|
Page 1 of 65
(Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
)
|
|
Brian W
Atlanta
GA USA
|
Posts: 1225
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History!
|
Time to start a new thread! 50+ pages is time.
----------------------------------
"Take it easy. But take it" - Tom Morello's mom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8091
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History!
|
Hi Brian,
Just curious was this thread a record??
Do you keep track?
It was fun!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History!
|
Brian, just curious (as will be others).
Are you suggesting that those who would like the thread to continue should enter their posts in the "This Day in World History" you have just posted? Does that mean you will dismount the other thread because of its size, or that it will still be there?
I for one would like to see a thread such as this continue, unless having threads of such size is too costly to maintain. I don't know whether MD wants to continue to be the driver, but I know that from time to time there is a post which fits such a post perfectly and doesn't always seem to fit anywhere else. And I'm not obsessed with finding an entry for every day, which is what MD strove for.
Let us know your thoughts, please, on whether we can continue to post topics that would fit some kind of thread similar to the one MD set in motion a year ago. I was about to write a short piece on the importance of the birth of Elizabeth I, born on Sept 7 1533. This kind of thread is a perfect place to offer it.
Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian W
Atlanta
GA USA
|
Posts: 1225
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History!
|
MD,
I do believe it's a record. I don't keep track. I won't delete the thread. My system will delete it after a year of inactivity.
BG,
Yeah, it's a cost thing. I have X amount of database allocated. Which is good. The thread should be around for a year or so (I think I have it set to a year).
50+ pages at 20 posts per page is 1000+ posts. It's not a big deal. I just want to head off any potential issue with the database not saving any future posts if we hit a max. I'm not freaking out.
----------------------------------
"Take it easy. But take it" - Tom Morello's mom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History!
|
No, I get that Brian. I just didn't know how you wanted members to continue to post on this kind of thread.
I'll start posting on this, i.e., your similarly named post.
But I would like to tell MD that folks know he shepherded a demanding post through an entire year, and that his post worked well.
It also strikes me that MD's efforts led to an average of one page per week. That's a lot of copy, and Dave should be proud of the duration of his thread.
Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian W
Atlanta
GA USA
|
Posts: 1225
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History!
|
Definitely, Woot MD! It's just a continuation of the MD thread.
Holy cow, do you realize that it was exactly a year ago that he started the original thread? To the day. How is that for insane coincidence?
----------------------------------
"Take it easy. But take it" - Tom Morello's mom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
|
Posts: 3293
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
This day in World History!
|
Why not just post to the new thread, but some one change the title heading to "MD`s This day in History" on the next post to it.
Respects, Morris
[Edit] I don`t often post on this thread...but I read every day. And the real value, and fun, is that I read about a topic or event that I then research on my own. Learning about things that I would have never thought about. It`s great!
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kaii
Oslo
|
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
This day in World History!
|
Agree with Morris, this is a great thread. I read it as often as Imanage too, and have learnt a lot of interesting bits of history. Well done MD and everyone else contributing!
K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3223
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
This day in World History!
|
I agree with Morris. This was/is a great thread. I read it everyday and added something when I could. But especially, just like Morris said, it gave me impulses to start looking at things I would neer have done.
Nice one MD and all who contributed.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History!
|
I enjoyed the thread too. Well done Dave.
But I need direction. Are we now posting on this new thread while the old one lies dormant?
If so, is it possible to change the title of the new thread? Something simple like, "This Day in History II" or even "continued".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8091
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
|
Quote: Hi Brian,
Just curious was this thread a record??
Do you keep track?
It was fun!
MD
As you guys wish we’ll use this as the new thread, but rather than led by myself, it will be a community effort! Anyone of you can lead it off for the day? Also that may give it more of an international flavor!?
So we’ll call it Vol. II, & move it here!
Sound good??
MD
BTW, thanks for the kudos guys, but when a task is fun, it’s easy!?
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian W
Atlanta
GA USA
|
Posts: 1225
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
Yes, please post here to continue the thread.
----------------------------------
"Take it easy. But take it" - Tom Morello's mom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8091
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
|
Quote: Time to start a new thread! 50+ pages is time.
Brian, Can you change the title of the thread to read "THIS DAY IN WORLD HISTORY, VOLUME II" ?
(never mind it seems to have already been changed? but then again maybe not?)
MD
Here are the websites!
[Read More]
[Read More]
[Read More]
Also feel free to add other sites from your country or perspective,
that would really make it interesting! Anyone??
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
One of the greatest battles of WW2, in my humble opinion, had been going on since late Aug. 1944.
This was the Battles of the Gothic Line in Italy that took place in the shadow of Operation Dragoon, the invasion of southern France and they are often ignored.
The Gothic Line was a formidable defensive position that faced the British 8th on the Adriatic coast and the American 5th fighting in the central mountains.
Br. Gen. Leese decided to attack on the Adriatic and in late Aug., Operation Olive began.
US Gen. Clark was to attack the passes in the Apennines and with his forces was the British 13 Corps.
On Aug. 25, the British 8th moved off with the Poles hugging the coast, the British in the interior and the Canadians in the middle. The Metauro River was crossed. Over 1500 guns and 400 bombers supported Op. Olive.
The Germans under Kesselring were not sure where the next attack would come from but he finally realized that the attack at the Metauro was the main attack and so he moved forces from the central front to the Adriatic. It was not until Aug. 30 that these units would be in position.
