|
Page 1 of 103
(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
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
)
|
|
Brian W
Atlanta
GA USA
|
Posts: 1225
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Please continue on this thread. Thanks.
----------------------------------
"Take it easy. But take it" - Tom Morello's mom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
|
MD, is this necessary? Quote: Sorry about yesterday, after posting I thought I hope everyone just lets this go!?
My wishes now are for staying away from politics, & get back to just history minus politics!? MD, IMHO this isn’t an issue you need to apologize for. It is a critical issue, and may determine many nations’ relationships with the US in the near and even middle future. That we can’t discuss it on MHO is both sad and limiting, but there’s no reason for you to carry the can for MHO limitations. You raised a legitimate issue, got a few legitimate responses, and had the “Politics” plug pulled on you.
I’m not going to push the topic. Brian W and MHO have made it clear these are not issues acceptable on MHO. But I must say this is an issue which is vital to how the world’s future evolves socio-politically. It will be discussed elsewhere if not on MHO. If it isn’t, the world is in trouble. To all MHOers: if you find rational discussion of this issue, please send me links. It’s an issue much larger than MHO’s restrictions.
Cheers. And stay safe.
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: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
[Read More]
[Read More]
[Read More]
3 perpetual sites, check for topics.?
cheers,
MD
Brian, My opinion is that topic would lead to devisivness,
I'm ok with dropping the topic.
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2474
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Ill just say George inserted politics here and the "what ifs of Trump" into this innocuous thread. Imagine if I inserted the what ifs of what the left can do to harm US and listed all of their attempts to take power in the US and named names? I would probably be kicked and attacked by many, conservatives have a reality as well there are two sides too everything. With George's post he assumes we all feel as he does and with the perimeters of this site gives no one the ability to disagree effectively. I agree with Morris 100%
Im sorry Dave I could not let this go conservatives have too . This site is not for political confirmation or an ok thumbs up as to how you feel about stuff until Im told differently its about how you feel about Military history. And if politics creeps back in which i don't want I will fight hard.
vpatrick
[quotel] US Democracy
Hi MD. Just last week in the Toronto Globe and Mail there were several articles written that examined the "condition" of the US experiment. They were not optimistic and one drew parallels between the development of fascism and autocracy in certain countries and what has transpired in the US recently.
There are several US writers who have written about the same thing in the last couple of years including Madeline Albright and Timothy Snyder. They see a familiar pattern.
An interview with Timothy Snyder. (there are many others and videos too. He is worth a listen)
[Read More]
Canadian political science writers warn that as ludicrous as the suggestion sounds that the US democracy could fail and an autocratic regime installed, Canada in particular has to prepare for the worst. And some suggest that autocratic government will not be under Donald Trump but suggest that Trump and his supporters are paving the way with further violence preceding an autocratic take-over.
This university professor suggests that the US could be under autocratic rule under a right wing dictator by 2030. Thomas Homer-Dixon wrote one of the articles that I read this past week-end. He teaches at Royal Roads University in British Columbia.
He notes that the election of Donald Trump was considered an absurd concept and yet here we are. Homer-Dixon specializes in the study of violent conflict in nations and he bases his concerns on the possibility that Trump will be reelected in 2022 and that Republican controlled state legislatures would be unwilling to recognize a democratic victory, should it occur.
He says that Trump will have only "vindication and vengeance" on his mind should he become President. He says that Trump and acolytes like Tucker Carlson on Fox or Representative Marjorie Taylor-Green and others have transformed the Republican Party, “into a near-fascist personality cult that’s a perfect instrument for wrecking democracy”.
Cherry picking some of Homer-Dixon's writing finds the following:
-Trump “may be just a warm-up act”.
-“Returning to office, he’ll be the wrecking ball that demolishes democracy but the process will produce a political and social shambles,”
- Still, through targeted harassment and dismissal, he’ll be able to thin the ranks of his movement’s opponents within the state, the bureaucrats, officials and technocrats who oversee the non-partisan functioning of core institutions and abide by the rule of law."
- "Then the stage will be set for a more managerially competent ruler, after Mr Trump, to bring order to the chaos he’s created.”
I am sure that there are many who will dismiss this as a chicken little scenario but Mr. Homer-Dixon was writing in a Canadian newspaper and he says that Canada must prepare as though the worst could happen. There could be economic and political risks to Canada should we be living next door to a right wing autocracy.
Should a dictator nullify internal dissent, then Homer-Dixon envisaged a scenario in which Trump or another dictator attempted to damage its northern neighbour.
example of a scenario that would put great pressure on Canada:
“Under the less-optimistic scenarios, the risks to our country in their cumulative effect could easily be existential, far greater than any in our federation’s history. What happens, for instance, if high-profile political refugees fleeing persecution arrive in our country and the US regime demands them back. Do we comply?” Homer-Dixon
I have thought of others including a US demand for Canadian fresh water or a demand that nuclear missiles be installed in Canada's north. What price refusal?
So I do hope that none of this comes about but there are those on both sides of the border who warn of these events.
Cheers,
George
T
his is absurd and its fear factor. If I was a Canadian I would fear an elderly Biden who has already shut down your pipeline from the Alberta fields and let a Russian one flow. Trump may have been your best friend Canada
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2474
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Ill just say George inserted politics here and the "what ifs of Trump" into this innocuous thread. Imagine if I inserted the what ifs of what the left can do to harm US and listed all of their attempts to take power in the US and named names? I would probably be kicked and attacked by many, conservatives have a reality as well there are two sides too everything. With George's post he assumes we all feel as he does and with the perimeters of this site gives no one the ability to disagree effectively. I agree with Morris 100%
Im sorry Dave I could not let this go conservatives have views too . This site is not for political confirmation or an ok thumbs up as to how you feel about stuff until Im told differently its about how you feel about Military history. And if politics creeps back in which i don't want I will fight hard.
