MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 23 of 115 (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   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )
Message
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/14/2022 1:21:24 PM
Quote:

Tensions betweenthe US and Great Britain escalated during the American Civil War when a US Navy ship stopped a British ship carrying Confederate envoys to Great Britain. Evidently GB had forgotten the Royal Navy stopping American ships and impressing seaman into the Royal Navy. (This impressing of seamen ended with the War of 1812).

The US was already pre-occupied with a Civil War, and really didn't want to go to War with Great Britain. However, GB came to the realization that they were at a distinct disadvantage regarding the US and attempting to go to war. Palmerston, though anti-slavery, was also anti-American for he realized the potential of the US as a serious competitor to GB in the economic world ( which the US surpassed during World War 1)
What put GB at a distinct disadvantage?

1. The distance to North America which GB found a burden in 1777, was now a longer distance ( if you believe the tectonic theory of Geology).
2. The Canadian forts along the border had fallen into disrepair. And so had the Canadian militia.
3. The US had a population of British subjects called Irishmen who would have enlisted in droves to fight against Great Britain and then at the Peace Conference, demand a free and Independent Ireland.
4, The St Lawrence River still freezes during the Winter, making the re-supply of any British Army units problematic if not impossible. Logistics wins wars.
5. In 1860 GB could not feed its population and had to import food. Upwards of 50% of the food imported to GB came from the American Midwest. So, ask yourself, would GB bite the hand that is feeding them?
6. GB had a great interest in American railroads which they stood to lose.
7. Both the US Navy and the Royal Navy had ironclads. But the American ironclads could go up rivers. The British ironclads could not.
8. GB sent 12,000 soldiers to Canada during this crisis....the equivalent of the 6th Corps in the AoP at Gettysburg.
9. Though the British aristocracy still smarted from the loss in 1781 in the American Revolution, the common man and worker realized that the American Civil War was a war between slave-labor and wage-labor, and they would have never supported a war against wage-earners.
10. GB, having already out-lawed slavery, could not now support the existence of a country whose economy depended on that same slave labor.
11, Palmerston had to get the approval of Queen Victoria before going to war against the United States. In 1862, when the American Civil War was in the balance, Queen Victoria was in Prussia along with cabinet ministers. Prince Albert had convinced her before he died that GB should remain neutral.
12.Palmerston and GB tried the same intimidation tactics with Prussia in the mid 1860s. Recall that Prussia threatened war with Denmark for the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein. Palmerston wanted to support Denmark, but when Prussia did go to war with Denmark, GB offered no support. Why? Queen Victoria made it known that she favored Prussia, much to the chagrin and ire of her daughter-in-law.

Now, again in 1864, the US threatened war against GB. GB was allowing the building and out-fitting of ships that the Confederates were going use as raiding vessel against American merchant ships. Just before the US sent a message to our Ambassador to GB threatening war, the Government realized that they risked war with the US and immediately stopped the building of said ships.

So, growing tied of always being threatened with an American invasion Canada, Great Britain in 1867, 2 years after the American Civil War, gave Canada the responsibility for their own government and for their own defense. That took American threats right off the table.

So, basically, the American Civil War was the reason for Canadian Independence. (At least that was the reason given at Expo'67)


Lots to unpack here as this post is presented with a US bias of course. So I may have to express my own. NYGiant seems to be saying that the Americans only had to threaten to invade Canada and the maritime colonies and that Britain would back off.

The Trent Affair of 1861 nearly sent the British to war. Britain was not accustomed to other nations boarding its ships and I do think that the boarding of US ships to ferret out deserters from the RN (and there were many on those US ships) is considerably different from the boarding of a mail packet by a USN vessel in 1861.

I would not be so quick to diminish the preparations of Great Britain for another war with the US. British war plans reveal that they were prepared to attack via the traditional routes which would be down Lake Champlain into the heart of New York State and across the Niagara River. The objective would have been to divide the Union forces and in conjunction with the Confederate armies, defeat the US. In conjunction with these moves, the RN would quickly blockade US ports in the north.

British General Wolsely had studied the situation and determined that a British division siding with either one of the combatants of the civil war would have been sufficient to sway the result. A British division of the day comprised 12 or more regiments.

It is true that the British troop deployment in 1861 was lower than normal as troops had been redeployed to the Crimean conflict of 1856. The usual goal was to match the numbers in the US army which was not possible as the civil war progressed. That did not mean that the British were not prepared to go to war against the US if it threatened one of its colonies. Canada was a self governing colony by this time and had assumed greater responsibility for its defence but clearly would need help if the US threats to invade were carried out.

The Canadians (Province of Canada) had been listening to noise from the northern US press and northern politicians for decades that the US should simply annex Canada and the Maritime provinces.


For Canada, as the drums began to beat in September of 1861, the colonies requested equipment (stands of arms) for 100,000 new members of the volunteer militia. This was even before the Trent Affair as Canada, spooked by the annexation talk out of the US, fully expected that the Union army would make short work of the Confederates and then turn on Canada. Britain agreed to ship only 25,000 stands of arms but wanted to wait until the next spring to deliver them.

With the boarding of the Trent in November of 1861, Britain began to mobilize troops to be sent to Nova Scotia to augment the garrison there and to send them on to the Province of Canada. 7000 men made a remarkable route march in cold and wintery conditions across New Brunswick and Lower Canada and into Upper Canada. (United Provinces of Canada). Three field batteries were with them. One of the great feats of the British army probably known only to Canadians.

Something of note, the British were en route quite close to the US border and at times, "crimpers" would approach these well trained soldiers and offer incentives to get them to desert to the US to join the Union side. They managed to scoop 9 men.

We must not discount the RN which was the true projection of the might of the Empire. The RN still outclassed the USN, having 53 screw ships of the line none with fewer than 70 guns. The USN had 5 screw frigates.

It is a matter of debate as to whether USS Monitor would stand a chance against the British warrior class of ironclad frigates which were the true precursor of the modern battleship. It was mentioned that the British ships of this kind could not head upriver but not mentioned was the fact that HMS Monitor was solely designed for river and littoral work. It could not operate in blue water. Greatly outgunned by HMS Warrior which was an ocean going vessel, its only chance against Warrior or later HMS Black Prince would be in a small bay with calm waters. Better still perhaps would be to head up one of those rivers.

The possible influence of the RN on the progress of the Civil War is worthy of some speculation. Would the Union have been able to break a naval blockade of major ports by the RN?

Now diplomacy ended the Trent Affair even as those British troops that I mentioned were trudging across snowy New Brunswick and Québec. They completed their march, just in case you know.

For Canada one of the positive effects of the Trent Affair was the improvement of the militia. The British troops were used to train the growing ranks of the Canadian Volunteer Militia.

This training would prove useful when Irish-Americans of the Fenian Brotherhood decided that, with the civil war over, it would be a good time to invade Canada to force Britain to deal fairly with Ireland. The Fenians were all well trained former soldiers of the Union Army and they first invaded Canada in 1866 (see Battle of Ridgeway) and would continue raiding until 1870. The initial attack in 1866 was made with the tacit approval of the US President who was made aware of their goals and who told them that results would determine further action on the part of the US.

Fortunately the British diplomatic corps expressed their concern and the US decided that it had best discourage these Fenian raids. They weren't always successful in that.

1775, 1812, 1837, 1866. These are the years in which rebels and later American citizens would either invade Canada or aid and abet rebels within Canada or seeking refuge in the US.

Re: Canadian Confederation. Much too simplistic to suggest that the US Civil War was the reason for Canadian Independence.
I would grant that it accelerated a process that had been under way for a while.

I mentioned that Canadians had been living with threats of annexation and actual invasions since 1775 and certainly with the advent of the civil war and the animosity between Great Britain and the US, fears were heightened.

However, it is not that simple. After the War of 1812, Great Britain suggested to the Canadas and to the Maritime colonies that each would have to assume greater responsibility for governance and defence. Canada was no longer the jewel in the imperial crown. That title had passed to India. In a mercantile system, the colonies exist for the economic benefit of the mother country and with the fur trade no longer a key economic driver, the British felt that the colonies were not operating in a cost effective manner. Britain had been pushing a model of independence long before the civil war.

As well, the Canada's (Upper and Lower) were a particular political problem in that one represented the Anglo settlers in Canada while the other represented the French. And they did not get along so the British sought some solution to the acrimonious relationship. That they elected to unite them into one province called Canada was not effective at all but that is another tale.

US designs on the west and indeed the north worried the Province of Canada especially. There were expansionists in Canada as well and it was felt that an amalgamation of the British colonies would lend more clout and financial support to expansion.

Railways were increasingly more important to the economy. They were costly to build and it was felt that a union of the colonies would lend more financial support to those projects. In fact, one of the ways that the Province of Canada wooed Nova Scotia was the promise of an inter-colonial railway. Later British Columbia would join Confederation only after receiving the same promise from the new country of Canada.