On that day, Gen. Hoffmeister of the CDN 5th Armoured Div. was at the front and noticed that the Germans had not fully occupied the Gothic Line positions and he recommended an immediate attack. Br. Gen Leese approved and the line was "gate crashed". The Germans were in disarray and had to retreat to the north. By Sept. 3, the Canadians had moved 15 miles north and were hoping to get to Rimini but the German defences stiffened near Coriano Ridge.
Looking down on the Adriatic Plain, the Germans took a heavy toll of the British 1st Armoured in the first battle of Coriano Ridge, Sept. 3-4. The Br. division had rolled and marched for two days to get to the ridge and were ordered into battle. The German line had been pierced but they had the defensive advantage of the ridge and of 156 Shermans deployed, only 79 were fit to fight when the attack was called off.
And it was here that the Germans with some success made a great stand. They held up the British in the central hills and mountains and the British fought difficult and costly battles for Gemmano and Croce. The battle for Croce ended on this day in 1944 and the British had been battered but won.
These two names, Gemmano and Croce deserve more attention. The British attacked and were counter attacked over a 5 day period. The fighting was often close combat and house to house in the two towns.
Gemmano if anything was more fearsome fighting than Croce. The British had to mount four attacks to clear the German forces and guns from this hilltop town. It took until Sept. 15 to finally seize the objective. Every British battalion committed had 100-150 casualties. Gemmano is a worthy battle honour for several British regiments.
Quote:"All around the the bullet-chipped cross on Pt.449, the dead, khaki and field-grey, lay heaped, unburied, in score upon score; at their centre a soldier of the Lincolns whose hands were still frozen in death round the cross itself, which he had reached in his battalion's first attack. Few regiments of 8th Army had ever known fierver fighting than that of Gemmano"
Upcoming was the second battle of Coriano Ridge that featured the Canadians finally taking this German strongpoint that had stymied movement along the Adriatic plain.
Also upcoming was the assault on the central front by the US 5th Army beginning on Sept. 12 as they fought to gain control of the mountain passes leading to the plains below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8091
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
George,
So much for Italy being the “soft under belly” of Europe!?
Who in the hell ever phrased that??
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
|
Quote: George,
So much for Italy being the “soft under belly” of Europe!?
Who in the hell ever phrased that??
MD
I think that it was Winston.
I often wonder whether the Americans, British, Canadians, New Zealanders, Poles and Greeks and Brazilians and Moroccans and whomever else was fighting in Italy, thought that they had been forgotten.
At the time of the Gothic Line battles, the Falaise Gap in the Normandy fighting was closed and the allied armies had their eye on Paris and Germany. So Italy was a side show unless you were fighting there.
We know that the fighting at Monte Cassino got a lot of attention and rightly so. That was hard fighting.
But British Gen. Leese commented that the fighting for the Gothic Line and Rimini was as tough as Cassino and El Alamein in North Africa.
Canadian historians do cover the Battle of the Gothic Line because the Canadians were an important part of the breach of the line in the Adriatic sector. Still the real goal was to seize Rimini and then break out into the Po river plain. If everything had gone according to plan, the Germans would have been caught by the Americans pouring out of the central mountains and the British 8th on the Po plain.
The weather was a factor in the delay after Rimini was taken. And German defences stiffened in front of the Americans too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
I think it was WSC too. I just don't know if he generated the term (sorry: talking about "the soft underbelly of Europe") or merely appropriated it. I have read – somewhere, over the past 50 years – that it was first used to describe Turkey and the assault at Gallipoli in WW1. Finally, I don't know whether it was designed to apply to Italy, or to the Balkan and eastern European nations to the west of the Black Sea: Romania, Bulgaria and perhaps eastern Hungary.
IMHO, WSC was never a great military mind. Keep in mind: he supported the Dardanelles campaign; he was a lead voice in the chaotic Norway campaign of 1940. He threw almost certain victory in North Africa in 1940-41 into the garbage to support Greece; he sent non-combatant Canadian troops to their slaughter in Hong Kong (with the willing support of Canada's PM, it should be noted). So if somebody can pin this on him with a direct quote first heard in WW2 I wouldn't be surprised. I'm just mentioning points I've noted along the wayside during my own studies. I'm not questioning his pugnacity, his personal bravery or the like. I'm not commenting on his putative oratory or the undoubted impact he had as the UK's wartime PM. I just think he stank as a military planner.
IIUC, WSC had been talking about the "soft underbelly" before the Tehran Conference with Stalin and FDR (or is it better to see it as the WSC/FDR meeting with Stalin?). IIUC, that was when WSC became a minor player in a geopolitical game between FDR and Stalin. And he was given the invasion of Italy by FDR for his loss of status. Cruel, perhaps, but perhaps also accurate. Look at the limits placed on the Italian campaign: it was defined as subsidiary; it was decided that it would lose any equipment or troops needed for the D-Day Normandy invasion or the later invasion of southern France.
I'm not a military person. But to be brutal about it, if you want to beat an opponent you cut his throat. You don't start by shooting his toes. To attack Italy from the instep and arch, with the idea of battling the length of the country rather than attacking in the north and cutting the entire country off from Germany still befogs me. I think the slog up the boot of Italy was vicious and costly and painful and stupid.
I could go on for a long time about this less-than-appreciated campaign, and about whether there was any value in an Allied thrust through Yugoslavia may have been effective. But that's for another time.
Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8091
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
Hi George, & Brian,
Here is what the BBC had to say about the controversial Winston S. Churchill! Winnie to you!? Comments on WSC??
[Read More]
Quite the enigma!?
MD
Also today in history, one brave patriot, Nathan Hale, volunteers to be a spy for Washington & Continental Army. After doing some great spying, he is captured by the British, & interrogated by General Howe, then sentenced to be hanged! His last words were an inspiration for the Revolution, he said, "I regret, that I have but 1 life to give for my country! What a inspirational line! What say you about this great American Patriot!??