vpatrick
and heres George
Quote:Hi MD. Just last week in the Toronto Globe and Mail there were several articles written that examined the "condition" of the US experiment. They were not optimistic and one drew parallels between the development of fascism and autocracy in certain countries and what has transpired in the US recently. There are several US writers who have written about the same thing in the last couple of years including Madeline Albright and Timothy Snyder. They see a familiar pattern. An interview with Timothy Snyder. (there are many others and videos too. He is worth a listen) [Read More]Canadian political science writers warn that as ludicrous as the suggestion sounds that the US democracy could fail and an autocratic regime installed, Canada in particular has to prepare for the worst. And some suggest that autocratic government will not be under Donald Trump but suggest that Trump and his supporters are paving the way with further violence preceding an autocratic take-over. This university professor suggests that the US could be under autocratic rule under a right wing dictator by 2030. Thomas Homer-Dixon wrote one of the articles that I read this past week-end. He teaches at Royal Roads University in British Columbia. He notes that the election of Donald Trump was considered an absurd concept and yet here we are. Homer-Dixon specializes in the study of violent conflict in nations and he bases his concerns on the possibility that Trump will be reelected in 2022 and that Republican controlled state legislatures would be unwilling to recognize a democratic victory, should it occur. He says that Trump will have only "vindication and vengeance" on his mind should he become President. He says that Trump and acolytes like Tucker Carlson on Fox or Representative Marjorie Taylor-Green and others have transformed the Republican Party, “into a near-fascist personality cult that’s a perfect instrument for wrecking democracy”. Cherry picking some of Homer-Dixon's writing finds the following: -Trump “may be just a warm-up act”. -“Returning to office, he’ll be the wrecking ball that demolishes democracy but the process will produce a political and social shambles,” - Still, through targeted harassment and dismissal, he’ll be able to thin the ranks of his movement’s opponents within the state, the bureaucrats, officials and technocrats who oversee the non-partisan functioning of core institutions and abide by the rule of law." - "Then the stage will be set for a more managerially competent ruler, after Mr Trump, to bring order to the chaos he’s created.” I am sure that there are many who will dismiss this as a chicken little scenario but Mr. Homer-Dixon was writing in a Canadian newspaper and he says that Canada must prepare as though the worst could happen. There could be economic and political risks to Canada should we be living next door to a right wing autocracy. Should a dictator nullify internal dissent, then Homer-Dixon envisaged a scenario in which Trump or another dictator attempted to damage its northern neighbour. example of a scenario that would put great pressure on Canada: “Under the less-optimistic scenarios, the risks to our country in their cumulative effect could easily be existential, far greater than any in our federation’s history. What happens, for instance, if high-profile political refugees fleeing persecution arrive in our country and the US regime demands them back. Do we comply?” Homer-Dixon I have thought of others including a US demand for Canadian fresh water or a demand that nuclear missiles be installed in Canada's north. What price refusal? So I do hope that none of this comes about but there are those on both sides of the border who warn of these events. Cheers,
this is absurd and its fear factor and I thought we we trying .
vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
VP, I kinda sensed that Brian W wanted us to drop this particular series of posts from the thread. I’ve not seen George comment further. I’ve seen MD offer an unneeded apology for raising an issue that could be seen as political. Hell, I even see my own post suggesting that we should let this drop, but that MD has nothing to feel sorry for. The issue he raised is valid, both by topic and by date.
I’m not justifying or arguing for George’s comment. He’s a big boy, and can look after himself. If MHO can’t deal with such a topic, that’s a different matter. All I will say is that the issue is alive and well, whether MHO wants to discuss it or not. This is no longer a political issue. I assure you I don’t give a tinker’s dam whether the US decides to move Republican or Democrat. I’m not writing in support of Mr Biden or against Mr Trump.
But however US folks see the issue, there are lots of nations discussing events in the US. Many feel there is a strong movement that is anti-democratic, and that maybe the “great experiment” is on the brink of failure, or is prepared to redefine what it is experimenting with. Is it so difficult to understand that, when the US seems in political turmoil, other nations might wish to explore alternatives to current US relations? And isn’t that, to some extent, what George’s post was about?
VP, maybe we should just drop this, for the sake of MHO. The issue is being discussed on numerous other websites, as well as in pubs and coffee shops and over dinners, so the only loser is MHO, whose members don’t seem to be able to deal with any critical commentary at a time when the US appears to be in transition.
I’m a bit embarrassed in writing this, to be honest. I’ve been a member of and contributor to MHO for at least 20 years, and find it goes against the grain to argue against exploring a topic. I do so because although the subject is of historical importance, on MHO the discussion can be seen to be political and therefore verboten.
I guess some “foreign” MHOers have taken sides in the increasingly dangerous political diatribes that define US politics. I haven’t, or I’ve tried not to. The US is going to do what it’s electorate is convinced it wants to do. But at the height of US flexibility, US politicians were looking out for US interests, often at the expense of their allies. That’s the nature of the game.
I’m not interested in talking US politics, and – given the restrictions – won’t discuss them on MHO. But I’m not going to stay mute when subjects arise of importance, just because various MHOers think it might be politically partisan. This is not just a US site. And what your politicians do isn’t a national issue, but a world concern.
Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2474
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Brian
I trust you
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vpatrick
MA
MA USA
|
Posts: 2474
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
many years ago you bought me a beer in boston
----------------------------------
nuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Vin, if you trust Brian, then read what he is saying. I think that he is bemoaning the loss of the intelligent and civil exchange of ideas on MHO. I don't pretend to speak for him but he seemed to acknowledge that the topic that I addressed in my post is one that is being discussed all over the world and especially in countries who are fearful of the possible decline of democracy in our friend and ally.
I felt that the topic that I introduced in response to something that MD posted was not only current but important. And it was timely given that we acknowledge that something unsavoury occurred in Washington only one year ago that has sparked concern for the future of the US.
Unfortunately, we have retreated from meaningful discussion on this forum and we seem restricted to an acknowledgement of the anniversaries of events in history.
I presented a point of view regarding a slide into authoritarianism and presented background material from a US professor and a US former politico. I told you that our own political scientists have warned us that the US is at a tipping point and leaning in a direction that could cause problems for my country. I presented information from one of those CDN political scientists.
Your response was, "This is absurd". I presume that you have reasons for saying that but how would I know what they are? It is hardly an in depth response. Was I supposed to ignore it?
BTW, how would Morris be able to comment on one of my posts, Vin? He and I are not permitted to see the posts of the other. Any ideas?
I can only say that if there is something to the suggestion that the US is sliding toward autocratic rule then it had best not be ignored.
And I am concerned that the people on this forum who may represent extremist views still attempt to shut down meaningful discourse. Even a cursory examination of the rise of authoritarianism and fascism leads one to understand that the elimination of dissent and discussion is one of the hallmarks of authoritarian rule.
Odder still that Morris, who rarely posts anymore, is able to stifle discussion if a topic appears to challenge his views of the US and where it is headed.
I would appreciate a primer on what is permitted on this site and what is not. With the demise of LFF I think that we have assumed that any discussions of US politics are now off the table. Is that true?
So what topics may we discuss. The weather? Price of gas?
Cheers, Vin
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Quote:[Read More][Read More][Read More]3 perpetual sites, check for topics.? cheers, MD Brian, My opinion is that topic would lead to devisivness, I'm ok with dropping the topic.
Gentlemen,
& I use that title loosely!  On this particular thread which I first posted almost 2 & 1/2 years ago, I would prefer that we don't discuss contempory political topics that in the past have led to strife amoung members! George, I prefer to discuss the weather, or any other civil history topic. So please create another thread if you & others wish to pursue US politics! Currently if you wish to discuss it with a particular member you can PM them! Or if more strictly run, Brian W. can re-insert, LFF! I enjoy talking other history, I do things in my retirement, because I enjoy them, I don't enjoy seeing people getting hostile to each other!
I kind of started it about 1-5 in DC,
My bad, for that! Only nondivisive academic topics here, please!
Stay safe
,MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
So going back to non divisive history, here are some events from 1-9 today in world history!
1349, 700 Jews burned alive in Switzerland! Boy hatred of Jews goes way back! Comments on why, & is it prelivant today??.anyone?
1431, Joan of Arc, was on trial for her life, why would a military commander who just happened to be a female have to face this? What say you??