There were politicians in Anglo Canada who were willing to work with politicians from French Canada. This coalition of men like John A. Macdonald (Canada West) and Georges Etienne Cartier (Canada East) would be a driving force to convince the maritime provinces to confederate.

I would concur that the Civil War provided motivation to British subjects in North America to unite but not for the reasons suggested. Canadians looked at the Civil War to their south with sadness and concern. They came to the conclusion that republicanism led to rule by the unruly and a lack of respect for orderly government. The leaders of the provinces felt that they could do better and the leaders of the Province of Canada lobbied the leaders of other provinces to do so. The British were very supportive of the process.

Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/14/2022 2:06:48 PM
Thank you George for your response. And it's not as much an American bias , as it is a presentation of the facts as they appeared in 1860.

1. I don't see any difference in stopping a ship on the high seas...be it searching for the enemy or searching deserters. Fact is, the RN stopped the practice of detaining American ships and impressing seamen after the war of 1812. The American captain who did detain the Trent acted on his own.

2. British generals told Palmerston that the Canadian forts were in dis-repair and that Canada could not stop an overt invasion by the Americans. Even the cannon were rusted because of dis-use.

3. How did those previous invasions of the United States end up? If I remember correctly, the British Invasion in 1777 by Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne resulted in failure and the capture of a British Army at Saratoga ( nice place to visit and I can show anyone the surrender field). If I recall, the invasion in 1814 did not get as far as Saratoga, as the British advance was stoped at the Battle of Plattsburgh, in an American victory. Both the Naval and military forces were defeated.( I've been to the statures that commemorate those events too). So, why in 1862, would a 3rd invasion be successful?

4. The overland route that you admit too, could have been closed by an American advance into Canada.

5. A blockade of the St Lawrence River by American ironclads would have prevented GB from re-supplying its army in Canada.

6. Time and time it has been shown that a militia doesn't fare well against a professional army. Even in our Civil War.

7. Giving Canada the responsibility for their own givernement and responsible for their own defense, removed any reason for US threats against GB.

8. In the Trent affair, and in 1864, Canada wasn't a "player". It was the US and GB which would make any decisions. ( Actually, for GB, it would have been Queen Victoria who would have decided on what GB was to do. and as I mentioned, she was convinced by her husband, Prince Albert, that GB should remain neutral in the American Civil War. Even after his untimely death, it was his counsel that she listened to).

9.Since you didn't mention my points about the increased distance, the presence in the US of millions of Irishmen, the freezing of the St Lawrence River, the in-ability of GB to feed its populace on its own,, the British interest in American RRs , that you accept my comments.

10. Since you didn't mention Queen Victoria, you agree with me on her influence on British foreign policy.

From my understanding of British Foreign Policy, they always were concerned about one country on the European continent , becoming the dominant player. Hence the wars against France, hence the Crimean War , hence WW1 and WW2

Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/14/2022 3:00:45 PM
Quote:


Moving events from recent days to the new page, for easy replys!?

Checking on General History events, from 9-10!?

1608 John Smith chosen President of Jamestown, was this the colonies 1st election?? Anyone?

1813 US naval forces win the Battle of Lake Erie, paving the way for control of the Great Lakes!? Thanks George, & NYG, for responses!!

Of course yesterday day 9-11 was the horrific terrorists attack on the twin towers, & Pentagon!? Does anyone have the new precautions that are in place by the US military, if its attempted again!?

1814 the USN defeat the British on lake Champlain! The RN seemed to have trouble winning naval battles on large NA inland lakes? Why?? Again thanks George & NYG for earlier takes!?

1944 WSC & FDR meet in Quebec, what was planned?? Why no Soviets, or France? What say you?

2008 big fire in the Chunnel between GB, & France? What caused it? Anyone??

& on 9-12

The German Commandos freed Benito Mussolini to Munich! How did they accomplish this? This is an imbarrisment to Allied prison security!? Or showing the brilliance of Nazi Commandos!? Anyone??

Any other new topics? Or discuss those above??
BTW these general world history topics come from Encyclopedia Britannica!

Here is 9-13 history,

1759 The British defeat the French in the Battle of Quebec! Both commanders were killed! How vital was this battle towards the future of Canada?? Any websites?

1971 prison revolt at Attica, NY is put down, why was it so destructive!?

& today, 9-14, the following occurred! Any new topics??

1814, the British are stopped at Baltimore's Fort McKinley, inspiring Francis Scott Key, with our national anthem! Was our flag still there? He'll yes!!! Just had to get that in!! ☺

1847 the Americans defeat Mexican forces near Mexico City! How was this a prelude to officers of the Civil War!? Name some? Anyone??

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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/14/2022 3:57:05 PM
Quote:
Thank you George for your response. And it's not as much an American bias , as it is a presentation of the facts as they appeared in 1860.

1. I don't see any difference in stopping a ship on the high seas...be it searching for the enemy or searching deserters. Fact is, the RN stopped the practice of detaining American ships and impressing seamen after the war of 1812. The American captain who did detain the Trent acted on his own.

2. British generals told Palmerston that the Canadian forts were in dis-repair and that Canada could not stop an overt invasion by the Americans. Even the cannon were rusted because of dis-use.

3. How did those previous invasions of the United States end up? If I remember correctly, the British Invasion in 1777 by Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne resulted in failure and the capture of a British Army at Saratoga ( nice place to visit and I can show anyone the surrender field). If I recall, the invasion in 1814 did not get as far as Saratoga, as the British advance was stoped at the Battle of Plattsburgh, in an American victory. Both the Naval and military forces were defeated.( I've been to the statures that commemorate those events too). So, why in 1862, would a 3rd invasion be successful?

4. The overland route that you admit too, could have been closed by an American advance into Canada.

5. A blockade of the St Lawrence River by American ironclads would have prevented GB from re-supplying its army in Canada.

6. Time and time it has been shown that a militia doesn't fare well against a professional army. Even in our Civil War.

7. Giving Canada the responsibility for their own givernement and responsible for their own defense, removed any reason for US threats against GB.

8. In the Trent affair, and in 1864, Canada wasn't a "player". It was the US and GB which would make any decisions. ( Actually, for GB, it would have been Queen Victoria who would have decided on what GB was to do. and as I mentioned, she was convinced by her husband, Prince Albert, that GB should remain neutral in the American Civil War. Even after his untimely death, it was his counsel that she listened to).

9.Since you didn't mention my points about the increased distance, the presence in the US of millions of Irishmen, the freezing of the St Lawrence River, the in-ability of GB to feed its populace on its own,, the British interest in American RRs , that you accept my comments.

10. Since you didn't mention Queen Victoria, you agree with me on her influence on British foreign policy.

From my understanding of British Foreign Policy, they always were concerned about one country on the European continent , becoming the dominant player. Hence the wars against France, hence the Crimean War , hence WW1 and WW2




Let me address some of these by the numbers. Perhaps I can disabuse you of some of your beliefs or at least, provide some nuance to those statements.

1. There were RN deserters on American ships and on commercial vessels. They paid more. I don't agree with violating sovereignty on the high seas but I don't think that US ships should have employed British sailors.

2. Agree. Not ready for defence. Hence, the decision to attack, split the union forces, blockade the harbours and do all of this in conjunction with the Confederate forces fighting on land.

3. Your original point was that the US only had to threaten to invade and Britain would cave. War plans after the Trent Affair indicate otherwise. I could point to other times in Canada's history when the British did not feel that making a fuss was worth risking a healthy trade relationship with the US. Pig War, 1859. Alaska Panhandle dispute, 1903.

4. Yes, the US would likely use the same routes of entry. They had before during the War of 1812. How many troops did they have available in 1861 for an attack on Canada or to defend against a strike along the same corridors by the British? What would the response of the Confederate forces have been to a British attack?

5. How would US ironclads gain entry to the St. Lawrence without a challenge? The Gulf of St. Lawrence is like the open ocean. If you are talking about USS Monitor, I don't believe that it could sail there. HMS Warrior could however.

And the primary RN naval base for the North American stations was Halifax, Nova Scotia. I think that a squadron of US ironclad gunboats would have been challenged en route to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

And where were the coaling stations for the US ironclad steamers en route to the Gulf of St. Lawrence? They could use sail on the way until they had to manoeuvre, I suppose.

I realize that the Union produced over 40 ironclads by the end of the civil war. The RN took note and expanded and I think that I am safe in saying that the RN was far more powerful than the USN in 1860.

6. I tend to concur with your comments about the militia. However, there are different levels of militia beyond the sedentary militia which drilled a couple of times every summer. The British had taken to training some militia to higher military standards. It was these militia who defeated a US army at the Battle of Chateauguay in 1813. After that and while there was still a sedentary militia there was also an Active Militia who were trained to that higher standard.


7. The provinces already had semi-autonomous government. They were governing themselves and since the War of 1812 had assumed greater responsibility for defence. The citadels at Halifax and Québec were formidable installations.