[Read More]
Check out what else happened on 9/10 in history!?
[Read More]
What say you??
BTW here is one mans take on the 5 most legendary charges in history! What great charges did he miss!? Anyone??
[Read More]
What about the charge of the light brigade!?
[Read More]
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
|
Quote: Also today in history, one brave patriot, Nathan Hale, volunteers to be a spy for Washington & Continental Army. After doing some great spying, he is captured by the British, & interrogated by General Howe, then sentenced to be hanged! His last words were an inspiration for the Revolution, he said, "I regret, that I have but 1 life to give for my country! What a inspirational line! What say you about this great American Patriot!??
Well, according to this source there is no proof that he actually said those words. Perhaps he is one of the stories of the revolution that have been embellished to contribute to the legend.
[Read More]
It seems that he was a rather inept spy as he revealed his mission to a British spy who posed as a patriot.
You can't blame Mr. Hale really. It seems that he was eager for the mission and I really don't know whether spycraft was something that was taught in those days.
It seems that the story of his death grew over the years and rather than remember him as a not very good spy, his story became one of sacrifice for the cause.
Quote:Over the years, as his story was told and retold, history transformed Hale from an obscure and unsuccessful spy into a symbol of selfless sacrifice in the service of his country. Cities such as New Haven, Hartford, and New York erected statues of Hale. Since no contemporary likeness survived, the sculptors created idealized portraits of heroic young men. Perhaps the most famous of these statues is the one by Bela Lyon Pratt (1913) outside Connecticut Hall at Yale, where Hale lived as a student.
I think that heroes are sometimes created and that stories become embellished. We have one in the form of Laura Secord who, hearing US soldiers speak of an attack during the War of 1812, travelled at night through the woods to get the message through to British forces who were then able to prepare and win. There is a lot of debate as to how significant her trek was. That she did it is not debated. She made her way through the woods until found by First Nations who escorted her to the British officer in charge.
Her trip was 32 km long and took her 18 hours and she was very brave but I am not sure that her effort was necessary as the British already knew where the Americans were.
As with Nathan Hale, the story of Laura Secord was told and retold and it is one of the enduring legends associated with the war of 1812. Statues and monuments to Secord were erected.
So we may no know whether Hale actually said what he said but he apparently was composed and accepting of his fate if this quote from a British officer, Frederick Mackensie is accurate. It was found in his diary for the day.
Quote:“He behaved with great composure and resolution, saying he thought it the duty of every good officer, to obey any orders given him by his commander in chief.”
He sounds like a loyal and responsible soldier.
Dave, your entry caused me to investigate a bit and it seems that Hale's words, if he said anything were altered in the years after his death.
Six years after his hanging, a newspaper, the Independent Chronicle reported that Hale had said:
Quote:"I am so satisfied with the cause in which I have engaged that my only regret is, that I have not more lives than one to offer in its service."
So it took six years before any line was attributed to the man.
It may be that the anonymous writer who reported Nathan Hale's last words was none other than Capt. William Hull who, later in life, disgraced himself with cowardly behaviour when he surrendered Fort Detroit during the War of 1812.
When Hull was an old man and trying to write his memoirs to make himself look a lot better than a man who had been sentenced to death for cowardice, he may have changed the words in Hale's last statement.
Apparently, the word "cause" was a loaded and coded word during the revolution as it meant, the cause of liberty. So it may have been Gen. Hull who massaged a statement to make it look more patriotic.
Read about it here:
[Read More]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
|
Posts: 3293
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
Sorry George, I gotta call chicken crap on that story. It seems written by a polit-historian. Quite a bit of conjecture and saying that Hale was not a nationalist..how the heck would she know what Nathan Hale would support ...had he lived!
Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
|
Quote: Sorry George, I gotta call chicken crap on that story. It seems written by a polit-historian. Quite a bit of conjecture and saying that Hale was not a nationalist..how the heck would she know what Nathan Hale would support ...had he lived!
Respects, Morris
I could have picked other sites, Morris. There seems to be a consensus that no-one really knows what Hale said.
Here's one
[Read More]
And another
[Read More]
I think that all countries write their own narratives and the story of Hale was based upon an historical event. Whether it was all true is up for debate.
The woman who wrote the novel about Hale may well have done her historical research and learned it well because her comments are reflected in the other sites that I provided. I think that she was trying to say that the revolution was more about fighting for a cause, the cause of liberty. Nationalism would not have been on Hale's mind as the country had not been established. And so she contends that the last comments of Hale were reworked or rephrased to indicate a nationalist mindset.
EDIT: The rebels were excellent propagandists. They documented everything that the British did and used the information when they could to foment hatred against them. I recall reading that they were doing this before the fighting started.
And so anything that would be perceived as heinous was documented and publicized.
So were they able to maximize the death of Hale for propaganda purposes while the conflict was ongoing or was the story of Nathan Hale, one that grew after the war was over?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8091
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
Hey Guys,
Every American Elementary school child is taught that famous Patriot Quote, by Nathan Hale! I for one say leave well enough alone, I sure as hell am not going to tell them he didn't say it!? Next we'll be saying Washington did not chop down the cherry tree, & he was a liar!?
To day 9/11 in history we all sadly remember the terrible terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, our world would never be the same!?
Also on 9/11/1814, the US was victorious against the British in the naval Battle of Plattsburgh Bay on Lake Champlain! Comments on how the fleets were built, and are there any ships from the battle on the bottom of the lake? Anyone??