1718 France declared war on Spain! Why & who did England side with??
1806 Admiral Horatio Nelson's state funeral is going on! What's your take on why Lord Nelson is held in such high esteme! Comments?
1839 the 1st photo of a person, just in time to Chronicle the coming Civil War! Any sites with good first photography??
1861 firing on a ship relieving Fort Sumter, also Mississippi breaks away from the Union! Comments on the beginning of the Civil War, anyone?
1909 Sir Ernest Shackleton goes further south than ever before. What's your take on the leadership of Sir Ernest!?
1936 US Army adopts Semi-automatic rifles, just in time for WWII, anyone have more on these weapons or your countries weapons??
1945 MacArthur returns to the Philippines, was this in your opinion necessary??
1964 there was rioting against the US in Panama, why? I thought everyone like d the US??
Lets get back to non divisive history! Please!
Surely you can find something to comment on here?
Peace,
MD
BTW please check the above web sites for more topics!
----------------------------------
"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: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Quote:Quote: [Read More][Read More][Read More]3 perpetual sites, check for topics.? cheers, MD Brian, My opinion is that topic would lead to devisivness, I'm ok with dropping the topic. Gentlemen, & I use that title loosely! On this particular thread which I first posted almost 2 & 1/2 years ago, I would prefer that we don't discuss contempory political topics that in the past have led to strife amoung members! George, I prefer to discuss the weather, or any other civil history topic. So please create another thread if you & others wish to pursue US politics! Currently if you wish to discuss it with a particular member you can PM them! Or if more strictly run, Brian W. can re-insert, LFF! I enjoy talking other history, I do things in my retirement, because I enjoy them, I don't enjoy seeing people getting hostile to each other! I kind of started it about 1-5 in DC, My bad, for that! Only nondivisive academic topics here, please! Stay safe ,MD
The topic that I introduced was not a hot button in my view Dave. If I had substituted Hungary or Kazakhstan as examples of countries already in full autocratic mode, I suppose that it would have been fine. And please remember that I believe that I was responding to something that you said. I really wish that you would stop apologizing. You did nothing wrong. My topic was not particularly contentious though it was current. Problems begin when the right wing idealogues determine to shut down discourse. And we all go to hell in a hand basket. And they win. One comment from Morris and a back-up from his wing man Vin and we are supposed to shake.
Non-divisive academic topics? Let me introduce a couple of books.
On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, by Timothy Snyder
The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, by Timothy Snyder
Facism: A Warning, by Madeline Albright
MD, this is an academic topic and I don't regard it as divisive. We could learn something.
I posted with sincerity. It is a topic that concerns me and interests me. Instead, we are being controlled by those who espouse extreme right wing views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
|
Posts: 3293
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
George, a question of a common sense type........if you seem to think that we no longer can see each others posts...how do you know I don`t post much any more? By the way, I don`t have time to post much now because I am the care-provider to my 95 year old mother...who now suffers from dementia. When I post on historical matters, I like to take the time to insure that my information is correct. That is a luxury I no longer enjoy.
Right-wing ideologues did not shut down LFF... as for the shut-down of discourse....THAT is the main danger for democracy. For many years now, I have posted here that the same tech monopolies...GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, Twitter...have assisted the Communist Chinese government and military to censure dissent in social media there...and that they would do the same thing one day here. Which they have done. Many posts that have actually contained provable facts have been censored and removed from the sites. This includes a factual story from the New York Post that was censored before the last election.
Question.....if Jan. 6, 2021 is on a par with Pearl Harbor and September 11 ( do you actually believe that nonsense?) then why is not May 27- June 5 of 2020...when left-wing protesters attacked the White House...tore down sections of security fencing, and injured some 74 secret service agents, uniformed and plainclothes, and caused the President of the United States to be directed to a "safe room" in the structure. Why is that not an attack on our democracy ...an attempted insurrection? Just asking for a friend.
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: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
C'mon guys, if you want to continue to argue make your own thread!!!
This thread is for history not contempory politics!
Brian W. If they don't subside, help me out with.this!??
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: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
|
Quote: C'mon guys if you want to continue to argue make your own thread!!!
This thread is for history not contempory politics!
MD
OK Dave. BTW, I do not know what Morris has just said. I am not permitted to see his posts and he cannot see mine. If he is commenting on my posts then someone is feeding him.
It is difficult for me to sit back and take it when someone such as Vin posts my comments in total and says essentially, "Blame George".
But I will respect your wishes.
EDIT: Quote:Brian W. If they don't subside, help me out with.this!??
Good grief, Dave. Think about what you are asking, please.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
|
Quote: 1964 there was rioting against the US in Panama, why? I thought everyone like d the US??
Difficult to respond to that without getting political, don't you think?
Many in the US would like their country to be well liked. And often that is the case.
But too often there are countries who from time to time feel that they are being bullied by the US.
In this case, January 1964, there was conflict between Panamanians and the residents of the Panama Canal Zone. The Panamanians took umbrage at a slight to their country when their flag was ripped and torn.
The US was in charge of the Panama Canal Zone which was an affront to Panamanian nationalists. The US or rather the US military objected to a request to fly the Panamanian flag along the US flag in the PCZ. They wanted unfettered and unshared responsibility for the zone.
But after much internal discussion, the military was told to fly the two flags side by side in 1960. This was a bit of a sop to the Panamanians but symbolic none the less, indicating that the Panama Canal passed through the sovereign nation of Panama. Even that didn't go well as the US wouldn't allow the Panamanian Pres. to raise his flag personally. He got miffed and only invited the US ambassador to a reception to follow the flag raising. He excluded the military and civilian representatives of the PCZ.
So the US only raised one Panamanian flag along the whole length of the canal but there were many US flags. That bothered the Panamanians. Americans in the zone didn't think that they should have to fly Panama's flag.
One morning the students in the US high school in the zone decided to raise only the US flag. Word got around and a crowd of Panamanian students crossed into the zone with their flag and the intent to raise it. There was a scuffle and the flag was ripped.
To me it sounds as though the bitterness at having a foreign country in charge in a large section of one's country finally got to the Panamanians. The flag ripping was like a spark to a tinder box and riots ensued. Thousands of Panamanians stormed the fences that separated them from the canal zone. There were a number of deaths but I am not sure how many and hundreds of injuries.
Panama charged the US with aggression and cut diplomatic relations. There were investigations by local committees but the US sought a diplomatic solution. It was partially resolved but good relations were not restored fully.
Too many Panamanians wanted the US out of the zone. They were particularly upset about clauses in the governing agreement that:
-gave the US the right to deploy troops anywhere in Panama
-gave the US the right to maintain military bases in the zone
-the zone governing body of 9 would always have 5 US appointed representatives.
The US maintained control of the Panama Canal Zone until 1977 when the US signed a treaty to transfer control to Panama. That paved the way for the handover of control of the canal in 1999. The canal is owned and operated by the Panama Canal Authority today.