A canal linking Lake Erie and Lake Ontario had been built in the 1833. The Rideau Canal was built to link the St. Lawrence River to the Ottawa River. It was purpose built to allow for the supply and defence of upstream cities like Montréal and Kingston without having to rely on the St. Lawrence River. Some improvements to defence had been made in the intervening years between the War of 1812 and your civil war. These improvements were made after the report on the defensive readiness of BNA made by the Duke of Wellington. The primary reason that defence of these colonies would be difficult was because of the disparity in numbers of people in the US and Canada.

The creation of a Dominion consisting of 4 provinces in 1867 was a Canadian idea that was well supported by the British. As a Dominion or country, Canada would demonstrate sovereignty over a larger area. BTW, British troops didn't leave Canada until 1871 and the RN until the end of the 19th century.

8. Sorry, did I suggest that Canada was a player in the Trent Affair? Only in the sense that the noise coming out of the US and the recommendations of the British put the people on a heightened alert, waiting for an invasion.

9. Because I did not comment on certain aspects of your post does not mean that I concur with any of those items. Not a wise assumption to make.

10. I did not even notice your comments about Queen Victoria, NYGiant. So again, my failure to address does not imply that I concur.

She is an interesting figure and her interaction with a series of Prime Ministers and governments was important. She was in a rather depressed state in 1861 however as she had just lost her husband Albert. I have seen her described as a peace maker and conciliator.

She also reigned over a period in which more and more powers devolved to the legislature and electorate from the sovereign. She provided over the cementing of the bases of constitutional monarchy.

I believe that Canada may be the only country in the Commonwealth to continue to honour the old Queen. The Monday of the May long weekend is called Victoria Day. I expect that many Canadians may not know why.

BTW I am not comfortable with this numbered, point by point, challenge and respond approach. It becomes difficult to concentrate or fully develop a single theme or concept. And I wonder how many others are reading them.



Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/14/2022 5:16:30 PM
Quote:
Quote:


Thank you George for your response.

And it's not as much an American bias , as it is a presentation of the facts as they appeared in 1860.

1. I don't see any difference in stopping a ship on the high seas...be it searching for the enemy or searching deserters. Fact is, the RN stopped the practice of detaining American ships and impressing seamen after the war of 1812. The American captain who did detain the Trent acted on his own.

2. British generals told Palmerston that the Canadian forts were in dis-repair and that Canada could not stop an overt invasion by the Americans. Even the cannon were rusted because of dis-use.

3. How did those previous invasions of the United States end up? If I remember correctly, the British Invasion in 1777 by Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne resulted in failure and the capture of a British Army at Saratoga ( nice place to visit and I can show anyone the surrender field). If I recall, the invasion in 1814 did not get as far as Saratoga, as the British advance was stoped at the Battle of Plattsburgh, in an American victory. Both the Naval and military forces were defeated.( I've been to the statures that commemorate those events too). So, why in 1862, would a 3rd invasion be successful?

4. The overland route that you admit too, could have been closed by an American advance into Canada.

5. A blockade of the St Lawrence River by American ironclads would have prevented GB from re-supplying its army in Canada.

6. Time and time it has been shown that a militia doesn't fare well against a professional army. Even in our Civil War.

7. Giving Canada the responsibility for their own givernement and responsible for their own defense, removed any reason for US threats against GB.

8. In the Trent affair, and in 1864, Canada wasn't a "player". It was the US and GB which would make any decisions. ( Actually, for GB, it would have been Queen Victoria who would have decided on what GB was to do. and as I mentioned, she was convinced by her husband, Prince Albert, that GB should remain neutral in the American Civil War. Even after his untimely death, it was his counsel that she listened to).

9.Since you didn't mention my points about the increased distance, the presence in the US of millions of Irishmen, the freezing of the St Lawrence River, the in-ability of GB to feed its populace on its own,, the British interest in American RRs , that you accept my comments.

10. Since you didn't mention Queen Victoria, you agree with me on her influence on British foreign policy.

From my understanding of British Foreign Policy, they always were concerned about one country on the European continent , becoming the dominant player. Hence the wars against France, hence the Crimean War , hence WW1 and WW2




Let me address some of these by the numbers. Perhaps I can disabuse you of some of your beliefs or at least, provide some nuance to those statements.

1. There were RN deserters on American ships and on commercial vessels. They paid more. I don't agree with violating sovereignty on the high seas but I don't think that US ships should have employed British sailors.

2. Agree. Not ready for defence. Hence, the decision to attack, split the union forces, blockade the harbours and do all of this in conjunction with the Confederate forces fighting on land.

3. Your original point was that the US only had to threaten to invade and Britain would cave. War plans after the Trent Affair indicate otherwise. I could point to other times in Canada's history when the British did not feel that making a fuss was worth risking a healthy trade relationship with the US. Pig War, 1859. Alaska Panhandle dispute, 1903.

4. Yes, the US would likely use the same routes of entry. They had before during the War of 1812. How many troops did they have available in 1861 for an attack on Canada or to defend against a strike along the same corridors by the British? What would the response of the Confederate forces have been to a British attack?

5. How would US ironclads gain entry to the St. Lawrence without a challenge? The Gulf of St. Lawrence is like the open ocean. If you are talking about USS Monitor, I don't believe that it could sail there. HMS Warrior could however.

And the primary RN naval base for the North American stations was Halifax, Nova Scotia. I think that a squadron of US ironclad gunboats would have been challenged en route to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

And where were the coaling stations for the US ironclad steamers en route to the Gulf of St. Lawrence? They could use sail on the way until they had to manoeuvre, I suppose.

I realize that the Union produced over 40 ironclads by the end of the civil war. The RN took note and expanded and I think that I am safe in saying that the RN was far more powerful than the USN in 1860.

6. I tend to concur with your comments about the militia. However, there are different levels of militia beyond the sedentary militia which drilled a couple of times every summer. The British had taken to training some militia to higher military standards. It was these militia who defeated a US army at the Battle of Chateauguay in 1813. After that and while there was still a sedentary militia there was also an Active Militia who were trained to that higher standard.


7. The provinces already had semi-autonomous government. They were governing themselves and since the War of 1812 had assumed greater responsibility for defence. The citadels at Halifax and Québec were formidable installations.

A canal linking Lake Erie and Lake Ontario had been built in the 1833. The Rideau Canal was built to link the St. Lawrence River to the Ottawa River. It was purpose built to allow for the supply and defence of upstream cities like Montréal and Kingston without having to rely on the St. Lawrence River. Some improvements to defence had been made in the intervening years between the War of 1812 and your civil war. These improvements were made after the report on the defensive readiness of BNA made by the Duke of Wellington. The primary reason that defence of these colonies would be difficult was because of the disparity in numbers of people in the US and Canada.

The creation of a Dominion consisting of 4 provinces in 1867 was a Canadian idea that was well supported by the British. As a Dominion or country, Canada would demonstrate sovereignty over a larger area. BTW, British troops didn't leave Canada until 1871 and the RN until the end of the 19th century.

8. Sorry, did I suggest that Canada was a player in the Trent Affair? Only in the sense that the noise coming out of the US and the recommendations of the British put the people on a heightened alert, waiting for an invasion.

9. Because I did not comment on certain aspects of your post does not mean that I concur with any of those items. Not a wise assumption to make.

10. I did not even notice your comments about Queen Victoria, NYGiant. So again, my failure to address does not imply that I concur.

She is an interesting figure and her interaction with a series of Prime Ministers and governments was important. She was in a rather depressed state in 1861 however as she had just lost her husband Albert. I have seen her described as a peace maker and conciliator.

She also reigned over a period in which more and more powers devolved to the legislature and electorate from the sovereign. She provided over the cementing of the bases of constitutional monarchy.

I believe that Canada may be the only country in the Commonwealth to continue to honour the old Queen. The Monday of the May long weekend is called Victoria Day. I expect that many Canadians may not know why.

BTW I am not comfortable with this numbered, point by point, challenge and respond approach. It becomes difficult to concentrate or fully develop a single theme or concept. And I wonder how many others are reading them.



Cheers,

George


Thank you George for your response.

I'm rather comfortable with a numbered point by point discussion as it helps to focus the ideas and we don't go off in tangents. As to others reading, I'm not here to win a popularity contest.

1. The impressment of alleged RN deserters off of American ships was one of the reasons the US went to war with GB in 1812. And that practice did stop with the end of the War of 1812.

2. Thank you.

3. The Trent affair ended up as a nothing as Queen Victoria affirmed GB neutrality. And GB stopped building the Laird Rams. Who caved?

4. You forget that the US had a large population of Irishmen who would have enlisted and fought for the US. And recall that the US never fully mobilized to fight. the Rebels, so we can tap into that resource. More important than what would the Rebels do if the British attacked the US, is the response of the US citizens to an attack by a foreign power.