[Read More]
[Read More]
Feel free again to discuss any events from history!?
regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
|
Quote: Every American Elementary school child is taught that famous Patriot Quote, by Nathan Hale! I for one say leave well enough alone, I sure as hell am not going to tell them he didn't say it!? Next we'll be saying Washington did not chop down the cherry tree, & he was a liar!?
Hi Dave, it's good to teach kids to love their country and to accept civic responsibilities. But I think that history should be taught as accurately as possible. When you take a real look at Hale, he didn't accomplish much and he was rather inept.
And yet, you and from what you say, every school kid has been taught that he epitomizes patriotism. I suggest that there were hundreds if not thousands of heroes who fought for the cause. So why would Hale be selected for lionization?
It's a touchy subject I know because the revolution has been taught to Americans as a mighty struggle against a tyrannical king and I disagree with that characterization. But I also believe that the American colonists were more than ready to move out of the house and Britain should have extended more political rights and trade rights. It may have saved thousands of lives.
I think that all countries embellish the truth when they want to illustrate what is great and good about the country.
We in Canada are discovering that the characters who explored and later invented Canada may have made many mistakes and treated, for example, our First Nations people badly. The federal government has been ordered to make restitution to FN children who were mistreated or poorly dealt with at the hands of social services. And this is recent history dating back to the 1960's.
So I ask you then, should we continue to teach Canadian history and the invention of Canada as a glorious triumph over a harsh land by industrious people and speak of them and those who followed and fought in great wars as the true picture of what Canada is and how it developed. Or should we teach our kids that in our zeal to create a great nation, abuses of the people who were here first were endemic and systemic? Or both?
So Dave, I think that you should also teach your kids that George Washington assassinated a French-Canadian named Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville in 1754 and lit the match that started the French and Indian Wars? 
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
|
Quote: Also on 9/11/1814, the US was victorious against the British in the naval Battle of Plattsburgh Bay on Lake Champlain! Comments on how the fleets were built, and are there any ships from the battle on the bottom of the lake? Anyone??
Was this the battle that saved the US from an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the British during the war of 1812?
I feel, with some certainty, that had the lake battle gone the other way that thousands of British troops, many who were veterans of the Napoleonic wars, would have marched down the Hudson River valley and seized New York.
So it was a critical moment in the war and it was mismanaged by the British.
It was a land and naval battle and a debacle and the man who was blamed was George Prevost, the Governor in Chief of Canada. (British North America).
The time was ripe to attack the Americans after years of defensive action because their were insufficient troops in Canada to do anything else but repel the invading Americans. In Aug. of 1814 about 16, 000 British troops, many of them vets of the Peninsular wars arrived in Quebec. One month later, there were 30,000 and that didn't include militia.
Britain and the British colonists were preparing to teach "cousin Jonathan" that he had made a mistake in crossing the borders to attack BNA.
So 11,000 British troops including regulars and militia made their way to Plattsburgh, NY. The battle plan was that the British naval squadron on Lake Champlain would take out the USN squadron while the land forces took Plattsburgh and pressed southward.
But British commander Prevost was a cautious soldier. His troops were experienced and led by aggressive commanders but Prevost stopped them because he was unsure of what was ahead. He kept saying that he didn't have sufficient intelligence. The US Secretary of War had disbursed a lot of troops in that part of NY state and there was little to stop the British if they had just marched.
A mix of US regulars and New York militia challenged the British forces at a bridge on the Saranac River, near Plattsburgh.
Prevost did not press ahead although he did destroy about 16 buildings in Plattsburgh with artillery.
So Prevost told his land forces to wait until the USN squadron had been defeated. But the winds shifted and the RN squadron could not manoeuvre and the naval commander was killed early on. It was a mess.
The USN was outmanned and out gunned but to be sure, they won. The RN sailors however were very inexperienced. I wonder how many were Provincial Marine sailors rather than RN sailors.
And so Prevost, on Sept. 11, ordered a retreat. He was afraid of being cut off by American troops. He had dithered so long that the Americans were able to send some Vermont militia to shore up the American defence as the British were threatening to overrun them.
His veteran commanders were shocked at Prevost's poor preparation for battle. They were veterans of battles in which thousands of men were killed and could not believe that they, the dominant force, were leaving before the battle had really started. The British had a 3:1 advantage in men. Prevost's commanders pleaded with him to let them attack.
British Maj. Gen. Robinson had forded the Saranac and dispatched the US militia in the way and was forming his troops for an attack on the forts around Plattsburgh when Prevost's ordered to retreat was received.
Maj. Gen. Thomas Brisbane tells Prevost that they will have these American positions under control in 20 minutes but Prevost says no, we're leaving
And so, they all marched back to Quebec and his commanders complained that they could still have prevailed if Prevost had been a vigorous and bold soldier. The British commanders faced court martial at home but they were exonerated an all eyes turned on Prevost.
Prevost was recalled to Britain and his name was initially cleared but rumours of his failure to fight followed him and so he requested a court martial and that request was granted. However, he died before it began.
Certainly, the conduct of the battle was embarrassing for veterans of Wellington's army who were considered the finest soldiers anywhere at that time.
Wellington actually said that Prevost had made the right choice to retreat given that the US controlled Lake Champlain.
Meanwhile, negotiations to end the war were happening at the same time and Britain was going to make some serious demands that would have seen the US restricted in its access to the Great Lakes and would possibly have seen the loss of land as well.