In between the US invaded Panama to depose Panamanian dictator and alleged drug deal Manuel Noriega. That was in 1990 and if this isn't overly political, it probably was an illegal act under the Charter of the OAS (Organization of American States). The UN General Assembly passed a resolution deploring the invasion.
In fairness, I must add that the Panamanian people according to polls were sympathetic to the invasion because they did not like Noriega.
So I guess that the simple answer is that not everyone approves of US actions all of the time.
EDIT: Short piece from The Guardian that gives some insight into what may have been upsetting the Panamanians. Essentially a mini-US had been created in the zone and Panamanians were discouraged from being inside the zone. Crossing from one part of Panama to the other meant answering to PCZ police, in one's own country.
[Read More]
EDIT #2: Forgot to mention that Jan. 9 is Martyr's Day in Panama commemorating the start of the violence that eventually led to Panamanian control of the canal.
[Read More]
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Dave, I’m with you. This crap has to stop. Personally, I don’t want a thread of this kind on MHO. That was Brian W’s determination when he removed LFF, and MHO is, after all, his site.
I assume that most of us on MHO want to talk history of various types. I don’t want to go back to constant sniping based on political differences.
I get that what the US insists is 01/06/21 is both history and politics. If we can’t discuss it as history, and we clearly can’t, then let’s let it go.
And by the way, I just checked the official scorecard in the sky. It seems that any points you think you scored on MHO are not counted. Why not give your egos a rest?
Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1042
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
On this day in 49 B.C, Julius Caesar and his famed 13th Legion crossed the Rubicon, making a military confrontation between Caesar and the Senate unavoidable. Caesar's rapid advance with small forces took the Senate by surprise, and they were forced to eventually flee to Greece to raise forces to defend their cause. Caesar won the ensuing civil war after some horrific casaulties on all sides, fighting across the territories and dependencies of the Roman Republic and her allies. Caesar was eventually assassinated and his adopted son, Octavian, used the family name and wealth to amass power on a scale hitherto unrivalled in Roman history.
Also on this day in 1920, the Treaty of Versailles takes effect. Disliked by France for being too conciliatory to Germany, yet also disowned by others for being too punitive, the treaty satisfied no one, leading to animosity that set the seeds for future conflict.
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Quote:Quote: BTW Thanks guys, For keeping to just history topics!
----------------------------------
"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! Continued
|
I haven't been following this thread at all. I just created a new thread because the old one was getting too large. It was just completely a coincidence.
----------------------------------
"Take it easy. But take it" - Tom Morello's mom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
|
Quote: So going back to history, here are some events from 1-9, & 1-10 today in world history!
1349, 700 Jews burned alive in Switzerland! Boy hatred of Jews goes way back! Comments on why, & is it prelivant today??.anyone?
1431, Joan of Arc, was on trial for her life, why would a military commander who just happened to be a female have to face this? What say you??
1718 France declared war on Spain! Why & who did England side with??
1806 Admiral Horatio Nelson's state funeral is going on! What's your take on why Lord Nelson is held in such high esteme! Comments?
1839 the 1st photo of a person, just in time to Chronicle the coming Civil War! Any sites with good first photography??
1861 firing on a ship relieving Fort Sumter, also Mississippi breaks away from the Union! Comments on the beginning of the Civil War, anyone?
1909 Sir Ernest Shackleton goes further south than ever before. What's your take on the leadership of Sir Ernest!?
1936 US Army adopts Semi-automatic rifles, just in time for WWII, anyone have more on these weapons or your countries weapons??
1945 MacArthur returns to the Philippines, was this in your opinion necessary??
Surely you can find something to comment on here?
Peace,
MD
BTW please check the above web sites for more topics, Colin was right on with Caesar starting a Roman Civil War crossing the Rubicon!
2019 Canadian Astronomer s pick up rapid signals from outer space! this happened in BC,
Possibly Aliens!? What say you, to much Canadian brewskies??
----------------------------------
"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! Continued
|
On this day in 1941, FDR introduced his Lend-Lease program to congress. It was a fine gesture in a time of great need, and though most British and commonwealth folks couldn’t name today as its anniversary, we should remember with thanks and humility the assistance from a president whose citizens still remained largely supportive of neutrality. It was, IMHO, a brave gesture, and an honourable one: the US at its best.
Yet here I am, wanting to nit-pick – not about the program but about at least one representation of it: This is from the “This Day in History” website:
As Roosevelt addressed Congress, the Battle of Britain was in its full destructive swing and Hitler seemed on the verge of invading Great Britain. The cash-strapped Brits desperately needed airplanes, tanks and ships to fight Hitler’s imminent invasion. For months, Britain’s prime minister, Winston Churchill, had begged Roosevelt for help, but the president was committed to abiding by Americans’ wishes to stay out of another bloody world war.
The lend-lease program provided for military aid to any country whose defense was vital to the security of the United States. The plan thus gave Roosevelt the power to lend arms to Britain with the understanding that, after the war, America would be paid back in kind. Congress overwhelmingly accepted the plan, which only staunch isolationists opposed. Roosevelt’s program enabled the U.S. military to prepare for the growing threat of Japan on its Pacific flank while helping Britain to contain Hitler across the Atlantic, as it permitted aid to Europe without committing American troops that might be needed in a Pacific war. Even though Roosevelt’s plan did not require immediate repayment, the United States commandeered what was left of Britain’s gold reserves and overseas investments to help pay for the increased defense production.
I think this is sloppy history, or sloppy writing of history. A few points:
• The Battle of Britain is rather specifically defined within about a 7-week window in 1940, ending in September 1940. Hitler cancelled his invasion date of Sept 17; he didn’t send a telegraph to WSC to let him know, so the Brits were still worried about the possibility invasion. But the Channel would not permit a winter assault with current German equipment during the stormy winter season.
• The “full destructive” battle the Brits were facing was then and is now known as “The Blitz”, an aerial bombing campaign which lasted from early Sept 1940 to mid May 1941, when the Luftwaffe shifted operations to the east, in preparation of the invasion of Soviet Russia. It was IMHO a dangerous time for British folks, who came closer to breaking than “official”histories wish us to believe.
• While Lend-lease would supply many essentials, let’s not go overboard. The British still had the largest and most capable navy in the world, though not necessarily comprised of the most effective types or classes for the current battle. The ships they needed were deep-ocean escort vessels and – increasingly – cargo vessels. So to argue that “ [t]he cash-strapped Brits desperately needed airplanes, tanks and ships to fight Hitler’s imminent invasion” is twice inaccurate. At the end of the Battle of Britain, the issue in the air was not aircraft but pilots. During the Blitz, it was the lack of a night-fighting option in the air, and there was nothing the US could offer to offset that need. Hell, the US were agog at British “centimetric radar”!
• I’ll admit that I think Britain had need of a better tank than they themselves could provide. But to be honest, I can’t think of a US tank that would have been better replacements for the British designs.
As I say, I’m nit-picking. But if folks are going to write history, shouldn’t they make the effort to keep reality in focus. This article – even within the confines of the two paras I quote, is incorrect about BofB, misleading about the Blitz, and vague about British needs. It ignores the fact that Britain feels sufficiently secure to begin updating air capability on Malta and in North Africa, theatres of active warfare. God knows, Britain and her commonwealth and empire were in trouble in the early years. God knows that there is much to challenge or criticize in the early British conduct of the war.