5. How does GB respond to a blockade of Nova Scotia? Or an attack? Granted, the Monitor would have to be towed, along with countless other ironclads. The point is, the St Lawrence River freezes in winter, still does matter of fact, which makes re-supplying any army in Canada, a forlorn hope. The British Army like the American Army marches on its stomach.

6. Thank you

7. 1867 is after 1865. Now if had GB given Canada dominion status before 1865, you would be correct.

8. Pesky thing those pesky Americans.

9. If you disagreed you would have written something in rebuttal. You didn't. But if you want, you can make your case now.

10. Queen Victoria adds a new dimension to any discussion of GB foreign policy. She did favor Prussia and did tell her ministers that there would be no involvement in the Danish-Prussian War. Her grandson became Kaiser Wilhelm.

The Rebel Government put all their faith in GB breaking the US Naval blockade. However, the Rebels tried to intimidate GB by not sending the cotton crop of 1860-1861 to the British mills GB could not be bullied.

I put quite a bit of emphasis when I study military campaigns on logistics. From what I have read upwards of 50% of the food imported to Great Britain in 1860, came from the American Midwest. Would a hungry populace topple the Palmerston Administration? Would it topple the Royal Family?

We do know from history that unrestricted submarine warfare almost defeated GB in WW1, and we know that the home front food crisis caused Imperial Germany to finally surrender. And we do know that GB still was undergoing food rationing after the end of WW 2 til 1954. and they were the victors! So History does bear me out on this.

scoucer
Berlin  Germany
Posts: 3270
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/14/2022 7:42:19 PM
Quote:
Brevet Lieutenant James Wellington, nephew of the Duke of Wellington was killed at the Battle of Plattsburgh. The family disinterred his remains and brought them back to England.


That would be James Wellesley. Wellington was the title of the Duke and not the family name.

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.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/14/2022 8:19:24 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Brevet Lieutenant James Wellington, nephew of the Duke of Wellington was killed at the Battle of Plattsburgh. The family disinterred his remains and brought them back to England.


That would be James Wellesley. Wellington was the title of the Duke and not the family name.

Trevor

Well, from the journal New York History, vol. 44, No. 4, pp307-305. On page 320, .."At Culver Hill, Colonel Wellington, nephew of the famous Duke, met his death."

From https://www.1814inc.com/data/files/Historical%20Articles/Recounting%20Culver%20Hill%20-Gary-VanCour.pdf
"Lt. Col. James Willington of the 3rd Buffs was killed while rallying his troops."...."The remains of Colonel W(i)llington of the 3rd British Regiment of Buffs was interred today in the burying ground in the village with military honors by part of the 2nd Regiment of the United States Infantry"


But then again, we couldn't find the remains of his headstone. So I do believe you are right about his name. I am right about him being Wellington's nephew.




George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/14/2022 9:48:29 PM
NYGiant, I think that you will find that the British have used diplomacy to settle matters that they consider to be comparatively minor. Fear of a disruption of trade is often a motivator.

But they were prepared to go to war and to attack in the case of the Trent Affair. PM Palmerston wrote a scathing letter to be sent by ship of course to the US demanding an apology and a return of the two Confederate diplomats who had been on their way to Britain on SS Trent to lobby for recognition of their country. But under the British political system, a constitutional monarchy, the letter required royal assent.

It was quickly rushed to Queen Victoria who was busy. Husband Albert was asked to look at the letter and he toned down the rhetoric. Albert had authorization to approve the letter. Palmerston considered the amendments and signed the letter which was sent to the US. The first letter would have meant war.

Still, as mentioned, troops were dispatched and plans laid for the invasion of the US. Britain has been at war many times but they engage when they must.

The letter was sent and so the ball was in the US court.

The US was not interested in a second war. It had enough on its plate to quell the rebellion in the southern states.

Britain as a nation showed the maturity in diplomacy that perhaps a young nation like the US lacked. Britain left a door open and the US quite wisely, walked through.

The US ambassador to Britain, Charles Adams, insisted that the Capt. Wilkes who boarded the SS Trent had acted without the consent of the government. Lincoln and Sec. of State Seward debated as to the appropriate face saving action.

They decided that a formal apology would be an admission of illegal action and the international consensus was that the removal of the two Confederates violated the laws of the sea and that the release of SS Trent by Capt. Wilkes indicated that he knew that he had no legal reason to detain the vessel. Otherwise he should have taken the ship to a prize court so that the seizure could have been assessed for validity. Wilkes just let them sail away.

Lincoln was as wise as Albert and stated, "one war at a time".

Seward's letter to the British was not an apology. He did concede that Wilkes should have taken SS Trent into port and because he did not, the two Confederate diplomats would be released. Seward commended the British for honouring the maritime rights of neutral nations. PM Palmerston accepted the letter as a de facto apology.

War was averted by saner heads on both sides. Sadly, the death of Albert later that same year quelled the war fever simmering among the British people as a result of the SS Trent affair.

I alluded to the lack of maturity on the part of the US. Another example is the Pig War that almost broke out as a result of a misunderstanding. The Oregon Treaty of 1846 had settled the international border between BNA and the US, to the Pacific but there were disputed areas. Both the US and Britain claimed sovereignty over San Juan Island which was in the channel between the mainland and Vancouver Island.

There was a large British presence on the island and the Hudson Bay Co. had set up there as well. Then about 30 Americans arrived and settled. Generally it was live and let live until, on June 15, 1859, a British pig wandered onto some land farmed by an American and the farmer killed the pig because it was munching on his potatoes.

The British pig owner reported the American to the British authorities and they threatened to arrest him. The rest of the American settlers sent a letter to the US to demand military protection. The letter was received by some politician in Oregon and he immediately dispatched 66 US troops to the island. The British governor of Vancouver then sent three war ships to the island and ordered the Admiral in command of the squadron to land marines to repel the American invaders.

The Admiral refused saying famously that he would not, "“involve two great nations in a war over a squabble about a pig”.

The two national governments got wind of this and were appalled that a war nearly broke out over a pig and they came to an accommodation. Saner heads prevailed once again.

Eventually an international commission of arbitration determined that the island was in American territory. I think that Kaiser Wilhelm I headed the commission.

You seem obsessed with trying to prove that Britain caved to US demands. Why?

I say again that a failure to address one of your points does not mean that I approve or agree. It seems that you enjoy claiming victory more than having meaningful discussions. Would that be your purpose here?

George

EDIT:
Quote:
7. 1867 is after 1865. Now if had GB given Canada dominion status before 1865, you would be correct.


This one makes no sense to me. Self government did not just appear in Canada on July 1, 1867. These colonies were already governing themselves. Britain, with the advice of Canadian politicians passed the British North America Act that allowed for Confederation in 1867.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/15/2022 8:44:53 AM
George,

As you agree with me, Queen Victoria approved a toned-down letter, and she was the one who determined that GB would remain neutral. From a logistics point of view, GB was at a disadvantage since upwards of 50% of the food imported to feed their population, came from the US. 12,000 troops were sent to Canada...the size of one Corps in one Army of the US. And let's not forget those Irish in the US who left GB because of the harsh conditions imposed by GB, who would have enlisted to fight for the US.

I am impressed that GB found maturity after taunting the US in the early 19th Century by stopping US ships on the high seas , and removing alleged RN deserters.

GB caved to US demands when they realized that building the Laird Rams and delivering them to the Rebels meant war. GB took possession of this ships.The US offered war. GB declined because they realized they were in the wrong. They didn't want war. They caved. Here in the US it is taught in our schools that the fledgeling US defeated GB, the greatest military power in the world at the time, twice.

The Pig War ( how can it be called a war with no casualties), shows that GB in 1859 still ruled Canada, and protected Canada. It's is situation like this that eventually told GB, enough with the US, let the Canadians deal with them from now on. And that relationship has lead to the longest international boundary that is free of barbed wire and a military presence in the world.

What GB has that the US did not have, was another layer of Government. We don't have a Royal Family that must sign off on any foreign adventures. Queen Victoria declared GB to be neutral in the American Civil War despite the protestations of Palmerston. Queen Victoria determined that GB would NOT get involved in the Danish-Prussian War because the Queen was pro-Prussia, despite Palmerston having warned Prussia that GB would intervene (prior to his death).

My purpose here? Just to have fun and discuss military matters, as long as we stick to the facts. What is your purpose here?



Steve Clements
Toronto ON Canada
Posts: 910
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/15/2022 10:27:07 AM

Quote:
What GB has that the US did not have, was another layer of Government. We don't have a Royal Family that must sign off on any foreign adventures. Queen Victoria declared GB to be neutral in the American Civil War despite the protestations of Palmerston.


Don't agree that the Queen "declared GB to be neutral". In fact, Howard Jones (Union in Peril) argues that she favoured intervention. But frankly, the Queen is seldom mentioned in his book....the decision was cabinet's, not the Queen's.