But when the news of the defeat at Plattsburgh was received in Ghent, the British lost interest in this annoying sideshow of a war and they sought to wrap things up as quickly as possible. And so it was agreed to return to status quo ante bellum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
|
Posts: 3293
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
I will only say....since there was no country, no nation of his own at the time of Nathan Hale`s death, only a cause...then it is asinine for the writer to say he "was no nationalist." What agenda is she pushing with that nonsense!
It`s the same crap involved in the NY Times 1619 project, trying to push, not history, but an agenda, in proclaiming that as the real founding of America...based upon the introduction of slaves onto Jamestown. Slaves that were captured from a slave ship from Europe, (England to be exact) intercepted by privateers flying the flag of Portugal, which was on it`s way...and would limp into port at Veracruz Mexico, where the remaining slaves were bound for in the first place, (and about one hundred years or so after the first African slaves would arrive in Spanish Florida.) In a world of slavery everywhere, a blatant attempt to discredit this country as being based upon slavery..when we were late to that world-wide party to begin with.
Since Nathan Hale was an excellent scholar, and who admired the play "Cato" it is certain he well knew the phrase from it: "How beautiful is death, when earned by virtue......that we can die but once to serve our country." The Essex Journal of Feb. 13 1777.....from witness accounts: "he made a sensible and spirited speech, among other things, told them that if he had ten thousand lives, he would lay them all down, if called to do so." How hard is it to consider that he said, " I regret that I have but one [such] life to give for my country." In the guise of "honest history, lets not rewrite it through agenda driven narratives. No, there is no proof that Lincoln was a homosexual, as some "historians" have speculated upon...nor was George Washington a socialist because he signed the militia act, wherein the government forced men of certain age to possess a firearm, as other polit-historians have alleged.
There is more evidence that Hale made that attributed quote, than there is that says he didn`t. It is a fact that Sherman never said, "War is hell." But in a statement he made he said that "..war is all hell...you can`t refine it... it is like the thunderbolt ..." And Bogie never said "play it again Sam.." but actually said "Play it Sam, if she can take it so can I." So what`s the bloody difference!
Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
|
Quote: I will only say....since there was no country, no nation of his own at the time of Nathan Hale`s death, only a cause...then it is asinine for the writer to say he "was no nationalist." What agenda is she pushing with that nonsense!
It`s the same crap involved in the NY Times 1619 project, trying to push, not history, but an agenda, in proclaiming that as the real founding of America...based upon the introduction of slaves onto Jamestown. Slaves that were captured from a slave ship from Europe, (England to be exact) intercepted by privateers flying the flag of Portugal, which was on it`s way...and would limp into port at Veracruz Mexico, where the remaining slaves were bound for in the first place, (and about one hundred years or so after the first African slaves would arrive in Spanish Florida.) In a world of slavery everywhere, a blatant attempt to discredit this country as being based upon slavery..when we were late to that world-wide party to begin with.
Respects, Morris
Not quite following your line of reasoning Morris. What does the slave trade have to do with Nathan Hale? Are you suggesting that the US relationship with the institution of slavery has been subject to revisionist history? Perhaps but then perhaps Nathan Hale has been as well.
The author, Becky Aker, writes historical fiction. What little I have read indicates that she does her homework. Her perspective of nationalism may differ from yours but I don't see a contentious issue. She contends that Hale's final words were "adjusted" to reflect a different point of view than would have been the one prevalent in 1776 and just beyond. I believe that she felt that the alteration to what he may have said was made by disgraced Gen. Hull who, as a captain, was good friends with Capt. Hale, when he wrote his memoirs as an old man.
The removal of the word "cause" to be replaced with "country", seems to be the major adjustment to a statement that Hale may or may not have made and that imparts a different emphasis on his motivation.
There seems to be consensus that no-one really knows what the man said but that he died feeling that he had done his duty to his commander in chief; that, according to accounts by British officers present. And so it seems that to raise this man to a level that may be considered more patriotic than fighting for a cause, his statement now states that he was fighting for his country. Not a big deal but it seems to support what I have been saying. And that is that we all attempt to paint the most appealing picture of our heroes and certainly there has been an extensive narrative written about the US revolution that goes well beyond the basic historical facts.
Re: Slavery. I don't think that the timeline is relevant. Portions of the US embraced the use of slave labour and continued to do so long after many of the other participants had identified the institution as an evil that had to be eradicated. And while I am sure that the proponents of the Lost Cause ideology will be offended, the US fought a civil war partly to maintain the practice of slavery.
Who suggested that the country was "based upon slavery" as you suggested Morris? The use of slaves in the US has received a lot of attention but so has the, if anything, more violent abuse of slaves in the Sugar Islands by several nations. Hell, there were slaves in British North America (Canada). It's part of our history and certainly a big part of yours whether the slaves first landed in the wrong place or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8091
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
These 2 daily history websites are perpetual, they are always on the correct day!?
[Read More]
[Read More]
Good for days I have limited access!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
|
Posts: 3293
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
"Who has suggested that the country was 'based upon slavery' as you suggested Morris?" - George
Well, many have..but among the many is ........the New York Times! Why is the 1619 project being called the "true founding of America?" It is a sad pathetic effort being led, unfortunately, by academics and activists to undermine the founding, and founders and framers, of this country as nothing more than slavers. As if no other nation on the earth, including your own, the UK, France, Spain, you name it...were also involved. By this logic, there is no nation on the face of the earth, nor any people of any culture who can escape the illegitimacy moniker.
It was brought to our shores long before 1619, and done so by the Spanish, but before that it existed in various forms among the native peoples themselves.