Rant over. Thanks to the US for their help before they entered the war. And to staff writers for History, try using meaningful, accurate descriptors rather than misleading phrasing which leads doddering old buggers like me to rant!
Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly.
"The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
I think that is worth noting that Lend Lease was not only a one way street. While the numbers do not match of course, the US did benefit from reverse Lend Lease. The idea is that the allies were able to pool resources and while no other country could match the US industrial potential, those pooled resources did benefit the US too.
I found an interesting article published on the American Historical Association website. I believe that it was part of a pamphlet printed to help Americans understand L-L and to answer questions and concerns that they may have had about it.
The sections titled, "How Much Help Do We Get Via Reverse Lend-Lease?" and "What Criticisms Have Been Made against Lend-Lease?", were particularly interesting to me.
[Read More]
Perhaps this effort was a public relations ploy to allay the fears that US citizens would have had about spending so much money.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Quote:Quote: Quote: Here are some events from 1-11 in history: 1871 Alabama seceded from the Union, have you ever read the various documents of secession from the various Confederate states, they all complain about losing property rites, that property was slaves!! Comments, anyone? 1863 CSS Alabama & the USS Hatteras are involved in a fierce naval engagement off Galveston, Texas! Great Britain aided the Confederate Navy with ships & men! Why? I thought that the British despised slavery!? Any insights on why they helped the Rebs? & did they pay restitution later?? What say you?? 1879 the Anglos Zulu War begins, were the British justified in this war? Comments?? 1935 Amelia Earhart flies from Hawaii to California, later she will.mysteriously disappear in the Pacific! Some accuse the Japanese with her disappearance!? What is your take on what happened to her?? Anyone? Today in 1836 famous brew master John Molson dies, where do you rate Molson beer?? BTW I think I'll have one!! It does seem some beer connoisseurs consider it no more than carbonated water! What say you?? Also great posts on America's Lend Lease to GB in WWII, lets keep discussing interesting history! Any comments on today 1-11 in history, check above, & comment!!!
----------------------------------
"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: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
|
Quote: 1863 CSS Alabama & the USS Hatteras are involved in a fierce naval engagement off Galveston, Texas! Great Britain aided the Confederate Navy with ships & men! Why? I thought that the British despised slavery!? Any insights on why they helped the Rebs? & did they pay restitution later?? What say you??
Britain was and remained neutral during the US Civil War. They could have caused a lot of havoc had they recognized the Confederate States as a country but they did not. On May 13, 1861, Queen Victoria proclaimed Great Britain's neutrality in this war.
To do otherwise would have possible teed up a war with the US. The US had already said that it would go to war with any nation the assisted the rebels.
It is true that ships used by the Confederates were built in British ship yards. Confederate agents had commissioned the build of these ships but they were dealing with private contractors, ship builders and not the Crown or government of Great Britain. So this was covert action on the part of private British subjects.
And while they built three ironclads, they also build numerous fast ships that could run the Union blockade. As well, the ships that were eventually turned into Confederate war ships were not armed in Britain. No cannons, and no ammunition were provided. They were sailed away and armed elsewhere. However, it was clear that ships like the Alabama had been designed for war.
It was a technicality of course that allowed the ship builders to build civilian vessels and to sell them privately, to the Confederate States.
Despite being neutral and in defiance of US edicts, Britain chose to engage in trade with the Confederates. When Lincoln emancipated the slaves, Britain could no longer maintain its neutrality. It had already banned the slave trade in the Empire in 1833 and so with the Emancipation Proclamation the British had to condemn the south. I understand that the newspapers and the people had turned against the south because of slavery. Perhaps the government had no choice but to end its neutrality.
The British government knew of the ships being built in Liverpool. But it had stood by when the ships were being built. They were somewhat unresponsive when US diplomats protested and tried to prevent ships from leaving the harbour in Liverpool, if they knew that they were going to the Confederacy. The US ambassador, Charles Adams, was working very hard to get the British government to take action.
When the CSS Alabama began to take its toll on Union shipping, the British were embarrassed and concerned that the US could possibly declare war against Britain. Perhaps the British didn't think that the Confederate navy was anything for the USN to be concerned about. If so, they were wrong.
In 1863 the British government did seize a ship in Liverpool that was being built for the Confederacy though it would have been sold to a private company as a cover. The ship building company went to court and the British courts upheld the right to build ships so long as they were not armed. But the government continued to seize ships that it thought were destined for the Confederate navy. This they did by executive order rather than through the judicial system.
British laws and particularly the Foreign Enlistment Act was used to stop the building of war ships for a foreign country. That act forbade British subjects from "equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming, of any ship or vessel, with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service" of a belligerent. And these private shipbuilders, according to the courts, were acting within the law. None of the vessels commissioned by the Confederates or the companies fronting the Confederacy were outfitted for war.
Opinion was divided in Britain. Some were anti-Union simply because they perceived a big guy bullying a little guy. Some were pro-trade as was the government and this war in the US was disruptive of trade. And there was a strong anti-slavery movement in Britain and these people disapproved of the actions of the southern states in that regard.
MD you indicated that men were provided to the south. Did you mean sailors on the ships? The ships would leave Liverpool under the command of a British captain and he would rendezvous with a Confederate ship on the open seas. That ship would have extra crew and of course, cannons and ammunition for the new ship. I have read that the Confederate captain would recruit sailors from the British crew that sailed the vessel to the rendezvous. Now how did the British captain get home????
Note that the Confederate agents were also buying ships from other countries like Sweden.
But it was ships built in British shipyards that led to much destruction of Union property and that led to a formal protest and eventually reparations paid by Britain for the damage caused by CSS Alabama as ordered by an international tribunal. They paid but never acknowledged any wrong doing, I don't believe.
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Clements
Toronto
ON Canada
|
Posts: 908
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
|
Quote: When Lincoln emancipated the slaves, Britain could no longer maintain its neutrality.
Hi George,
I don't completely agree.
In his intercourse with Britain and France, Lincoln had always said that the war was about "Union". Not slavery. So when Lincoln's gov't passed the Emancipation Proclamation, Britain's government (certainly the cabinet and arguably the PM) viewed the Proclamation as a bit of hypocrisy.
Not helped by the fact that the Proclamation did not free the slaves in the Northern slave states (Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland and Missouri), nor in those parts of the Confederacy that had already been re-captured by Union military forces.
I don't disagree that the press and the "man in the street" were anti-slavery. But Britain's cabinet was less interested in scruples and more interested in practicalities-:) Their primary concern was whether or not the Confederacy could actually stand on its own. That the Confederacy was based on slavery did not bother certain members of the cabinet at all-:)
There is an excellent book on the subject, by Howard Jones, "Union in Peril". Albeit, it is not light reading-:) I would note that the book argues strongly that, despite Antietam and the Proclamation, the British cabinet came close to recognizing the Confederacy in November of 1862. Two months after the Proclamation.
s.c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Thanks Steve. That is interesting. I had thought that the British government was under pressure domestically by the anti-slavery group to support the Union, and that the Emancipation Proclamation embarrassed them into acting.