In 1862, the cabinet did generally favour intervention, albeit, Palmerston did not (more for practical reasons that anything else). There was a cabinet meeting scheduled for, I believe, early October '62...that had been scheduled after the results of Second Bull Run were known. Jones argues that, had Lee not invaded Maryland after Second Bull Run, that cabinet might well have voted for intervention. But that by the time that the meeting was to occur, Antietam had occurred, and recognition/invitation to both sides to sit down and "talk" was temporarily pushed off. Temporarily!! As intervention/recognition came up again in November '62. The Emancipation Proclamation was not. ironically, a deal killer for cabinet. The British cabinet viewed Lincoln's proclamation as being somewhat hypocritical....Lincoln had spent the previous year plus arguing that the war was NOT about slavery, but about "Union". So for Lincoln to turn around and now attempt to make this a war over slavery did little, by itself, to keep the cabinet from wanting to intervene.

s.c.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/15/2022 11:13:18 AM
Prince Albert was the one to convince the Queen of neutrality in the American Civil War. And the British Government came to rely on his judicious advice. Palmerston and Russell’s original note to the United States contained fiery language; yet Albert persuaded them to soften the tone. Albert reminded them that Charles Francis Adams had assured the British that Wilkes had acted without official orders from the U.S. government.

Palmerston writing to the Queen that he had sound knowledge that General Scott was on mission to France to convince Napoleon III to join the US in attacking Canada and giving France the Province of Quebec in return for that alliance, was a falsehood of the highest degree.

Recall that at the time of that cabinet meeting, Queen Victoria was in Prussia along with some of those same ministers. The cabinet and Palmerston needed her go ahead before any intervention occurred.

No matter what the cabinet thought of the EP, GB remained on the sidelines and did not interfere.

We can agree that GB caved when confronted with the US demanding that GB stop building the Laird Rams, or risk war.

If you have any question regarding the influence of Queen Victoria, I refer you to the GB involvement in the Danish-Prussian war.
Steve Clements
Toronto ON Canada
Posts: 910
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/15/2022 1:53:50 PM
Quote:
The cabinet and Palmerston needed her go ahead before any intervention occurred.


Unless someone on the board (preferably from the UK) with detailed knowledge of 19th century British history tells me otherwise, I assume that any "go ahead" would be largely a rubber stamp.

What is your source for stating that the Queen was against intervention? My source is Jones, which is a very detailed rendering of the subject. And he claims otherwise.... Any there is little mention of the Queen in Jones.

Quote:
We can agree that GB caved when confronted with the US demanding that GB stop building the Laird Rams, or risk war.


Not something that I posted on.....you are confusing me with George....

Quote:
If you have any question regarding the influence of Queen Victoria, I refer you to the GB involvement in the Danish-Prussian war.


Not at all familiar with the Danish-Prussian war.....not something I have an interest in.

s.c.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/15/2022 3:26:38 PM
Quote:
Quote:
The cabinet and Palmerston needed her go ahead before any intervention occurred.


Unless someone on the board (preferably from the UK) with detailed knowledge of 19th century British history tells me otherwise, I assume that any "go ahead" would be largely a rubber stamp.

What is your source for stating that the Queen was against intervention? My source is Jones, which is a very detailed rendering of the subject. And he claims otherwise.... Any there is little mention of the Queen in Jones.

Quote:
We can agree that GB caved when confronted with the US demanding that GB stop building the Laird Rams, or risk war.


Not something that I posted on.....you are confusing me with George....

Quote:
If you have any question regarding the influence of Queen Victoria, I refer you to the GB involvement in the Danish-Prussian war.


Not at all familiar with the Danish-Prussian war.....not something I have an interest in.

s.c.


1. Fountain Of Discontent: The Trent Affair and Freedom of the Seas by Gordon Warren. It is my understanding that Queen Victoria was generally on the side of the Union. For instance, after the resolution of this issue, Queen Victoria later said to Parliament at its opening in 1862, “The friendly relations between Her Majesty and the President of the United States have therefore remained unimpaired.”.By May 13, 1861, Queen Victoria, on the advice of her ministers, issued a proclamation declaring the United Kingdom as neutral in America’s battle between North and South for the continuation of the war.
This book goes into the reports of the British generals who said the border forts were in dis-repair and the cannons had rusted due to dis-use.

2. The Laird Rams built by the British would have been a game changer. Just as the Ambassador to GB could inform GB that this meant war, with the US, GB came to the same realization.

3. I learned about Schleswig-Holstein in 10th grade World History. Evidently, Prussia desired it even though it was part of Denmark, and threatened war. Palmerston and GB tried to interfere, admonishing Prussia that GD would come to the aid of Denmark. However, Queen Victoria told her ministers after the war began, that GB was not to get involved, much to the chagrin of her Danish Daughter-in-Law. Recall that Queen Victoria's daughter, Princess Victoria, married Frederich Wilhelm of Prussia, who became Emperor.

I learned about they war because of German aggression in Europe.

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/15/2022 3:37:51 PM
A few years ago there was a televised drama , produced in Denmark, that was titled 1864, and it was about the war between Denmark and Prussia.

Worth watching, if you can find it.

A rather sensational depiction of the horrors of war, with an intriguing depiction of the younger Bismark conspiring to build a mighty Prussian empire.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/16/2022 9:09:34 AM
Hey guys,

Good banter over the influence of Great Britain in the CW!? Moving on to 9-15, check out the following!

1821 Central American countries granted independence from Spain! Was this done without bloodshed?? What's the story??

1862 Stonewall Jackson takes Harper's Ferry from the Union!, the town was almost impossible to defend! & exchanged hands 8-10 times!? Why?.anyone??

1916 the Tank was 1st used as A weapon in WWI by the British! Who invented the Tank, & how effective was it in the World Wars? What say you??

1935 Hitler passes anti Jewish laws, anyone on why Germany & others hated the Jews so much??

1950 the Allies land on Inchon, SK. Who was behind this brilliant move to stem the tide against the Commies!??

1963 the KKK bombs African Americans and their churches in Birmingham, Al.! How prelivant is the Klan today?? What say you?

& in 9-16 check this out, & comment!?

1320 Charles V dies after leading France in the 100 yrs war! Was it really 100 years, any comments on the full history of the conflict, It's other name, & its effect!? Anyone??

Sieze the day!
MD

& 1620 the Mayflower leaves for the New World, How would this effect New England!? Comments? Anyone??

----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/16/2022 1:29:14 PM
When I see any comments about the Mayflower and the Separatists, I like to remind people of a few things.

1. The Mayflower carried 102 passengers...half were religious dissenters and half were entrepreneurs.

2. The 1st Thanksgiving occurred in Virginia in 1619, at what is now the Berkeley Plantation.

3. Though the Separatists did come to North America for religious freedom, they didn't want any others coming here for religious freedom if it was different than their religion. The Separatists murdered Quakers who lived amongst them.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/quakers-executed-for-religious-beliefs

4. The Separatists came form England where the Lord of the Manor owned the land and the peasants worked a certain piece of that land. In the New World, the Company that sent the Separatists to the New World owned the land and the Separatists worked that land. There was no Communism or any such nonsense.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/11/thanksgiving-socialism-the-strange-and-persistent-right-wing-myth-that-thanksgiving-celebrates-the-pilgrims-discovery-of-capitalism.html
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/16/2022 11:50:09 PM
MD, you note: “1963 the KKK bombs African Americans and their churches in Birmingham, Al.! How prelivant is the Klan today?? What say you?

My guess is that, in one form or another, the KKK can be seen as a living, active belief system. They may not wear point-headed robes, and may not have fancy names for their hierarchy, but their values are still alive.

KKK was a wide-ranging phenomenon in the first half of the 20th century. In the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, e.g., there were reported to be (I’m pulling this number from memory, so I could be wrong) 35,000 KKK members. One of them, I found out recently, was my grandfather. A strict, fundamentalist Christian – like many Prairie folk – he evidently attempted to undermine Jewish and Metis values whenever possible. I don’t know whether violence such as was seen in the US occurred in Canada, but the values were similar (protect and save white culture) and their belief in being God’s warriors were at least akin.

The issue, IMHO, isn’t whether the KKK is still prevalent: it’s whether the values for which the KKK stood are still prevalent. IMHO, they are not only prevalent but encouraged. They have different names (typically patriotic sounding) and they have different garb (often rather overdone military gear, with badges and insignia) to state their affiliation. They boast of their loyalty to “The Constitution” and their readiness to fight for it, but they are really just a continuation of the narrow-mindedness of the founders of the Plymouth Colony.

Cheers
Brian G

----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/17/2022 8:29:13 AM
The last time the KKK made a presence here in the United States was at Charlottesville, when they chanted as they marched..."The Jews shall not replace us".
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/17/2022 5:04:38 PM
Quote:
1821 Central American countries granted independence from Spain! Was this done without bloodshed?? What's the story??