Just a few decades after it`s introduction, the Massachusetts colony tried to legislate the end of the practice, and they were prevented from doing so......by their Lords in England. This was the reason that Jefferson wanted to hold the English King responsible for the continued institution of slavery in the colonies, as a reason for separation in the Declaration of Independence. By that time, the Southern colonies were beholden to the practice, and risked financial ruination if it was ended. Ironically, at about the time the cotton gin is invented, slavery was dying in this country...it was that technology that made the economics of slavery work on a massive scale.
The danger of this effort is what I have warned about ever since the American Taliban wanted to tear down statues to Confederates because of the issue of slavery...that it will not stop with just Confederates...but will be morphed into hatred of Washington and Jefferson...."they both owned slaves" so did Benjamin Franklin, one, a house hold servant...but he and Jefferson and Washington, and many others were a part of the ending of the practice....even the great abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglas acknowledged that , though it was written, and ratified and put into place by many slave owners, our Constitution, and indeed the Declaration of Independence are among the most liberating documents in the history of man.
Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
We sometimes employ moral equivalency to make ourselves feel better about our indiscretions. It sounds as though you are doing that, Morris. The fact that British colonists embraced and joined the slavery club after other countries had been involved before does not make it any less of a mistake.
As well, it doesn't matter whether Massachusetts was prevented from abolishing slavery. It doesn't matter that technology increased a demand for labour.
The fact is that slavery is a part of your history and from our 21st century perch, not an acceptable form of behaviour. The best we can do is not to deny it, to make reparations as appropriate and to ensure that it does not happen again.
I had to read a little bit about the 1619 Project. It is an interesting perspective and really nothing to fear. Perhaps it is useful to examine the common narrative of the genesis of the nation and to acknowledge that the continuation of slave labour was a major part of it.
Reviewers say that the authors, nearly all black, were interested in examining the legacy of slavery in the US. Perhaps they feel that that legacy has been ignored or diminished. Hell, I have read a number of times on this forum that black people have no reason to complain any longer and that they have equal opportunity. I'm not so sure.
Morris, I know that you are proud of your constitution. It was an important document but when you say that it is "one of the most liberating documents in the history of man", we only have to look at the words and the fact that the institution of slavery was permitted from the genesis of the nation, that your statement is difficult to accept. I know that you are fully aware of the "3/5 clause" that for census purposes, made a black person count as 60% of a full person. So there is hypocrisy written into the document.
I know that some Americans read the narrative of their founding and have raised documents like the Bill of Rights to iconic status. But these aren't holy writ and they deserve examination to see whether the document actually works.
Some American analysts feel that the constitution as it was designed is responsible for the dysfunction in government that you see today. Example: A senate in which every state has two senators and must approve every bill is disproportionate representation in the extreme. (not just my view, Morris)
And the amendment formula is also unworkable. Just having one does not mean that the means to change the document has any utility.
I think that that 1619 Project is worth a read. Black people may have a different view of what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean. And if they have conveniently misinterpreted US history, then call them on it. But we need to read it first, don't we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
|
Posts: 3293
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
George, in 1787, the people who wanted to count slaves as "a whole person".....were the pro-slavery side. It would give the slave states about one-third more seats in congress, and one third more political power that would increase their input into the coming slave-state, free-state arguments, and votes, over the territories and their desire for statehood.
In 1787, the people who pushed for counting slaves as a "zero person" would have been an advocate for dissolving the country into separate states, and the possible destruction of the new nation. The southern states would not have abide d not counting almost half of the populations of some states.
In 1787, the advocates for the 3/5ths compromise...were the anti-slavery, and abolitionist northern states....in favor of reducing the political power of the cotton sates..in favor of getting them to continue to agree to our most happy union....while giving up that one third more seats in the congress and the one third more power it would allow.
Should one favor allowing the slave-holding states to call a slave "property, not a person" during all endeavors....then consent to allow them to call a slave "a person" when it suits them to for political power, either for purposes of more representation on the Constitutional Convention...or on the census?
The 3/5ths compromise was a good thing, a necessary thing, on the long road to change. When people make mention of that compromise as some evil...they lack the context to understand what it actually did.
Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
Morris, these people were chattel and as I understand it when your country was developing and discussing fairness in representation and taxation, a good deal of compromise ensued. None of this had anything to do with improving the lot of slaves.
Originally, federal taxes were based upon land value, correct? But that didn't generate enough revenue so the Congress wanted to tax based upon population. What to do with all that human property?
If you were a slave owner, you wouldn't want them figured in as part of the tax liability. If you were Congress, you would.
Hence the compromise which gave the southern states greater representation in the House as a result of the fact that for every 5 slaves, 3 would be counted to boost the population total. More people means more congressmen would be needed.
As an added bonus, those states with large populations of slaves wound up with greater influence in the electoral college even though that human property had no right to vote.
I don't see how this could be could be construed as a gentle first step toward freedom for slaves, if that is what you were suggesting, Morris.
By 1798, slave owners in some states were subject to direct taxes on this property. Were federal taxes on slave owners based upon numbers of slaves also subject to direct tax?
This confuses me because I thought that the southern slave owners were opposed to direct taxation of slave property if the slave population was used to determine representation numbers in Congress. It seems that direct taxation would violation the basis upon which the 3/5 compromise was determined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
Sept. 12, 1944. The Gothic Line. Italy.
The Canadians and Brits and Poles had punched a hole in the Gothic Line on the Adriatic Front.
Note that at this time, 16 allied nations had committed to the fight in Italy but I obviously haven't mentioned all of them here.
On this day in 1944, the US Army with British XIII Corps attached began its attacks on the German defensive positions in the Central Appenines.
The US had been moving into position to begin its attack from Sept. 10. Gen. Mark Clark and British Gen. Leese were not always on the same page. Leese disliked working with Clark and did not wish to have British troops commanded by Clark. Brit. Gen. Alexander, perhaps trying to keep the peace, ordered Leese to provide XIII Corps to Gen. Clark.
So the Br. XIII Corps began making the trek through the mountains on Aug. 15 and it took about a week to get them into position with the US 5th Army.
The US had fairly recently detached 3 US divisions and 4 French divisions from Italy and deployed them to southern France for Operation Dragoon. Some of these French troops were trained mountain troops.
Maps don't do justice or show clearly the difficult terrain in which the Americans and British were operating. The German forces, as they had throughout the Italian campaign had the advantage of having arrived first on the various high points of land surrounding the passes that the Americans and British needed to take in order to advance to the plain beyond the mountains.
Quote:The fighting was typical of the Italian campaign. The terrain facing Fifth Army units consisted of numerous mountain peaks, streams, deep valleys, broken ridges, and rugged spurs, all offering excellent defensive positions to the enemy. Although significant numbers of troops were involved on both sides, small unit actions predominated and rarely were units larger than a battalion engaged at any one time. The compartmented terrain tended to erode the Allies' three-to-one advantage in manpower, and whatever successes were gained were due largely to the individual soldiers' valor, resilience, and determination. . source: history.army.mil
When the US attack began, German forces had moved troops from the central front to the Adriatic once they determined that the 8th Army attack was the real thing. CDN 5th Armoured Div had punched a big hole in the Gothic Line but unfortunately that success was not exploited fully and as German resistance increased, so did casualties.
The details of this most difficult battle in the north Apennines are worth a read but this thread is not the spot for it. I know more about the actions on the Adriatic side so if someone wishes to create a thread on the WW2 section of the forum with respect to the actions of US and Br. forces during Olive, that could be worthwhile.
So I will leave with some photos of the area in which the US troops fought so valiantly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8091
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
Quote:These 2 daily history websites are perpetual, they are always on the correct day!? [Read More][Read More]Good for days I have limited access! MD
Well it's Friday the 13th, good luck with that! How did Friday the 13th become a bad luck day? Anyone??
Our 1st "read more", includes Italy invading Egypt in 1940! Was Great Britain still involved in Egypt, how did they & the Allies react? Why does Facist Italy keep invading Africa?? Comments?
[Read More]
Good Luck!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
|
Posts: 3293
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
I am going to post his one last thing...then, if there is further discussion on the subject, perhaps we could set up a separate thread for comments.
"I don`t see how this could be construed as a gentle first step toward freedom for slaves....". - George
Well, the abolitionist Frederick Douglass, himself a former slave did. He spoke of the 3/5ths compromise as, "a downright disability laid upon the slave-holding states.......that would with-hold from them "two-fifths of their national basis of representation."
Look, without that compromise it is quite simple, if the anti-slavery side held out for "only counting free persons"..then there would have been no Constitution...we would have remained under the Articles of Confederation...if the slave states even chose to remain, and not separate completely. There was simply no way the southern states would allow their slaves not to be counted in the population numbers.
Likewise, if the southern states got their way, they would have had even more political power and representation that they wound up with under the compromise.
To say that the 3/5ths compromise gave more power to the slave states than they should have had....only exists in an unrealistic vision of the southern states consenting to have them not counted at all..and that was not going to happen. There would have been no Constitution, no vote just a few years later, in 1808 to end the importation of slaves...and there may not have been a United States that survived the British attempts to take us over again.
Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
Morris, your comments mean that the black slaves were collateral damage in the drive to create a nation, write a constitution and the Bill of Rights within. Did anyone care in 1787?
EDIT: There would have been no Constitution, no vote just a few years later, in 1808 to end the importation of slaves...and there may not have been a United States that survived the British attempts to take us over again.
Just re-read your post Morris. When did GB attempt to take over the US?
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
|
Quote: Our 1st "read more", includes Italy invading Egypt in 1940! Was Great Britain still involved in Egypt, how did they & the Allies react? Why does Facist Italy keep invading Africa?? Comments?
Dave, the reasons that the Italians were there may not have been related to fascism.
In the age of colonialism, even in the dying decades, parts of Africa were ripe for domination by democracies, monarchies and fascist dictatorships.
A map of the partitioning of Africa from 1885 until the start of WW1. You can see that Italy was taking its share and well before it was a fascist state under Mussolini.
Here is the map of colonial Africa in 1913
Most of Africa was under European control by the time that WW1 began.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
George covers at least a part of the question quite nicely. Italy, like most major European nation, was interested in colonies. And the African continent was one of the last places where latecomers to the race for colonies (and both Italy, in 1861, and Germany, in 1871, were latecomers) could find major sections of land to exploit. Italy was able to gain Eritrea and Italian Somalia; Germany gained what is now Angola and Tanganyika.
The completion of the Suez Canal in 1869 shifted focus on Africa from a land that could be milked for raw materials to a bulk that was a hindrance to commerce. Except, I would argue, for Italy. The new sea route (from points east through the Red Sea and Suez to the Mediterranean, then through Gibraltar to Northern Europe) appeared to be under British Control: they held Aden at the mouth of the Red Sea; they controlled Egypt and the canal itself; they had naval bases at Alexandria, Malta and Gibraltar. And in East Africa, in addition to Egypt, their power within the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan gave them half the African short of the Red Sea, while British Somaliland gave them a location opposite Aden.