I did not know that that they were still debating whether to officially acknowledge the Confederacy two months after that? Thanks for correcting my misperception.
Was the PM at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation still Palmerston? He was a anti-slavery but I believe that had considered recognizing the Confederacy after they had defended Richmond and won at Manassas. His foreign secretary, Lord John Russell agreed with him. It was an opportunistic view as the south was looking pretty successful in September of 1862. I believe that they were going to offer to mediate the conflict.
But the north won at Antietam and the PM demurred.
So why the change of heart by the British, Steve? As you said the upper class seemed to favour the south and had a dislike of the north. Both the Union and the Confederacy published newspapers in London and the Union paper was floundering while the Confederate paper had a large circulation.
The ship building problem reared its head once again when a builder was caught building ships capable of ramming. The ships were fitted with a ramming device that anyone could see protruding. The British had to seize these ships as the ram was a weapon of war. So they were still fearful of a war with the US.
And the anti-slavery movement created some domestic unrest in Britain after the Proclamation.
So again I must ask, why did Lord Palmerston change his mind about formal recognition of the south and an offer to mediate?
I hope that you can answer because I am not as well read as you are in this area but I sense that the British were taking a practical rather than an ethical approach. What was best for Britain and trade seemed to guide their actions.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Clements
Toronto
ON Canada
|
Posts: 908
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
George,
Palmerston may personally have been anti-slavery, but was apparently sensitive to the fact that the North had no interest in calling for a cease fire…and Palmerston did not want to risk war with the United States. According to Jones, Russell was much more inclined to “forge ahead”.
Quote:I had thought that the British government was under pressure domestically by the anti-slavery group to support the Union
I don't think that this is inaccurate.
There were indeed pressures on cabinet/government coming from different quarters. My own bias is that the British gov't thought, at the beginning of the war, that conquering the South was next to impossible, and leaned heavily towards recognition of the South out of simple practicality. And members of cabinet would not exactly have come from the working class....so emotionally, they made have felt that they had more in common with the "gentlemen" of the South than with the Northern hordes/businessmen.
Frankly, without the invention of the railroad, I am somewhat doubtful that the Union could have won the war. If one is inclined to accept the argument that the war was actually won in the west (Chattanooga and Atlanta would never have happened without the railroad), I think it very doubtful that the Union war effort could have been successful without the railroad. Supplying an army on the move in the "west" was often next to impossible and campaigns were often dictated by access to supplies as much as anything else. Which is why a series of Union generals were reluctant to go into eastern Tennessee (which was quite Union), which was something Mr. Lincoln wanted.
Quote:But the north won at Antietam and the PM demurred.
So why the change of heart by the British, Steve?
Yes, after Seven Days and Second Bull Run, several of the British cabinet ministers did feel that southern independence was close to being "fait accompli". And were taken aback by Lee's defeat at Antietam. As to why the change of heart i.e. the issue of recognition was still on the table in November? Sorry, but I have to re-read Jones-:) It's been a while since I read “Union in Peril”...
Fear of a “servile uprising” as a result of the Proclamation was certainly a factor in making the British perhaps more inclined to want to intervene. Jones argued that the British press viewed the Proclamation with “uniform hostility”, emphasizing the hypocrisy involved i.e. slavery was fine in Maryland but not in Georgia.
Quote: As you said the upper class seemed to favour the south and had a dislike of the north.
Did I say that-:) Well, if I didn't, I am inclined to believe it, so it's all the same...
Quote:......but I sense that the British were taking a practical rather than an ethical approach. That would be my take on it as well.
s.c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1042
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Hi all,
Any war between Britain and the Union would have led to disastrous lasting economic damage on both sides of the Atlantic. Nobody wanted that, affiliations to the gentry in the South or not. Commerce was king, not cotton.
If war broken out, the Royal Navy, I suspect, would have cleared the Union naval blockade, only to find its stations in Canada overrun by Union forces overwhelming the British and Canadian forces defending Canada. The Anglo-American war would have been brief, but bitter enough to change the axis of world diplomacy for decades to come. Would the US have got involved in the First World War whilst a war with Britain that sided with the slave-holding South was still in living memory?
For what's it worth, I believe if mediation had been formally offered, the US would have threatened immediate war and the British would have backed down as new Union forces were raised on the border (Army of New England?).
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Interesting perspective Colin,
Think of it the Union Army would have been quite formidable in the mid to end of the Civil War & would have been a threat to Canada! And the RN probably could have broken the Union Blockade! Kind of a stalemate, but bad economically, & totally damaging relations between both countries!?
Good points,
MD
George, & Steve,
BTW, Great discussion on the topic also, excellant, by all.means continue!!
----------------------------------
"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: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
I agree Colin and I think that the British were well aware that a war with the US would have been disastrous. The US had already declared that it would not ignore any country that aided and abetted the rebels.
As for Canada, there were suggestions throughout the war in the US that the US should send troops in. This is because Confederate agents and spies were operating in Toronto and Montréal. And US agents were present in both cities as well.
But when raids into the US which were organized in Canada occurred, some US politicians were livid. In one case a raid from Quebec into St. Albans, Vermont resulted in property damage and theft. One Vermont man was killed. The perpetrators then headed back into Quebec and US military representatives wanted permission to go get them. In fact, a posse was raised in St. Albans and it crossed the border into Canada and captured some of the Confederate operatives. But the Canadian military forced them to hand them over.
When the Quebec (actually the United Province of Canada) judiciary let them go, the US was doubly angry. The men were released because they were all Confederate soldiers and it was determined that they had acted as soldiers while on the raid. As a neutral, the province of Canada could not extradite soldiers at war. That decision did not go over well in the US.
Lincoln refused to allow that. I can tell you that the efforts to amalgamate the British colonies into one Dominion were accelerated because of these threats and our Confederation took place shortly after the war on July 1, 1867. Negotiations to do so were ongoing during the latter stages of the civil war.
So your suggestion that should a war break out between the US and GB that the US would invade is valid. They were already angry that rebel spies were operating in Canada.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Quote:[Read More][Read More][Read More]3 perpetual sites, check for topics. for 1-12, in history? cheers, MD Hi George, What's your perception on if the US did invade British Canada at this time, end of the Civil War!? Who might have won?? Anyone, can chime in?? What say you? 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: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
|
Quote: Hi George,
What's your perception on if the US did invade British Canada at this time, end of the Civil War!?
Who might have won??
Anyone, can chime in??
What say you?
Regards,
MD
Well there was a million man Union army sitting on our borders. The total population of the British colonies was about 3.5 million, men, women and children. 2.5 million of those were living in the United Province of Canada (now Québec and Ontario). Those numbers should tell you how difficult it would be to mount a defence. However, the British and Canadian militia did defend well against the invasion of 1812. Could they do it again against a much larger and more professional army?
EDIT: I have read that the Union army was 1 million men strong at the end of the war. How large was it at the time of the Trent Affair in 1861? The British were preparing for war in the spring of 1862, waiting for the campaign season.
