the war and was concluded shortly after.
These things may be footnotes in American and British history texts, as well they should be. They do not merit a lot of attention for Yanks and Brits.
To us they are central events in the evolution of our country and how it is constituted. The friction didn't stop with Confederation. A transcontinental RR was built to unite British Columbia with the rest of the nation, and to assert sovereignty over the vast plains between.
So, while you are correct that the War of 1812 had American aims that merely included the possible conquest of the Canadas, to us that is the central event of the conflict.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
|
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course what the War Hawks (all 12 or so of them in the entire Congress) wanted has no bearing on anything. Since in the Congressional reasons for going to war, annexation of Canada was not stated and, most importantly, under the US Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief and determines every aspect of a war after it has been declared (aside from ratification of the peace accord).
And perhaps you and nye better get together and compare notes. Apparently he thinks that no one is seriously asserting that invasion of Canada was an objective of the war, but here you are doing so.
nye, I submit to you my evidence that I was not engaging in strawmen arguments (though I never asserted it was your specific view in this fallacy)
quote:
It's worth noting in this regard that one of the major causes of the war, the infamous Orders in Council, were rescinded by Britain 5 days after the American declaration of war. |
Why? You think it would have been allowed for the US to say... ooops. Never mind that part. Then again, there was still the whole impressment issue and the Brits not only staying in the Ohio River Valley, but building forts in it. |
S**t! I had a lengthy, documented reply and I used the back button and lost it all!
Anyway, here's the gist of it:
Imran, you're confusing the CAUSES of the war with the OBJECTIVES. And the fact that the US didn't list the conquest of Canada as a war aim shouldn't surprise anyone, least of all anyone as intellegent as you.
Here's JB Calvert, of the University of Denver: quote:
The aim of the War of 1812 was the annexation of Canada. It would have been embarrassing to avow this aim openly, but its importance was clear to everyone at the time. Arguments over trade policy, especially the British Orders in Council, and impressment of seamen, both results of the Napoleonic Wars, had festered for years. Subsequent to the Chesapeake affair of 1807, the impressment issue had been more or less worked out by diplomacy. |
Secondly, your attempt to minimize the influence of the War Hawks is unworthy. In order to win renomination, Madison had to placate the demands of the War Hawks in order to gain support from the western and southern states. Britannica Online: quote:
Madison, threatened with a loss of renomination, was urged to action by a group of fiery young congressmen led by Henry Clay—the “war hawks.” Madison finally sent a strong message to Congress reviewing the British aggressions and recommending war. Accordingly, on June 18, 1812, by a vote of 79 to 49 in the House and of 19 to 13 in the Senate, war was declared. |
Finally, let's compare the application of "Manifest Destiny" to Florida, controlled by weak Spain, as opposed to Canada, controlled by powerful Britain. By 1819, the US had aquired control of Florida, which Spain was unable to defend. It's passing strange that the US was uninterested in owning Canada despite repeatedly invading it, while it invaded and stole Florida from Spain. All I can say is thank God we had Britain and not Spain to protect us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Molly,
We don't talk about WWII and how the US was prepared to utterly ignore Europe once the Japanese attacked, but took the Nazi's to declare war upon them before they'd even consider fighting in Europe.
On that we could gloat. Better I think to be an American gloating over the stupity of Europeans who once again were at war with each other.
The Yanks simply didn't think that "democracy was at stake" in 1939, it's still a relatively modern concept.
Us British, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwi's and Indians etc pretty well held the line until the US and Russia were forced to join, until that point, for every one male 18 year old we produced, Germany, Italy and Japan alone produced 3, Ignoring India, which was breaking away more or less at the time in recruitment terms. The Nazi's also raised large amounts of European soldiers within the occupied nations.
We all suffer Hollywood telling us how "they" won the war, whilst in fact the 4 1/2 million Empire troops actually outnumbered US troops, but were dispersed worldwide- but that is entirely missed by the simple fact that Russia won the war, and the Cold War was a result.
Toby |
We were already fighting an undeclared naval war against Germany in 1940, a fact that no doubt contributed to Germany's willingness to declare war on us in 1941. We sent a majority of our military strength to the European theatre of operations during the war, and a vast majority of our production of resources and war material went there throughout the war.
Also, our army alone had over 4 million members in 1944 with our total forces being about 7 million so it's hard to see where your 4.5 million Empire troops outnumbered us at that point.
While I agree that the Soviets did a majority of the heavy lifting against the Germans it was the Anglo-Americans who did in the Italians and the Japanese, the latter being mostly an American operation. The Soviets prevailed in WW2, but the enormous losses they suffered make the concept of having won the war a bit hollow. To denote them as the soul victors is ridiculous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
Why did Canada not WANT to join the US?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
Yes? There were the freest nation at the time. Didn't you feel oppressed by Britain as did the yankees?
Also, with being a part fo them you would have had your say just as well. It was all about the idea of a free American continent. I mean they didn't get it done in South America (Greater Columbia, huh?), but those are spics anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
I understand now. Canada is a little kid that needs guidance from it's mommie, Britain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Wasn't this the case in all American wars, except perhaps WW2? |
And the middle east invasions of 1991 and 2003?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-08-2005 04:39
|