I don’t know when Italy realized it literally had a central position in this route. But Il Duce certainly focused on it. He had plans to conquer the nations along the Adriatic, with further actions against Greece. He wanted to make the Mediterranean an “Italian Lake” – a Mare Nostrum. It proved that Italy didn’t have the strength to make this a reality, but the plan was certainly there.
So why start in East Africa? Because he had a base there, and taking Ethiopia (ruled by Haile Salassie, the Lion of Judah – and incidentally a demi-God to Rastafarians) would isolate both French and British Somaliland, weakening their control over the entrance to the Red Sea.
His invasion, ironically, was supported through the Suez Canal. And although the League of Nations threatened sanctions, in the end they folded to Mussolini’s bluff.
Keep in mind that Italy was a respected power. It had a substantial army, an impressive air force, and what appeared to be an outstanding navy. It’s worth looking at British and French responses and decisions concerning events when discussing appeasement, because both nations lost ground through appeasement to the (it turned out largely toothless) bully of Italy under Il Duce.
The outbreak of the war in the west, and Il Duce’s ultimate declaration for Germany, opened up a chance to attack French colonial assets to the west of Libya. It also suggested a chance to attack Egypt and perhaps take control of Suez.
To me, it makes sense that Italy worked on capturing the land surrounding the Med. Italy never succeeded in any of its endeavours, which may be a tribute to the Italian people, who simply didn’t want to fight wars.
Italy was driven out of East Africa and Ethiopia, and had to be bailed out in North Africa, in Albania, and in Greece, by a rather more impactful German military.
Nonetheless, I think Italian strategic plans for the Med made sense at the time. Had they taken control of the Med totally, the UK would have found the waging of war even more difficult than it did.
Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
|
Posts: 3293
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
George, the desire was to maintain a strong union that would discourage the British, or any other power, from mischief against the newly minted United States.
While the Brits were not designing to "take us over again" they would go on to fire on an American ship, impress US sailors they deemed to be deserters( that also included the taking of US citizens mistaken for British deserters, and not returning them for five years) block trade, and also stir unrest among the tribes, all toward the goal of disrupting American growth and expansion. In the minds of the Americans, it was of absolute necessity that we reform under a Constitution, have stronger authority in matters of self-defense and national sovereignty.
Did anyone care in 1787? Yes. That`s why there was a 3/5th compromise. It`s common sense. The alternatives were to risk the states, under the Articles of Confederation, dissolving the union if only free persons were counted, or maintaining the country through compromise..that did not give the slave-holding states the power they sought to have by a full counting of slaves.
Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8091
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
Quote:These 2 daily history websites are perpetual, they are always on the correct day!? [Read More][Read More]Good for days I have limited access! MD
Again, here are 2 websites on happenings for today 9/14 in history, note the 1st one talks of the US invasion of Peleliu, a Japanese held island in the Pacific! It turned out to be extremely costly, (9,000) casualties, and un-necessary!? Comments on this and other invasions that really were not needed??
[Read More]
Speaking of the Pacific WWII War here is a story on the only German Uboat to fight in the Pacific in WWII! Comments?
[Read More]
Also on this day the British had to pay the US 15 1/2 million in damages for aiding the Confederate Navy! Comments??
[Read More]
Enjoy the day!
MD
BTW George, Morris, & Brian, great discussions on the 3/5ths compromise, and the European taking control of Africa, & Italy's war-time actions! Carry on!?
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13378
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Volume II
|
Morris, it is only "common sense" if one believes that black people are somehow inferior to whites and unworthy of the same rights and freedoms described in the constitution. Again, these people were moved about as chess pieces all to ensure that the states would be content with the constitution.
As for the British actions that led to a foolish decision by the US to invade British North America, it is also true that there were many British deserters on commercial vessels flying the US flag. They deserted for money but they were not American citizens and the US showed no interest in stopping merchants from employing RN sailors.
It is also ignored in the US that there were strong supporters of annexation of BNA. These war hawks were not content with victory in revolt. Somehow they had convinced themselves that they had a right to control this whole continent.
Many felt that it was the British who were stopping them from destroying the Indian bands that were making life difficult for those who would expand into their territory.
In many ways the attitude of men like Thomas Jefferson, William Henry Harrison, and Henry Clay was reprehensible. It was men like this who convinced President Madison to go to war when diplomacy would have been the better route.
Even 19th century US historians agree that this war was one that should not have happened because the issues were relatively small and Britain had agreed to remove the offending practices.
Rufus Blanchard was an American historian and he wrote, in 1881:
Quote:Never before in the history of enlightened nations did such a juxta as well as absurd issue result in war. The sword was drawn to fight England under a just sense of resentment for grievous practices that she (England) was willing to apologize for, as well as discontinue, but would not condescend to enter into a treaty to do so
England was in a great fight with Napoleon and US commerce was suffering because of Napoleon's Milan and Berlin decrees and English decrees. England had already agreed to deal with the impressment issue and were waiting for Napoleon to revoke those decrees. Elimination of the offending decrees was considered a formality and time would have taken care of that.
All of this was in the works when the US Congress, by a small margin, decided to invade Canada.
Five days after the US declared war, Britain revoked the offending orders but that wasn't good enough for the new republic. In its inexperience and goaded by the war hawks, the US felt that it had to seek revenge for the slight to its honour.
EDIT: Once the US declared war, GB was not going to return Americans that they had impressed. You mentioned that they were not returned for five years. But I ask, what would be expected when a state of war existed?
And there was the little manner of gaining a huge tract of land too. Modern US historians suggest that the invasion was only to put pressure on the British to negotiate but since the British were in the process of correcting the offending decrees and behaviours, suspicious Canadians such as I am, feel that annexation was an objective as it would be several times in our shared history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