After the Trent Affair in 1861, the British had sent thousands of soldiers to the Maritimes and to the United Province of Canada in anticipation of war over the American action of stopping a British merchant and mail packet ship (The Trent). The British were upset over that and the Americans were upset because they found two Confederates on board. Were they politicians? I cannot recall.
The British warned the colonies that the war would likely begin with US troops crossing the border. Once again, I must add.
So they sent 14,000 more troops to Canada and the Canadian colonies were to raise a militia of 40,000. Railway security in Canada was a concern and so the United Province of Canada raised a special force to monitor the rail lines in Canada East and Canada West. Those lines would have permitted US soldiers to travel wherever they wished had they been seized intact.
They did not invade as Lincoln declared that he would only fight one war at a time. That is surprising to me because the US military wanted to enter Canada to eliminate Confederate plots to raid the US from Canada. More surprising because the US Sec. of State was William Seward who had spoken of the annexation of Canada forever and he hated the British.
Should the US have crossed, the British troops would have done their best but I feel it would have been a difficult defence. On the high seas however, it may have been a different story. The RN was a powerful force still and could have interfered on behalf of the Confederacy. Just after the Trent Affair, the RN prepared plans to destroy the US blockade of ports. And the French said that they would help the British.
That would have allowed a great deal of support to flow into the south. Could have been a much different civil war I think.
Of note, the British had drawn up plans to invade the US from Canada (in Niagara and from Montreal to Lake Champlain) in conjunction with a blockade of Union ports by the RN. This would have effectively split the Union states in two. We may only speculate whether a British invasion from the north plus the activities of the Confederate armies may have defeated the US.
The Trent Affair nearly led to war. The British did not take kindly to any country who was in violation of British sovereignty on the high sea. I found an interesting article that describes in some detail, the British preparation for war, its movement of troops to Canada with the idea that they would be in place to either attack or defend against the United States by Jan. of 1862.
[Read More]
So an invasion may have been a foolish thing to do. Perhaps that influenced Lincoln's decision.
Note that Britain had encouraged the colonies to unite so that they could assume responsibility for their own defence. Britain no longer wished to foot the bill for fighting in North America.
I have mentioned that amalgamation occurred in 1867. By 1871, all British garrisons had been removed from Canada. They returned home or to other assignments in the outposts of the Empire. (source: Library and Archives Canada).
Canada created the Canadian Permanent Force. Initially, that comprised two batteries of artillery and expanded to add cavalry and infantry. If the US had decided to pursue its assumed divine right under Manifest Destiny, the 1870's would have been a good time to seize Canada, whether the Canadians wanted it or not.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
RE: invasion of Canada
When the civil war ended, Canada was subjected to raids by Irish Fenians who hoped to seize Canada so as to promote Irish independence.
These raids began in 1866 and continued until 1871. That would be the year before the Confederation to form Canada and continuing after Confederation in 1867.
Who were these Fenians? They were Irish immigrants to the US and most had served in the Union army. They were well trained soldiers. Fortunately, the Fenians had trouble with organization and some plans to cross into Canada were cancelled because they weren't ready.
But on June 1, 1866, a little more than a year after the civil war ended, a Fenian advance army of 1000 assembled in Buffalo, NY and crossed the Niagara River to Fort Erie, Canada West (now Ontario). They seized the rail and telegraph terminals and arrested the town council.
EDIT: I should add that the first Fenian raid was carried out with the knowledge of the US and President Andrew Johnson. Johnson wanted to put pressure on the British to settle the Alabama Claims and so he gave tacit approval to the raid on Fort Erie. By 1871 and the last almost comical Fenian raid into Manitoba, new President Grant had taken steps to stop them. In fact, when a very small group of Fenians left the Dakota area to attempt to seize all of Rupert's Land, US troops from Fort Pembina followed them and captured them. This intrusion into British territory was illegal of course but the US officer in charge was delighted to send a "we got'em" message to the British.
The British commander of forces responded. 22, 000 militia were mobilized but of course not all were sent to the invasion area. As well, some British regulars were sent. The militia men were not well trained but they and the militia were deployed to a couple of different areas near Fort Erie to intercept the Fenians.
On June 2, one militia group met 800 Fenians at a place called Ridgeway. The militia stood their ground in a square but the Fenian fire was accurate and deadly. When the officer tried to reform them in a different formation at the same time that British troops arrived to relieve them, the militia withdrew. Nine Canadians were killed and 32 wounded. Only 10 Fenians were hurt.
Then the Fenians decided that they had best retreat because the British had arrived and they headed back to Fort Erie where British forces had landed by boat. Another fight ensued and this time the Fenians had 9 killed. They headed back across the river where they were arrested by US officials. But the commander was released on parole.
That commander was John O’Neill, a former US Calvary officer who had served in Ohio and West Virginia during the Civil War.
This was the aftermath of the civil war for BNA and later Canada. The Battle of Ridgeway was the largest incursion but not the only one.
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Quote:Quote: [Read More][Read More][Read More]3 perpetual sites, check for topics. for 1-13, in history? 1733 James Oglethorpe, & 130 English Colonists arrive in Charleston, SC. Soon he will found a Colony in Savannah, he will name Georgia! I will be following in his footsteps beginning next week! Ya gotta love history, & warmer weather! 1849 Vancouver Island is granted to Hudson Bay Company, what effect will this have on Western Canada? Anyone? 1865 the 2nd battle of Fort Fisher begins, this vital Confederate Fort will fall to the Union, cutting off Wilmington, NC. and the Cape Fear River. Really hurting supplies to the South! I've been there, a really great historic site, what say you about how this loss of this Gibraltar of the Confederacy, really hurt the South!? 1915 WS Churchill Lord of the Admiralty, proposes an attack on the Dardanelles! Who does this turn into a horrific mistake!? What say you?? 1942 German U boats begin attacking the East Coast of the US & Canada, why is this called their "happy time!"!?? Comments?? 1943 Hitler declares total war on the Allies! What the he'll was he doing before that?? Say what?? cheers, MD Hi George, I see you started a independent thread on the Fenians invading British Canada, they certainly were Irish, even had green uniforms! you seem to have good insight on this topic! 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: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
|
Quote: 1849 Vancouver Island is granted to Hudson Bay Company, what effect will this have on Western Canada? Anyone?
HBC was moving out of its original charter zone which was the massive Rupert's Land tract. They were granted a charter by the crown for a ten year period to use Vancouver Island to further their business interests.
But HBC was also supposed to promote colonization to the new colony.
The British had good reason to want to colonize this most western part of Canada. Since the Oregon Treaty of 1846, the US had seen people move to the west coast and especially to California. It was also well known that the US still coveted the west and the north of BNA and if Britain did not use it, they could lose it.
The British also needed a port on the west coast in the event of war with the US and Vancouver Island was just about the only available site for a port remaining on the west coast of North America given that the US territory extended to the 49th parallel and the Russian's had rights to a good deal of the northern coast up to Alaska.