Spain lost the ability to maintain control of its colonies in a period beginning about 1795.

It's naval power had been reduced in a war with Britain. Spain had allied with France after the French Revolution and that made Spain the enemy of Britain. Britain's large navy created blockades that prevented Spain from controlling trade with its colonies in Central America.

A colony is supposed to benefit the mother country by forcing the colony to only trade with that mother country. In its weakened state, Spain was forced to let the colonies trade with one another and with other countries.

The central American countries enjoyed great independence.

Meanwhile, Napoleon turned on Spain, attacked them and imprisoned the King of Spain. Spain was in turmoil without its powerful King and in no position to maintain colonies on the other side of the Atlantic.

So Spain declared that its colonies were equal partners in the Spanish Empire. That didn't wash with the people as the recognition did not come with increased autonomy and the freer trade that they had enjoyed when Spain was under Napoleon's thumb was not to be continued. With Napoleon's defeat in 1814, Spain tried to return to hard line control of its colonies.

There was unrest in Central and South America. Mexico fought a war for independence that ended in 1821 and the Central American countries joined as part of the Mexican Empire. Two years later, they left the Mexican Empire to go it alone.

It was bloodless in Central America but the Mexicans paid a price for everyone else I think. 15,000 killed and thousands of wounded including civilians.

Note that Spain was not able to protect its colony in Florida either. Americans moved into West Florida living under Spanish rule but the Americans rebelled in 1810 and US President Madison claimed the territory saying that it was US territory anyway because it was part of the Louisiana Purchase. What could Spain do? They had been invaded by Napoleon and were in no position to fight. They signed West Florida over in a treaty.

cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/18/2022 12:32:52 PM
Quote:
Hey guys,

More to discuss, anyone?? On these 9-15 topics?

1821 Central American countries granted independence from Spain! Was this done without bloodshed?? What's the story?? Thanks George, the big picture here effects the new world history, your right!

1862 Stonewall Jackson takes Harper's Ferry from the Union!, the town was almost impossible to defend! & exchanged hands 8-10 times!? Why?.anyone??

1916 the Tank was 1st used as A weapon in WWI by the British! Who invented the Tank, & how effective was it in the World Wars? What say you??

1935 Hitler passes anti Jewish laws, anyone on why Germany & others hated the Jews so much??

1950 the Allies land on Inchon, SK. Who was behind this brilliant move to stem the tide against the Commies!?? We complain about MacArthur, but this was a brilliant military strategy! Comments on Korea, anyone?

1963 the KKK bombs African Americans and their churches in Birmingham, Al.! How prelivant is the Klan today?? What say you? Thanks Brian & NYG, I agree oddly enough not only is the Klan racially bias, but religiously as well, good responses!

& in 9-16 check this out, & comment!?

1320 Charles V dies after leading France in the 100 yrs war! Was it really 100 years, any comments on the full history of the conflict, It's other name, & its effect!? Anyone??

Regards!
MD



& checking 9-17 in history we find these!?

1787, 39 delegates sign the US Constitution! Do you think today, some of the Constitution is outdated for modern situations!? Anyone??

1849 Harriet Tubman escapes slavery, & starts the Underground RR, does this effect Canada, as well.as the US?? What say you??

1862 the Union defeats the Confederate ANV in the battle of Antietam, after finding Lee's battle plan! Comments on it's effects? Anyone??

1939 USSR invades Poland! Why? Was Poland a Russian enemy? Then why invade them? What say you??

1991 both North, & South Korea admitted to the UN!? How is this working out??

& on 9-18

Scotty Bowman great NHL coach was born, 1933! He won 9 Stanley Cups! Was he the best hockey coach? I was lucky to personally talk to Coach Bowman!

1898 Sir HH Kitchener is advancing in the Sudan! Later he is responsible for some horrific set backs for the Brits.! What say you? Was he a good commander or not??

1931 the Japanese sieze parts of Manchuria! Why? & could they have been stopped?? Anyone?

2014 Scottish voters reject becoming an independent country!? I thought the Scots always wanted freedom, Why then? Anyone??

2020 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg dies, she begs the coming lame duck President to wait for a more fair replacement, & is rejected! Is today's SC fair & balanced?? Comments?

Sieze the day!
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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/18/2022 1:28:03 PM
Quote:
2014 Scottish voters reject becoming an independent country!? I thought the Scots always wanted freedom, Why then? Anyone??


The Scots are already free. The country is part of an association of countries called the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland).

They could not have held a referendum to determine whether to stay part of the UK if they were not free to do so.

I believe that the polls in advance of the referendum indicated most of the time that the "NO" side was in the lead.

I read an article not long ago that described the Scots as very pragmatic people and so while the "YES" side tried stir up passions in support of independence, it didn't work. The article suggested that economic concerns may have held sway.

One poll suggested that only 35% of Scots said that they would be better off as an independent nation. Most then felt that they would be worse off and the numbers in this particular poll were consistent throughout the campaign.

I would ask our Scottish friends whether they feel that being "British" is in conflict with being,"Scottish". Is it possible to be comfortable as both.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/18/2022 2:04:52 PM
Quote:
Harriet Tubman escapes slavery, & starts the Underground RR, does this effect Canada, as well.as the US?? What say you??


It certainly did affect Canada since it was the terminus of the "railroad" for many escaped slaves.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 meant that slave catchers were authorized to range into the northern states to scoop property that had escaped. That made Canada all the more attractive as the Act to Limit Slavery to Upper Canada had been passed in 1793, making it illegal to import slaves to the colony.



The Canadian Encyclopaedia indicates that 15-20 thousand black slaves made their way to Canada between 1850 and 1860. Of course, many had come before that but the influx over the decade increased the population of black people to about 60,000. I have read other estimates indicating that the number of fugitives was as high as 30,000. There are communities in my part of Canada that were founded by black Americans.

As for Harriet Tubman, she lived in Canada for ten years. We know that she was an escaped slave, an abolitionist and a conductor on the Underground Railroad. She lived in the town of St. Catherines which is not too far from Niagara Falls.

I think it incorrect to say that Harriet Tubman started the Underground Railroad. It was already in existence and she herself was aided in her escape by people who were working on the railroad so to speak. Once she reached Philadelphia she began to return to Maryland to assist others to escape.

She arrived in St. Catherines in 1851 in a group of 11 escaped slaves. At that time, there was a suspension bridge between the US (New York state) and Upper Canada that spanned the Niagara River and historians feel that she used that bridge. But there have been six suspension bridges built in different places along the river and some were destroyed. In 1850 there was a bridge at the narrowest part of the Niagara Gorge, right at the falls and a suspension bridge was built there. Perhaps that is the one that Tubman used to get to Upper Canada.

There are many historical reminders that Harriet Tubman once lived in St. Catherines and used it as her base as she slipped back into the US to assist more slaves to come to BNA and freedom. She worshipped at the Salem Chapel. Black people had been coming to the area since 1788 and this is where they worshipped.

An Elementary school is named after Tubman and there is a bronze statue of the freedom fighter. I think that the statue is at the school but I would have to check.

Relations between Canada (BNA) and the US were sometimes strained during this period as US slave owners would sometimes arrive on Canadian soil and demand the return of property. More likely, they would send slave catchers who were sometimes surrounded by groups of people who threatened them if they continued to seek anyone or a specific person.

The laws of Upper Canada did not compel the state to return any escaped slaves. They had not committed any crime by coming to BNA. However, there were cases whereby US authorities would claim that an escaped slave that they sought had committed an indictable offence in the US and was a fugitive from justice.

In one case, a man had killed a white man who had attempted to stop him while he was on the run. One US state requested extradition which was possible. The court in Upper Canada was going to send him back to the US and this annoyed many people in the province. When the man's lawyers appealed to a British court, the Canadian court of appeal reversed the decision.

So there was tension at times between the states of the US and the Canadian provinces.

These people were free in Upper Canada. They could own property and even vote if they met the strict requirements of the day. They could marry and have kids. None of that required permission.

But that did not mean that there wasn't discrimination here. White people were concerned that the black people would not be able to care for themselves and would become a burden. There was even a petition in Upper Canada that demanded that the government close the border to black people trying to escape.

There was discrimination but the fact that they were free men and women meant everything to them. And the concern about becoming a burden to society did not materialize.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/18/2022 8:39:05 PM
Hi George,

With the history of your country taking on so many slaves, & I know Canada is very much multi-cultural, so about what percentage of Canada is of some African decent??

Just curious?
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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/18/2022 9:31:18 PM
Quote:
Hi George,

With the history of your country taking on so many slaves, & I know Canada is very much multi-cultural, so about what percentage of Canada is of some African decent??

Just curious?
MD



The black population of Canada is about 3.5% of the population according to StatsCan. These include recent immigrants from Africa and descendants of Africans brought to the Caribbean and BNA as slaves. It is projected that by 2036, the black population will rise to 5% of the Canadian population.