I found this little piece taken from Hansard which indicates some of the reasons why the British needed to colonize Vancouver's Island as they called it and also indicates that there was some concern that HBC was not permitted to receive this territory.
[Read More]
The establishment of sovereignty over this island became very important to Canada and after 1867 (Confederation), the new Dominion of Canada was quite desperate to have both Vancouver colony and British Columbia join Confederation. Note Vancouver and BC amalgamated in 1866.
If this property had not been settled by the British, there is a likelihood that it would have fallen to the US simply by sending thousands of people there as they had done in Oregon. The 1846 Treaty of Washington established that the HBC properties along the Columbia River below the 49th parallel were in US territory. HBC owned them but within the boundaries of the US. The US was determined to purchase HBC's assets within their territory.
To protect its interests, the HBC asked for a charter to allow it to exploit the whole of the NW Territory above the 49th. This was denied and so they asked for Vancouver Island and this was granted.
This site is Colonial Despatches. In this section you will find two pieces of communication.
The first is from the British Foreign Office and we can see the detail to which the foreign office and HBC were subject. Colonization in North America was more than a matter of sending a ship with a few trinkets for the natives.
Quote:his confidential document, printed by the Foreign Office, details the grant of Vancouver Island to the HBC. It opens with the HBC's legal and trade history in the northwest region, generally, and closes with the role the Company is expected to play in the Vancouver Island colony. The document covers a range of subjects, which include Indigenous relations, cost-per-acre for British and Irish settlers, fishing rights, and more. Annexed is a list of resolutions that apply to, among other things, "proceeds for religious purposes."
The second document is a list of resolutions made by the Hudson Bay Company with regard to the acquisition of Vancouver Island.
It gives details as to how the lands would be divided and at what cost to the immigrant to Vancouver Island. Mineral and fishing rights are addressed. The First Nations seem to have been ignored, at least in this document.
[Read More]
I hope that Brian G. will weigh in on this topic.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
I guess it’s not enough just to write J’Accuse…! and leave it at that, is it?
“J’Accuse…!” was published in Clemenceau’s “L’Aurore” on this date in 1898. Written by Emile Zola, the article was a strong attack on the French government and military, claiming that Alfred Dreyfus, an artillery Captain in the French Army, and been mistreated, faced a sloppy trial, and was victim of anti-semitism (yes, Dreyfus was Jewish). Dreyfus had been found guilty of treason (spying for the Germans) and was sent to Devil’s Island, a notorious French island prison.
Zola’s approach was meant to redirect attention to what he felt was France’s dishonourable conduct. Here’s a link to more information, though of course Wiki offers only a hint at the complexity.
The title “J’Accuse…!”, by the way, took on a life of its own. E.g., I have a wonderful copy, published anonymously by “a German” in 1915, of a 450-page tome titled J’Accuse!. The author was the German pacifist Richard Grelling, and he was arguing that Germany bore the responsibility for the Great War, which at the time of publication had been in progress for only 11 months.
[Read More]
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 Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
|
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
|
MD notes:Quote: 1849 Vancouver Island is granted to Hudson Bay Company, what effect will this have on Western Canada? Anyone? George hopes I’ll “weigh in on this topic.” I would, but I’m not sure I can add more except local stuff.
I live in Victoria, and call British Columbia my home. I have spent little time learning its formal history, but have looked into many local stories which form a rich tapestry of lore and not one bit of history.
It has always struck me, for instance, that British colonial decision-making was much less co-ordinated than it is now seen to be. Seems to me that the Colonial Office never truly considered the concept of a Canada spanning sea to sea until long after the establishment of Fort Victoria, or the establishment of the city of Victoria, or the separate visions of Vancouver’s Island and the vast expanse of the all but untouched Mainland.
British Columbia didn’t become an issue until a British need suggested that it may be necessary to span the continent to off-set US expansion. I can’t confirm that is as logical as George’s post suggests, because I don’t know enough. Seattle, I know was founded in 1851 but only officially recognized in 1853. Vancouver, BC, began to be settled by Europeans in 1862. The count of Europeans in that year was approx 1000. At that time, it was called Granville; after a fire in 1886, it was renamed Vancouver. That was the year my grandfather arrived.
I know that one great pressure on Fort Victoria and on the initial colony of Vancouver’s Island was the Fraser gold rush of 1858. The influx of folk from the south comprised to some extent folks who had missed the best years of the gold rush in California and were still seeking wealth from ore. I don’t think they gave a rat’s ass whether they were Americans or not; when they arrived in Victoria, they were told to register, to provision, and to accept they were living under British justice. Britain wanted to control the safety of the camps; the early seekers from San Francisco and Seattle weren’t settlers, IMHO, but opportunists. Looking back, it may be possible to see the Colonial Office acting to extend British control. But at the time, I think we were looking at a desire tie anybody to the British code of justice.
Just one more point, and this is also anecdotal. A friend of mine, still identifiably Chinese, had a forebear who off-loaded from China in 1851. Pre-needs during Fraser Gold Rush for coolies; Pre-expansion of Vancouver Island beyond a primitive colonial status. Years before the need of Chinese labour to cut the trails into the interior of the province, let alone the use of Chinese on the deadly construction of the rail lines through the mountains of BC.
This man was not engaged by firms who must have been using Chinese labourers. I was indented by a Victoria female hotel owner, a US widow who needed a strong back to help her run her hotel and do the heavy work. Her son would ultimately be killed fighting for the Union during the ACW, and with the loss of her only heir she wrote in her will that her Chinese worker should inherit her estate.
My point? While there were clearly international issues under consideration, I am less connected to it than I am to the flexibility of pioneer life as it existed, whether in Victoria or on the mainland.
Gotta go! In the mean time, I may try to correlate my personal history and experience a little more fully to the official versions.
Cheers. And stay safe.
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: 8090
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
This day in World History! Continued
|
Quote:Quote: [Read More][Read More][Read More]3 perpetual sites, check for topics. for 1-14, in history? cheers, MD Hey guys, Check out today in history, for example, In 1129 the Knights Templar gains approval, what's with these guys? Are they the big deal history seems to make of them? What say you?? 1799 Eli Whitney receives a government contract for10,000 muskets! Why Whitney? I never knew he had anything to do with these guns? Anyone know? He will invent the Cotton Gin which really leads to a lot more slaves in the South! Actually another cause of the Civil War!? What say you? Anyone?? 1861 Fort Pickens in Pensacola, FL. falls into State hands, the Fort will remain held by the Union throughout the war even though the main land stays Confederate! Great history site, I've been there several times! Questions on how this fort was tough for the Tens to take? Anyone? 1864, Gen. PT Sherman begins his march to the sea, was he a terrorist or just a good general taking it to the South!? What say you?? 1911, Roald Amundsen lands in Antarctica heading to the South Pole! Why did he succeed & Robert Falcon Scott fail!? Was it worth lives just to reach the pole 1st? Tragic!? Comments, anyone?? & 1997 French Canadian General Dollard Menard passes away! Anyone know about this guy?? What say you, about these things??? Regards, MD BTW Thanks George, & Brian for filling us in on BC history!!!
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