Of all of the Canadians defined as visible minorities, the black people make up 15.6% of that group.

A small number of black Canadians have roots in the country that are older than the country itself as their ancestors came here after the American revolution. These are the black Loyalists and many live in Nova Scotia where they first arrived after leaving former 13 colonies.

But the black population is much more diverse than I have described.

Quote:
Top countries of birth of economic newcomers were: Nigeria, Haiti, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire and Jamaica.

Top countries of birth of new refugees were: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Haiti, Somalia and Ethiopia.
(Statscan)

Culturally, these people are very different. They may share the same skin tones but bring different accents and customs to the country.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/19/2022 3:17:32 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Hey guys,

these 9-15 topics? Any new posts??


1862 Stonewall Jackson takes Harper's Ferry from the Union!, the town was almost impossible to defend! & exchanged hands 8-10 times!? Why?.anyone??

1916 the Tank was 1st used as A weapon in WWI by the British! Who invented the Tank, & how effective was it in the World Wars? What say you??

1935 Hitler passes anti Jewish laws, anyone on why Germany & others hated the Jews so much??

1950 the Allies land on Inchon, SK. Who was behind this brilliant move to stem the tide against the Commies!?? We complain about MacArthur, but this was a brilliant military strategy! Comments on Korea, anyone?


& in 9-16 check this out, & comment!?

1320 Charles V dies after leading France in the 100 yrs war! Was it really 100 years, any comments on the full history of the conflict, It's other name, & its effect!? Anyone??

Regards!
MD



& checking 9-17 in history we find these!?

1787, 39 delegates sign the US Constitution! Do you think today, some of the Constitution is outdated for modern situations!? Anyone?

1862 the Union defeats the Confederate ANV in the battle of Antietam, after finding Lee's battle plan! Comments on it's effects? Anyone??

1939 USSR invades Poland! Why? Was Poland a Russian enemy? Then why invade them? What say you??

1991 both North, & South Korea admitted to the UN!? How is this working out??

& on 9-18

Scotty Bowman great NHL coach was born, 1933! He won 9 Stanley Cups! Was he the best hockey coach? I was lucky to personally talk to Coach Bowman!

1898 Sir HH Kitchener is advancing in the Sudan! Later he is responsible for some horrific set backs for the Brits.! What say you? Was he a good commander or not??

1931 the Japanese sieze parts of Manchuria! Why? & could they have been stopped?? Anyone?

2014 Scottish voters reject becoming an independent country!? I thought the Scots always wanted freedom, Why then? Thanks George, the Scots are a proud fearless nation, I would have thought they would want Independence??

2020 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg dies, she begs the coming lame duck President to wait for a more fair replacement, & is rejected! Is today's SC fair & balanced?? Comments?

9-19 George Washington warns the US to stay out of foreign affairs! Have they listened?? Comments?

Sieze the day!
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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/19/2022 7:29:27 PM
Quote:
2014 Scottish voters reject becoming an independent country!? I thought the Scots always wanted freedom, Why then? Thanks George, the Scots are a proud fearless nation, I would have thought they would want Independence??


Hi Dave, I would say that the Scots are no less proud of their culture for having elected to be part of a union of countries called the UK.

The countries of the Commonwealth of Nation are all individually proud of their countries and their cultures and yet they see value in voluntary membership in an association that expresses values that all members can share.

My own country is independent and proud and when appropriate is willing to fight for what it believes in or against injustice and yet we honour our past by embracing the monarch from a country that helped build us and define us. That association has given us stability.

Cheers,

George



Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/20/2022 12:33:52 PM
NEW TOPICS

& on 9-18 In history!?

Scotty Bowman great NHL coach was born, 1933! He won 9 Stanley Cups! Was he the best hockey coach? I was lucky to personally talk to Coach Bowman! He said will you "shut up and get out of my way"!? & I said ok! ☺

1898 Sir HH Kitchener is advancing in the Sudan! Later he is responsible for some horrific set backs for the Brits.! What say you? Was he a good commander or not??

1931 the Japanese sieze parts of Manchuria! Why? & could they have been stopped?? Anyone??

2020 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg dies, she begs the coming lame duck President to wait for a more fair replacement, & is rejected! Is today's SC fair & balanced?? Comments?

9-19 in history,

1796 George Washington warns the US to stay out of foreign affairs! Have they listened?? Comments?

1863 the battle of Chickamauga is won by the Rebs. Or was it!? Who won & How did they manage??

& on 9-20 in history the following occurred, any new topics, anyone??

1519 Magellan starts his circumnavigation of the world he is killed in the Philippines! What happened??

1792 France has it's 1st Republic! What is this about? Anyone??

1854 the French & British beat Russia in the Crimea! What's it's significance? What say you??

2017 Hurricane Maria strikes Porto Rico now another major Hurricane has hit them!? Is our world messed up by climate change causing this?? What say you??

Regards,
MD

As always, Sieze the day!




BTW George speaking of the late Queen, I didn't notice the flags of the various Commonwealth countries flying at the ceremony? It would have been a nice touch? But sorry for your loss!?
----------------------------------
"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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/20/2022 3:39:08 PM
Quote:
BTW George speaking of the late Queen, I didn't notice the flags of the various Commonwealth countries flying at the ceremony? It would have been a nice touch? But sorry for your loss!?


Hi Dave. I'm pretty sure that the flags of the Commonwealth were flying.

No matter. Representatives of the militaries of Canada, Australia and New Zealand marched in the processional.

Australians


New Zealand



And it was led by these men and women.




Apparently the Queen had considerable input as to the arrangements for her funeral. And she requested that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be involved. The Queen was quite the horse lover and over the years the RCMP has given her a number of horses, many of whom were trained to be part of the RCMP Musical Ride. The Queen rode one of those horses at special events for years. The horse's name was Burmese. I believe that the four horses that the Mounties were riding had been gifted to the Queen.

I don't suppose that one should feel pride at seeing one's countrymen serving as part of a funeral procession but hell yes, I was.

So the Commonwealth was there to honour their Queen and Canadian Forces personnel commented that they were honoured to do so.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/20/2022 9:22:40 PM
Hi George,

Just curious what relationship do you think the 1st Nations had on the Queen, & now the Monarchy??

Thanks,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
MikeMeech
 UK
Posts: 528
Joined: 2012
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2022 2:16:22 AM



BTW George speaking of the late Queen, I didn't notice the flags of the various Commonwealth countries flying at the ceremony? It would have been a nice touch? But sorry for your loss!?


Hi

There were flags of the Commonwealth Nations around Parliament Square just outside Westminster Abbey, so quite visible during the 'Lying in State' as well as the funeral.

Mike
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2022 8:43:30 AM
Quote:
Hi George,

Just curious what relationship do you think the 1st Nations had on the Queen, & now the Monarchy??

Thanks,
MD


Many of the First Nations consider that they were coerced into leaving their land in the signing of treaties with the crown whether it be the British crown or Government of Canada in whom the Royal Prerogative is vested.

And so some feel that the crown and Canada have not honoured those treaties. At least, we must acknowledge that the FN's interpret the intent and substance of the treaties differently than do the Europeans with whom they negotiated.

Early in our history the British established residential schools and FN kids were forced to attend them, often hundreds of kilometres from their homes. The survivors, as they are called, of these schools have told stories of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the members of the religious orders that operated the schools which were financially supported by the government. Many of the children spent 8 years or more in attendance without ever going home to the family.

There has been inter-generational trauma caused by these residential schools and psychological trauma for the victims and their families.

On a few of the sites of these schools the bodies of hundreds of people were found buried in now unmarked graves. In most cases these will be FN children who died while attending school.

As you can imagine, the FN are upset and angry about these discoveries. I would say that all Canadians share their concern and grief.

Queen Elizabeth and our new monarch, King Charles III are fully aware of the fact that while colonization has produced a wonderful country called Canada, there was a human cost. The original inhabitants of these lands were moved to reserves where they thought that they would share in the bounty of the land on an equal basis with the new people who had arrived in North America. That has proved not to have been realized.

And so they feel duped and used and victims of a cultural genocide. FN leaders have asked for a formal apology from the Crown and recently did so when then Prince Charles was touring Canada in May of this year. Charles did make note in a speech that he is cognizant of the horrors visited upon FN children in the residential schools.

Still many FN people did honour the service given by the late monarch. They respect her for the life that she led but are angry that the crown, whether it be when the British were in charge or currently when Canada is in charge, was responsible for the destruction of their cultures.

Ironically in war time many FN warriors volunteered to serve in British and Canadian wars. The Mohawks who live near my home are proud of their service to the crown from the earliest days to the War in Afghanistan. After WW1, a Mohawk chief explained that they were proud of their veterans of the Canadian Corps and pleased that their warriors had not lost their fighting spirit. He explained that they had made a treaty with the British crown and if the crown needed their help, they would offer it.

In addition to an apology they are asking King Charles to renounce the "doctrine of discovery". That doctrine which many of the Christian European nations followed was an accepted international law that gave the Europeans the right to claim land that was not occupied by Christians. The Doctrine of Discovery justified the acquisition of colonial lands. It has never been repudiated by the British crown.

Note that Canada has officially rejected the doctrine of discovery as part of our slow moving attempt at reconciliation. The Canadian government called the doctrine:

Quote:
"racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,


The FN want to hear that from King Charles. Any new relationship with our First Nations will be up to Canada and we are working on reconciliation right now.

Cheers,

George



Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2022 10:36:26 AM
Hi George,

I happened to watch a Netflix movie on what I thought was 1st Nations doing well in hockey! But it turned out to be a very eye opening abuse of 1st Nations children by a Catholic school in NW Canada! It was called " Indian Horse"! As a state sider I was shocked by it!? Supposedly a true story, horrific, I can see how the 1st Nations feel! Of course the US was also very abusive! So I'm not pointing fingers!? Have you seen it? Comments?

Sad treatment!
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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2022 11:24:50 AM
Quote:
Hi George,

I happened to watch a Netflix movie on what I thought was 1st Nations doing well in hockey! But it turned out to be a very eye opening abuse of 1st Nations children by a Catholic school in NW Canada! It was called " Indian Horse"! As a state sider I was shocked by it!? Supposedly a true story, horrific, I can see how the 1st Nations feel! Of course the US was also very abusive! So I'm not pointing fingers!? Have you seen it? Comments?

Sad treatment!
MD


Yes, I have seen it. It was released before the discovery of the burial sites at various schools across the country. The Roman Catholic church operated most of these schools. But the Anglican Church of Canada did as well. Presbyterians and Methodist had a few as well.

Funding for the school was largely from the federal government with assistance from the churches.

The British established some of these schools in 1831 prior to Confederation. Canada was influenced by the US model of Indian boarding schools and in particular the Carlisle Indian Industrial School.

Recently there have been American Indians who have reported sexual abuse in their boarding schools.

The objective was to assimilate FN kids into the broader European culture. Unfortunately, there was no recognition that these people already had cultures and values and beliefs.

Quote from our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald

Quote:
"When the school is on the reserve, the child lives with its parents, who are savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits and training mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly impressed upon myself, as head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men." 1879


Cheers,

George



George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2022 2:05:20 PM
Quote:



BTW George speaking of the late Queen, I didn't notice the flags of the various Commonwealth countries flying at the ceremony? It would have been a nice touch? But sorry for your loss!?


Hi

There were flags of the Commonwealth Nations around Parliament Square just outside Westminster Abbey, so quite visible during the 'Lying in State' as well as the funeral.

Mike


Thanks Mike. I saw the flags but was unsure of where they had been raised.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/22/2022 5:38:18 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Hi George,

I happened to watch a Netflix movie on what I thought was 1st Nations doing well in hockey! But it turned out to be a very eye opening abuse of 1st Nations children by a Catholic school in NW Canada! It was called " Indian Horse"! As a state sider I was shocked by it!? Supposedly a true story, horrific, I can see how the 1st Nations feel! Of course the US was also very abusive! So I'm not pointing fingers!? Have you seen it? Comments?

Sad treatment!
MD


Yes, I have seen it. It was released before the discovery of the burial sites at various schools across the country. The Roman Catholic church operated most of these schools. But the Anglican Church of Canada did as well. Presbyterians and Methodist had a few as well.

Funding for the school was largely from the federal government with assistance from the churches.

The British established some of these schools in 1831 prior to Confederation. Canada was influenced by the US model of Indian boarding schools and in particular the Carlisle Indian Industrial School.

Recently there have been American Indians who have reported sexual abuse in their boarding schools.

The objective was to assimilate FN kids into the broader European culture. Unfortunately, there was no recognition that these people already had cultures and values and beliefs.

Quote from our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald

Quote:
"When the school is on the reserve, the child lives with its parents, who are savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits and training mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly impressed upon myself, as head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men." 1879


Cheers,

George






George,

I just lost a lot of respect for PM John A. MacDonald!

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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/22/2022 9:32:21 PM
Quote:
George,

I just lost a lot of respect for PM John A. MacDonald!

MD


So have a lot of people in Canada. People are forgetting that men like Sir John A. were products of their time, as are we. The FN were viewed as savages. When the Europeans arrived, they were accompanied by priests who saw an opportunity to covert these savages.

Macdonald and others were convinced that unless Canada wanted to be supporting the First Nations forever, it would be necessary to "drive the Indian out of the Indian". I believe that they thought that they were doing the right thing.

With the discovery of the graves of kids at some of these schools, names of people like Macdonald have been raked over the coals. Statues have come down. Names of universities and streets have been changed. And it is not just Macdonald.

Ryerson University in Toronto was named after Egerton Ryerson who had a great deal to do with the development of the public education system. But he also had something to do with residential schools. And so anything that he did that was positive is ignored because he was a residential school supporter. Ryerson University is now called Toronto Metropolitan University.



As for Sir John A. Macdonald, in my estimation he was the driving force that compelled two other British colonies, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to unite with the United Province of Canada (Ontario and Québec) to form the Dominion of Canada. He is a compelling figure and the country of Canada likely could not have been formed without him. By our standards his attitude toward the FN was unconscionable. In 1867, if you were a white person, perhaps you would be supportive of his plan for the FN.

However, if you love this country and what it stands for then you owe a debt of gratitude to Sir John A. Macdonald, our racist first Prime Minister.

Cheers,

George
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/22/2022 9:43:16 PM
MD, he wasn’t the best of human beings, perhaps, but he was not so different in his attitudes towards Canada’s FN from many of his contemporaries.Oddly, he ws once the MP for Victoria, though he never visited Victoria till after his term as MP expired. About 5 years ago, his statue was removed from the front of Victoria City Hall, after negotiations with First Nations representatives. Now, at the end of our mayor’s term of office, they are talking about bringing old John A back. I guess maybe the desire to remove him came more from Council than from First Nations.    

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: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/22/2022 10:34:08 PM
On this date in 1914, the MHS Aboukir, HMS Cressy and HMS Hogue, three rather antiquated RN cruisers, were sunk within the space of an hour. The weapon was U-9, a German U-boat. Some 1,400 officers and matelots died in that hour. It is not a well-advertised bit of history, for good reason.

I’ve always felt that, to some extent, the responsibility for the loss of three such ships in such a short time frame falls directly with RN notional values and beliefs. History.com, which discusses the losses, writes: Quote:
The one-sided battle, during which 1,400 British sailors lost their lives, alerted the British to the deadly effectiveness of the submarine, which had been generally unrecognized up to that time.”
It seems to me, that is kind beyond reason. The RN was fully aware of the threat generated by submarines, but senior officers refused to believe such a weapon would be used. To do so would be “ungentlemanly”. So when the first of the cruisers was hit, the assumption was a mine strike: the two other cruisers eased off to launch rescue attempts, thus making themselves perfect targets that were perfectly attacked.

IIUC, the loss of Aboukir, Cressy and Hogue brought about some rapid rethinking, though there was little available to fight the U-boat menace. Increased destroyer screens helped, since many U-boat shots were (I believe) surface assaults. And the creation of Q-ships had some success.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/22/2022 11:21:54 PM
The U-boat threat would lead to massive production of US destroyers. The upshot of that was we had fifty four stackers available to lend to the RN so their modern destroyers could do convoy and escort work afield.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 12:37:55 AM
OP, I agree. And they came in handy, though they were notoriously “wet” boats. But that was in WW2, and to be honest I don’t think they were on loan, but were traded for naval bases in perpetuity in Bermuda or Bahamas.

IIUC, until the development of listening devices destroyers were the best defense against U-boats, which typically were seen as submersibles rather than submarines. Even as late as 1941, many U-boat attacks were conducted as surface attacks; the boats would dive after striking to evade attack. Am I wrong in this understanding?

In WW1, submarine warfare was largely short-range work. U-boats had short legs. Nevertheless, until the RN introduced convoying (when was that? 1917?) there was no effective way to reduce losses of single vessels sailing independently. And the German Imperial Navy continued to improve the capabilities of their U-boats to such an extent that the British blockades of German ports was being counterbalanced by the U-boat impact on British needed imports.

Between the wars, GB introduced various classes of destroyers, some of which were both powerful for their size and beautiful in design. But these were seen to a large extent to be screens for capital ships, which the Admiralty may have over-rated and over-feared. But the ships designed to provide convoy escort were in no way capable of being adequate to the task. The corvettes were not deep-water ships, could not carry weapony sufficient to any attack against a surfaced U-boat, and were so slow they could not chase down a surfaced U-boat.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Page 23 of 115 (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   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )

© 2024 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC