MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 31 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
10/24/2022 7:41:40 PM
Quote:
Is this correct; Quote:
1917, In 1 battle 600,00 Italians surrendered!


I am reading that was the total of Italian soldiers who were PoW's during the war. Of which, talk about mistreatment of its citizen soldiers, the Italian military commands were tyrannical in their command care for the troops and inept with leadership abilities. It is astounding how poorly Italian soldiers lived in the Alps, and their fighting capacities were exacting in logistics, performance and capabilities.

Luigi Cadorna, a so-called Marshall of Italy was capable of one thing only, killing his fellow citizens wether they be a front line dogface or an officer, it mattered not to him. He is, IMO, ranked as one of the worst military leaders of WWI (if not the worst) and of all time.




Would that be at Caporetto? The Italians were actually having some success when they were fighting the Austro-Hungarian troops so Germany decided that it had better join in.

The Italians collapsed in the face of the combined attack that used storm trooper tactics along with gas and flame throwers. And yes thousands surrendered or deserted.

The Italian defeat shocked the allies and both the French (6 divisions) and the British (5) were forced to send troops. Tons of air support too. The Italian Chief of Staff lost his job.

During the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles, the Italians made some demands as per the Treaty of London. They wanted territory that had been part of the A-H Empire including islands and land along the Adriatic Coast. The Italians thought that the treaty was binding.

The Italians stomped off but returned a few days later. The other partners didn't want to honour the Treaty of London because Italy hadn't earned it.

The Big 3 were upset that Italy had become an unproductive partner that needed an intervention to keep it in the war. Britain and France had had to divert assets to assist and weren't happy about that. US Pres. Wilson thought that the Italians demands weren't consistent with his 14 points especially the part about self-determination. Italy wanted land that other ethnic groups occupied.

Realizing that their position was week, the Italian delegation returned. They got some land in areas like the Tyrol where there were already Italians living and they got some money in reparations from Germany and a loan from the US.

Still even after Caporetto, the Italian army did have some success. Though beaten up badly, they stopped an A-H advance at a famous mountain whose name escapes me. I guess that wasn't enough to please their allies.

Cheers,

George
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 9:43:45 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Is this correct; Quote:
1917, In 1 battle 600,00 Italians surrendered!


I am reading that was the total of Italian soldiers who were PoW's during the war. Of which, talk about mistreatment of its citizen soldiers, the Italian military commands were tyrannical in their command care for the troops and inept with leadership abilities. It is astounding how poorly Italian soldiers lived in the Alps, and their fighting capacities were exacting in logistics, performance and capabilities.

Luigi Cadorna, a so-called Marshall of Italy was capable of one thing only, killing his fellow citizens wether they be a front line dogface or an officer, it mattered not to him. He is, IMO, ranked as one of the worst military leaders of WWI (if not the worst) and of all time.

Would that be at Caporetto? The Italians were actually having some success when they were fighting the Austro-Hungarian troops so Germany decided that it had better join in.

The Italians collapsed in the face of the combined attack that used storm trooper tactics along with gas and flame throwers. And yes thousands surrendered or deserted.

The Italian defeat shocked the allies and both the French (6 divisions) and the British (5) were forced to send troops. Tons of air support too. The Italian Chief of Staff lost his job.

Still even after Caporetto, the Italian army did have some success. Though beaten up badly, they stopped an A-H advance at a famous mountain whose name escapes me. I guess that wasn't enough to please their allies.

Cheers,

George


At the end of the Caporetto battle, the Italian remained a wreck within, all again due to Cadorna. According to; The White War: Life and Death on the Italian Front 1915-1919 author Mark Thompson states; "The Italians lost nearly 12,000 dead, 30,000 wounded and 294,000 prisoners. In addition, there were 350,000 disbanded men, roaming around and making for home." He further states; "only half of the Army's 65 divisions survived intact", with an abundance of lost weaponry and, "14,000 square kilometers were lost, with a population of 1,150.000 people."

How then did Italy survive this national disaster of military blundering led by Cadorna? German guns and troops were moved in November from the Italian region to the western Front. Then the allies arrived providing strategic reserves, munitions, coal and food supplies, etc. It was at this point that the Austrians were on their own again, but know the odds and time were as much the enemy as the French, Brits and Italian soldiers were.

As the old saying may have gone, 'Well, that's all Caporettto-upped'.


----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 3:33:40 AM
DT509er and George,

The Italian experience in 1915-18 was appalling.

But it was the nation’s only triumphant narrative in warfare since its establishment in 1859, unless you consider their onslaught against Libyans and Abyssinians as triumphant.

I remember looking at the statistics in that Urlanis table that I cited, and being taken back at how heavy Italian losses were.

Six hundred thousand of them were indeed captured during WW1, nearly half of them at Caporreto.

Their ordeal in captivity was fatal to ninety thousand of them.

On the battlefield itself, they lost nearly half a million killed and close to a million were left wounded or gassed. Nearly one hundred thousand more died as invalids in the year and a half after the end of the war.

It’s a wonder that the Italian soldiers fought as bravely as they did, given the way they were treated.

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
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 6:30:55 AM
On October 25, 1774, the First Continental Congress sends a respectful petition to King George III to inform his majesty that if it had not been for the acts of oppression forced upon the colonies by the British Parliament, the American people would be standing behind British rule.​

Despite the anger that the American public felt towards the United Kingdom after the British Parliament established the Coercive Acts—called the Intolerable Acts by the colonists—Congress was still willing to assert its loyalty to the king. In return for this loyalty, Congress asked the king to address and resolve the specific grievances of the colonies. The petition, written by Continental Congressman John Dickinson, laid out what Congress felt was undue oppression of the colonies by the British Parliament. Their grievances mainly had to do with the Coercive Acts, a series of four acts that were established to punish colonists and to restore order in Massachusettsfollowing the Boston Tea Party.


The first of the Coercive Acts was the Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston to all colonists until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid. The second, the Massachusetts Government Act, gave the British government total control of town meetings, taking all decisions out of the hands of the colonists. The third, the Administration of Justice Act, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America and the fourth, the Quartering Act, required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in private homes as a last resort.

The king did not respond to the petition to Congress’ satisfaction and eight months later on July 6, 1775, the Second Continental Congress adopted a resolution entitled “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.” Written by John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson, the resolution laid out the reasons for taking up arms and starting a violent revolution against British rule of the colonies.​

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 7:25:37 AM
Many fine words were written about the need to rebel against British oppression and yet those coercive acts do not seem that onerous.

The British had spent a lot of blood and money in the protection of the British colonies during the French and Indian Wars and expected that the colonists would absorb a share of the costs of driving the French out of most of North America. And so I fail to se how minimal taxation is that provocative.

Add the Québec Act of 1774 and we may see some idea of the true motivation of the leaders of the revolution.

The response to the Québec Act was partly because of disdain for the RC population of Québec but with anger that the act would curtail land speculation to the west of the Alleghenies.

And so I think it a fair question to ask how much of the revolution was motivated by economics and the desire to be free of the British mercantilist system? There are certainly cultural and political factors at play but the influence upon the fomenters of revolution was also likely the desire for economic freedom. How many of the founders were businessmen, traders and indeed, involved in illegal smuggling?

There seems to be little doubt that the revolution altered business practices in the 13 colonies. Prior to the revolution, colonies tended to specialize. After the revolution interstate commerce began to flourish. Just one example. Private land ownership and mineral rights increased.

As an outsider I like to take a more sanguine rather than emotional approach to discussions about this revolution. The US narrative is always that the 13 colonies were oppressed and subjugated to the rule of a tyrant. I don't see how what have been called the Intolerable Acts were actually all that oppressive at all.

As for the British crown, I think that they should have realized that their subjects in North America deserved greater autonomy and perhaps a modification to the mercantilist system that allowed some freer trade in some specific products. Perhaps independence would have arrived anyway but in an evolutionary manner rather than revolutionary.

I also wonder whether those that had to convince the less educated that they were oppressed were motivated themselves by a desire to alter the economic system.

George

NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 7:41:27 AM
All these acts were considered the Intolerable Acts.

The Boston Port Act was the first of the laws passed in 1774 in response to the Boston Tea Party. It closed the port of Boston until the colonists paid for the destroyed tea and the king was satisfied that order had been restored. Colonists objected that the Port Act punished all of Boston rather than just the individuals who had destroyed the tea, and that they were being punished without having been given an opportunity to testify in their own defense.


The Massachusetts Government Act provoked even more outrage than the Port Act because it unilaterally took away Massachusetts' charter and brought it under control of the British government. Under the terms of the Government Act, almost all positions in the colonial government were to be appointed by the governor, Parliament, or king. The act also severely limited town meetings in Massachusetts to one per year, unless the Governor called for one. Colonists outside Massachusetts feared that their governments could now also be changed by the legislative fiat of Parliament.


The Administration of Justice Act allowed the Royal governor to order trials of accused royal officials to take place in Great Britain or elsewhere within the Empire if he decided that the defendant could not get a fair trial in Massachusetts. Although the act stipulated for witnesses to be reimbursed after having traveled at their own expense across the Atlantic, it was not stipulated that this would include reimbursement for lost earnings during the period for which they would be unable to work, leaving few with the ability to testify. George Washington called this the "Murder Act" because he believed that it allowed British officials to harass Americans and then escape justice.[5] Many colonists believed the act was unnecessary because British soldiers had been given a fair trial following the Boston Massacre in 1770.

The Quartering Act, which applied to all British colonies in North America, sought to create a more effective method of housing British troops. In a previous act, the colonies had been required to provide housing for soldiers, but colonial legislatures had been uncooperative in doing so. The new Quartering Act allowed a governor to house soldiers in other buildings if suitable quarters were not provided. While many sources claim that the Quartering Act allowed troops to be billeted in occupied private homes, historian David Ammerman's 1974 study claimed that this is a myth, and that the act only permitted troops to be quartered in unoccupied buildings.


Although unrelated to the aforementioned Acts, the Quebec Act, passed in the same Parliamentary session, was considered by the colonists to be one of the Intolerable Acts. The Act expanded the territory of the Province of Quebec into much of what is now the American Midwest, which appeared to void the land claims of the Ohio Company on the region. The guarantee of free practice of Catholicism, the majority religion in Canada, was seen by colonists as an "establishment" of the faith in the colonies which were overwhelmingly Protestant. Furthermore, colonists resented the lenient provisions granted to their erstwhile enemies whom they had fought hard against during the French and Indian War.


As the Colonists had no representation in Parliament and no recourse, the only way they could be heard was to petition the King.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 8:19:19 AM
Thanks NYG. I am aware of the Intolerable or Coercive Acts. Two of them were directed at Massachusetts because those people didn't like to pay taxes.

None of the four seem sufficiently egregious to warrant violence.

Quote:
Although unrelated to the aforementioned Acts, the Quebec Act, passed in the same Parliamentary session, was considered by the colonists to be one of the Intolerable Acts. The Act expanded the territory of the Province of Quebec into much of what is now the American Midwest, which appeared to void the land claims of the Ohio Company on the region. The guarantee of free practice of Catholicism, the majority religion in Canada, was seen by colonists as an "establishment" of the faith in the colonies which were overwhelmingly Protestant. Furthermore, colonists resented the lenient provisions granted to their erstwhile enemies whom they had fought hard against during the French and Indian War.


I had already alluded to the bigotry associated with the Québec Act. Other than Maryland which was founded by RC's I believe, there was resentment of the Quebeckers. As well, the 13 colonists would have had no problem to remember that they had been at war with these French people a little over a decade before.

As an aside, the American revolution may be seen as a betrayal of the mother country which spent a fortune and lost a lot of men to rid the colonies of the scourge of predations from the French and their First Nations allies. Hence the need to raise some money for taxes from the people that they had protected and fought for. And with, I must add. Colonial troops did fight the French as well but it was British forces in the main that defeated the French at the Plains of Abraham. However, I will add that two regiments that had been raised in NA were on the field of battle as well.

Why would the Ohio Company have any claims to land in the Ohio Valley. The British had banned land speculation with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. That Proclamation officially claimed these lands for the British crown and they wished to designate it as a home for the Indian tribes, many of whom had been harassing the colonists for years as allies of the French.

Britain did not wish to have to protect settlers in that area as it would have been costly. In the end, those settlers would insist that the Indians be moved or destroyed. That was after the revolution of course.

And that proclamation certainly upset land speculators from Virginia especially. Was George Washington one of them?

Certainly with the defeat of the French, the colonists thought that the lands to the west were wide open and free to be settled upon.
The British had other ideas. I think that the British restricted the business people with the proclamation and that led to discontent more than anything else.

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 8:36:28 AM
Many colonists saw the Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts) as a violation of their constitutional rights, their natural rights, and their colonial charters. They, therefore, viewed the acts as a threat to the liberties of all of British America, not just Massachusetts.

The acts only served to distance the colonies from the Crown, create sympathy for Massachusetts and encouraged colonists from the otherwise diverse colonies to form committees of correspondence which sent delegates to the First Continental Congress.

At the time, the 13 colonies were each distinct and really had no bond between them What the Intolerable Acts did was to unite the colonies via those committees of correspondence in a way that had never been united before.

Also the colonists were very much aware of the plight of John Wilkes who was denied his sear in Parliament.
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 9:12:49 AM
October Revolution around here somewhere.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 9:20:33 AM
Quote:
Many colonists saw the Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts) as a violation of their constitutional rights, their natural rights, and their colonial charters. They, therefore, viewed the acts as a threat to the liberties of all of British America, not just Massachusetts.


Which constitutional rights would those be? The colonists did have the rights of Englishmen as described as early as the Magna Carta. Which of those rights did the colonists consider to be violated by the Intolerable Acts?

How many colonists were sufficiently educated to have a thought about natural rights as described by John Locke? Someone would have had to put that bug in their ear.

And how many of the colonies were charter colonies and how many were proprietary? I would think that the conditions under which the colony was founded would also determine whether the Intolerable Acts violated those conditions. Just wondering.

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 9:42:15 AM
Quote:


Which constitutional rights would those be? The right to a trial by jury. Many colonists felt that they should not pay these taxes, because they were passed in England by Parliament, not by their own colonial governments.

Here are 20 or so mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2019/07/the-declaration-of-independence-the-twenty-seven-grievances/






How many colonists were sufficiently educated to have a thought about natural rights as described by John Locke? Enough colonists to declare Independence. And do you have to be educated to understand Locke? Locke’s influence appears in countless speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers. For instance, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress – which was written two years prior to the Declaration of Independence by authors such as John Adams and George Washington – quotes Locke almost verbatim in resolving “[Colonists] are entitled to life, liberty and property.”

And how many of the colonies were charter colonies and how many were proprietary? I would think that the conditions under which the colony was founded would also determine whether the Intolerable Acts violated those conditions. Just wondering. All colonial charters guaranteed to the colonists the vague rights and privileges of Englishmen,

George

NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 11:00:10 AM
The English responded that the Colonists were represented in Parliament by virtual representation. The British government argued instead that the colonists enjoyed virtual representation, that they were represented in Parliament in the same way as the thousands of British subjects who did not have the vote, or towns not represented in Parliament, such as Birmingham and Manchester.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 1:09:04 PM
Guys,

Check 10-24 in history!? Comments, & posts, anyone??

1929 Stock market crashes, Black Thursday! How close are we to this happening again?? What to do with your retirement!? Anyone??

1922 Benito Mussolini becomes dictator of Italy! How did he & Hitler hit it off?? Comments?

1945 the UN s founded! Has it really done much to curb terrorism!? What say you??

1992 the Toronto Blue Jay's win the World Series over Atlanta! The only non US team to do it!? What did it mean to Canada? Do you remember this team?? Anyone??

& today 10-25 in history,

1415 the English beat the French again n he battle of Agincourt! They must tire over beating the French all the time!? What say you??

1774 the Intolerable Acts put fuel to the fire! Why were they so intolerable to the Colonists? Do you agree!? Anyone?

1936 the Berlin- Axis is formed! Was it an effective alliance?? Comments anyone??

1950 Red China joins with N. Korea to fight the Allies in Korea! How did this effect the Korean War? Anyone??

1983 under President Reagan, the US invades the tiny Island of Grenada! Why? Was it justified!? Comments!?

New events to discuss? Anyone??
Cheers,
MD

----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 3:07:35 PM
Agincourt : what say I ?

In my dreams!

“ We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to- day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother……

….And gentlemen now a bed in England

Shall think themselves accurs’d

They were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap…”

Thank goodness I’m able to stay in bed and hold my manhood !

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
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 3:14:50 PM
Quote:


Which constitutional rights would those be? The right to a trial by jury. Many colonists felt that they should not pay these taxes, because they were passed in England by Parliament, not by their own colonial governments.

Here are 20 or so mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2019/07/the-declaration-of-independence-the-twenty-seven-grievances/


NYG, the Rights of Englishmen as first guaranteed by the greatest constitutional document because all other freedoms and freedom documents were derived from it, the Magna Carta. I would go so far as to say that when the colonists rebelled, they were angry that their rights as Englishmen had been ignored.

Quote:
Article 12 of the Magna Carta: “No scutage or aid is to be levied in our realm except by the common counsel of our realm.”
. Or, more simply, "No taxation without representation".

There were 63 articles in Magna Carta and a full translation is available. Other than article 12 above, some of the most important guarantees are:

No new taxes unless a common counsel agrees

All free men have the right to justice and a fair trial with a jury

The Monarch doesn’t have absolute power. The Law is above all men and applies to everyone equally

All free citizens can own and inherit property

Widows who own property don’t have to remarry


This led to further codification in laws:

1679. Habeas Corpus: You can't lock people up unfairly

1689. English Bill of Rights:

Established that there must be frequent Parliaments. Free elections. Freedom of speech in Parliament.
No right of taxation without Parliamentary approval.
Freedom from government interference
Right of petition and fair treatment by the courts
Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment

These were the Rights of Englishmen in the 13 colonies.

Why did you send me a link to the Declaration of Independence which wasn't written until 1776? The colonists of NA were supposed to have the Rights of Englishmen.

It could be enlightening to compare and contrast the two documents. One clear difference is that the Declaration of Independence does not recognize the role of the monarch in the government.

Other than that, what are the differences and similarities?




Quote:
And how many of the colonies were charter colonies and how many were proprietary? I would think that the conditions under which the colony was founded would also determine whether the Intolerable Acts violated those conditions. Just wondering.
George

All colonial charters guaranteed to the colonists the vague rights and privileges of Englishmen,

Not my point. I was wondering whether a colony that was designated as proprietary rather than a charter colony, that is owned by someone other than the crown, was subject to a different set of rules that affected the relationship of the proprietary colony to the crown and that the coercive acts could not be applied there. Therefore, no harm and no foul in those colonies. Just thinking out loud here.

George

EDIT: NYG, in the Help section there is instruction on how to include a link so that people don't have to transfer the url to another spot. Any time that you have seen "READ MORE", the poster has created a faster way to link to an article.


NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 3:35:56 PM
The Declaration of Independence enumerated how the King and Parliament abrogated the rights of the Colonists who considered themselves Englishmen.

Also, They felt that they were paying taxes to a government where they had no representation. They were also angry because the colonists were forced to let British soldiers sleep and eat in their homes.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 3:39:13 PM
Proprietary colonies:

These were grants of land given to individuals or groups. The crown may have given it as a gift for some debt owed. So the title to the land was in the name of a person or group and not in the name of the crown.

The proprietor was the boss and made laws, could rule by decree and could settle the colony as he saw fit.
He could even raise money by demanding that the settlers pay yearly land fees in addition to what they had paid for land in the first place.

By the 1720's the people in some of the colonies were complaining about the management arrangement and most of the colonies had become Royal charter colonies except for Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware which were still proprietary colonies at the start of the revolution.

So my question is whether the so called Intolerable Acts also impacted these three proprietary colonies and for those with more knowledge than I about this revolution, were these three colonies any less or more committed to the revolution? Were the three full of Loyalists any more so than the Royal Charter Colonies?

These may seem to be obscure questions but I do wonder just how widely spread this revolutionary zeal really was or whether there were rebellious hot spots and Loyalist hot spots.

Cheers,

George



NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 4:11:53 PM
Colonists responded to the Intolerable Acts with a show of unity, convening the First Continental Congress to discuss and negotiate a unified approach to the British. The feeling was if this could happen to Boston, it could happen to us too.

Loyalists were prominent in some communities. And in certain areas, the War developed into a CivilWar. I know in the Mohawk Valley, the Johnsons and the Butlers recruited neighbors and Indians to accompany raids into the Valley

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 4:42:39 PM
Quote:
Colonists responded to the Intolerable Acts with a show of unity, convening the First Continental Congress to discuss and negotiate a unified approach to the British. The feeling was if this could happen to Boston, it could happen to us too.

Loyalists were prominent in some communities. And in certain areas, the War developed into a CivilWar. I know in the Mohawk Valley, the Johnsons and the Butlers recruited neighbors and Indians to accompany raids into the Valley



The only one of the coercive acts to apply to all the colonies was the Quartering Act. I believe that two of the acts applied only to Massachusetts because that colony owed money to the tea company whose product some of them destroyed. And one of the colonies, Georgia did not bother to attend the First Continental Congress.

It seems to me that the declaration of the Continental Congress was a re-statement of rights already had as Englishmen. True?

Although the representatives did want to repeal the Québec Act, upset that it had guaranteed the right of French-Canadians to worship in the RC faith.

So what was the purpose behind the First Continental Congress? What did they hope to attain?

NYG, the first sentence in your response was a cut and paste from [Read More].

Many people provide information from other sources but do cite those sources. It is academically dishonest to cut and paste and present text as if it was your own words. It is not an onerous task to do so and it doesn't have be in any recognized academic format. We aren't writing essays here. Just let us know that the words aren't yours.

So I would like to know just how unified the British colonies were when they arrived at the site of the First Continental Congress. Were they up in arms? Were some colonies more agitated than others? Were the representatives of some colonies less than enamoured with the wording of the document?

George


Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 4:46:37 PM
What was it about Massachusetts that made it such a hotbed of rebellion ?

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
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 4:55:19 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Colonists responded to the Intolerable Acts with a show of unity, convening the First Continental Congress to discuss and negotiate a unified approach to the British. The feeling was if this could happen to Boston, it could happen to us too.

Loyalists were prominent in some communities. And in certain areas, the War developed into a CivilWar. I know in the Mohawk Valley, the Johnsons and the Butlers recruited neighbors and Indians to accompany raids into the Valley



The only one of the coercive acts to apply to all the colonies was the Quartering Act. I believe that two of the acts applied only to Massachusetts because that colony owed money to the tea company whose product some of them destroyed. And one of the colonies, Georgia did not bother to attend the First Continental Congress.

It seems to me that the declaration of the Continental Congress was a re-statement of rights already had as Englishmen. True? Rights that were being denied to them as Englishmen.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_and_Resolves_of_the_First_Continental_Congress

Although the representatives did want to repeal the Québec Act, upset that it had guaranteed the right of French-Canadians to worship in the RC faith. More that likely they were upset at what appeared to them to be the Government sanction of religion.

So what was the purpose behind the First Continental Congress? What did they hope to attain? The hope was to appeal to the King, as fellow Englishmen about the abuses of Parliament towards the Colonies.

NYG, the first sentence in your response was a cut and paste from [Read More].

Many people provide information from other sources but do cite those sources. It is academically dishonest to cut and paste and present text as if it was your own words. It is not an onerous task to do so and it doesn't have be in any recognized academic format. We aren't writing essays here. Just let us know that the words aren't yours. This isnot an academic forum. This is a bulletin board/chat room.

So I would like to know just how unified the British colonies were when they arrived at the site of the First Continental Congress. Were they up in arms? Were some colonies more agitated than others? Were the representatives of some colonies less than enamoured with the wording of the document? Unified to meet and to discuss and to write a petition to the King. They had not crossed the threshold of rebellion.

George



DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 5:30:20 PM
Hi Phil.
The more I find out about the war on the Italian front, the more I learn how appalling it was on the Italian soldier in every aspect; "Nearly one hundred thousand more died as invalids in the year and a half after the end of the war."

Astonishing!

----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 8:23:47 PM
Nearly impossible to read your reply NY. Your responses are imbedded in mine so it's hard to tell who is who. Maybe you could put the comment to which you are responding in quotes and then add your piece below. Just trying to help. It would make things more readable and doesn't require a lot of work. Or just leave my stuff out of it and just give me your response in your own words.

This is a military history forum and I would like to think that it has been somewhat more sophisticated than a chat room. If you have been reading other responses you will notice that people nearly always indicate when they are providing a quote. Most do not cut and paste a complete article. They will provide an interesting piece in a "Read More" if they want to do that.

They may provide a synopsis of an article with some discussion points and then add the "Read More" to link us with the article. And then they could generate topics for discussion out of that or questions that they may have.

What they do not do is cut and paste and allow people to think that the text was created by the poster.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/25/2022 8:28:17 PM
My response is printed just after your comment.

This is a place where people come to discuss history....a chat room.

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 1:46:27 AM
Quote:
Hi Phil.
The more I find out about the war on the Italian front, the more I learn how appalling it was on the Italian soldier in every aspect; "Nearly one hundred thousand more died as invalids in the year and a half after the end of the war."

Astonishing!


Yes, there is something that makes the word “ scandalous “ seem justified when we survey the record of the war that was fought on the Italian Front.

The conduct of the Austro Hungarian adversary was also notorious. Conrad, the Austrian commander, might be seen as a rival for Cadorna : it’s almost a bizarre coincidence that their names were so similar!

The German high command was exasperated by Austrian vanity and obstinacy in pursuing a vendetta like obsession in diverting resources away from the Russian front to conduct this grotesque conflict against Italy.

The AH soldiers underwent their own horrific ordeal, too. Their casualties on this front amounted to one and a half million, and there was a sense of humiliation when the Germans came to their rescue.

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
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 6:07:39 AM
On October 26, 1775, King George III speaks before both houses of the British Parliament to discuss growing concern about the rebellion in America, which he viewed as a traitorous action against himself and Great Britain. He began his speech by reading a “Proclamation of Rebellion” and urged Parliament to move quickly to end the revolt and bring order to the colonies.

The king spoke of his belief that “many of these unhappy people may still retain their loyalty, and may be too wise not to see the fatal consequence of this usurpation, and wish to resist it, yet the torrent of violence has been strong enough to compel their acquiescence, till a sufficient force shall appear to support them.” With these words, the king gave Parliament his consent to dispatch troops to use against his own subjects, a notion that his colonists believed impossible.

Just as the Continental Congress expressed its desire to remain loyal to the British crown in the Olive Branch Petition, delivered to the monarch on September 1, so George III insisted he had “acted with the same temper; anxious to prevent, if it had been possible, the effusion of the blood of my subjects; and the calamities which are inseparable from a state of war; still hoping that my people in America would have discerned the traitorous views of their leaders, and have been convinced, that to be a subject of Great Britain, with all its consequences, is to be the freest member of any civil society in the known world.” King George went on to scoff at what he called the colonists’ “strongest protestations of loyalty to me,” believing them disingenuous, “whilst they were preparing for a general revolt.”

Unfortunately for George III, Thomas Paine’s anti-monarchical argument in the pamphlet, Common Sense, published in January 1776, proved persuasive to many American colonists. The two sides had reached a final political impasse and the bloody War for Independence soon followed.​
====================================================================================================================================================
​The King decided to go to war with the Colonies, by giving his assent to Parliament to send troops.

That same theme keeps coming up in British history.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 7:16:05 AM
Quote:
The King decided to go to war with the Colonies, by giving his assent to Parliament to send troops.

That same theme keeps coming up in British history.


Would you care to explain and defend the last sentence? More chat, less cut and paste, NY. The site that you persist in using is a quick hit summary, often with an American bias. It's partly owned by Disney.

Try to look at the issue from a British perspective. For them and for many of the colonists, this civil unrest in Massachusetts was unacceptable. The rabble were not perceived by the King or by the authorities in Massachusetts as patriots.

In fact, mobs were attacking anyone that didn't agree with their perspective, in Massachusetts. They threatened to kill an officer of the law.

Unfortunately, assessing this unlawfulness does not comport with the gentle narrative in most US based sites that portray the actions of the people as noble, and whose goals were lofty.

[Read More]

The Sons of Liberty would have appeared to those required to enforce the law as nothing more than thugs. Indeed, many were I believe. King George III certainly misread the depth of discontent, especially later on, but at this stage I can understand how he would feel that the protestations of loyalty were disingenuous.

There are many excellent American based sites that provide more enlightening and less biased information than the History Channel.



[Read More]

In a previous post, you insisted that the members of the First Continental Congress were united in their beliefs. This article puts pay to that and provides us with nuances surrounding the issue and indeed, indicates that many delegates were concerned about the radical elements at the Congress. Proposals were made to compromise with the British government and these were rejected.

[Read More]
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 8:30:13 AM
The King gives permission Parliament to send soldiers to theAmerican colonies, Queen Victoria tells the Government that GB is not going to interred in the Prussian Danish war, Queen Victoria tells the Government tat GB will remain neutral in the American Civil war. Do you see a pattern here?

Rabble.. Patriots. The winner in the American Revolution will write the history and will decide to call them Patriots.

IIRC, those mobs are not entirely an American invention.

What united the Colonies, who had never been united before except for the Albany Conference, was the abuse towards Boston. They realized that what happened in Boston could happen in their Colony too. Hence the Committees of Correspondence to get the information distributed to the colonies as fast as possible.

NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 8:33:34 AM
Probably because Port cities like Boston were a vital part of the social, economic and political fabric of the British colonies. The various Parliamentary acts passed to regulate trade in the colony directly affected the port and merchants in Boston, which is what prompted their strong reactions and protests in the city.

I don't think it had anything to do with political thought at Harvard.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 10:17:33 AM
Quote:
Guys,

Check 10-24 in history!? Comments, & posts, anyone??

1929 Stock market crashes, Black Thursday! How close are we to this happening again?? What to do with your retirement!? Anyone?

1945 the UN s founded! Has it really done much to curb terrorism!? What say you??

1992 the Toronto Blue Jay's win the World Series over Atlanta! The only non US team to do it!? What did it mean to Canada? Do you remember this team?? Anyone??

10-25 in history,

1936 the Berlin- Axis is formed! Was it an effective alliance?? Comments anyone??

1950 Red China joins with N. Korea to fight the Allies in Korea! How did this effect the Korean War? Anyone??

1983 under President Reagan, the US invades the tiny Island of Grenada! Why? Was it justified!? Comments!?

10-26 today in history,

1813 the battle of Chateauguay, mostly Frenchmen turn back attempt to take Montreal!? Comments?

1825 The Erie Canal is completed how did this aid in Westward Expansion? Was Canada building canals as well??

1881 the Clanton gang is shot down by Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, & Co., at the OK Corral! Is today's scene out west simular with all the weapons ect.??

New events to discuss? Anyone??
Cheers,
MD



BTW continue with previous discussions, by all means!?
----------------------------------
"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
10/26/2022 12:53:05 PM
1825 The Erie Canal is completed how did this aid in Westward Expansion? Was Canada building canals as well??


The Erie Canal greatly lowered the cost of shipping between the Midwest and the Northeast, bringing much lower food costs to Eastern cities and allowing the East to economically ship machinery and manufactured goods to the Midwest.
In 1825 more than 40,000 passengers took advantage of the convenience and beauty of canal travel. The canal's steady flow of tourists, businessmen and settlers lent it to uses never imagined by its initial sponsors. Evangelical preachers made their circuits of the upstate region, and the canal served as the last leg of the Underground Railroad ferrying runaway slaves to Buffalo near the Canada–US border.
The Canal also helped bind the still-new nation closer to Britain and Europe. Repeal of Britain's Corn Law resulted in a huge increase in exports of Midwestern wheat to Britain. Trade between the United States and Canada also increased as a result of the repeal and a reciprocity (free-trade) agreement signed in 1854. Much of this trade flowed along the Erie.

Yes, Canada built canals as well.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 12:53:16 PM
Quote:
Probably because Port cities like Boston were a vital part of the social, economic and political fabric of the British colonies. The various Parliamentary acts passed to regulate trade in the colony directly affected the port and merchants in Boston, which is what prompted their strong reactions and protests in the city.

I don't think it had anything to do with political thought at Harvard.


This is where the nerd in me would like to get data about Massachusetts : the demographics, the spread of population, the degree of literacy and , especially, the wealth and occupation structures. Were the people there the “ Metropolitan elites “ of their day ?

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
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 1:11:14 PM
well, in 1775, the people of Massachusetts considered themselves Englishmen with all the rights given to Englishmen. Basically, the Crown was punishing the city because of the crime of a few people.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 1:12:15 PM
Quote:
The King gives permission Parliament to send soldiers to theAmerican colonies, Queen Victoria tells the Government that GB is not going to interred in the Prussian Danish war, Queen Victoria tells the Government tat GB will remain neutral in the American Civil war. Do you see a pattern here?

Rabble.. Patriots. The winner in the American Revolution will write the history and will decide to call them Patriots.

IIRC, those mobs are not entirely an American invention.

What united the Colonies, who had never been united before except for the Albany Conference, was the abuse towards Boston. They realized that what happened in Boston could happen in their Colony too. Hence the Committees of Correspondence to get the information distributed to the colonies as fast as possible.



Quote:
The King gives permission Parliament to send soldiers to theAmerican colonies, Queen Victoria tells the Government that GB is not going to interred in the Prussian Danish war, Queen Victoria tells the Government tat GB will remain neutral in the American Civil war. Do you see a pattern here?


Why don't you identify the pattern? Are you suggesting that the British were and are duplicitous? Or are you suggesting that they tend to intervene in situations all over the world?

Such is the way of the superpowers. Surely as an American, you can see a pattern there? .

BTW, it is my understanding that upon receiving advice from her ministers, Queen Victoria issued the declaration of neutrality. The supremacy of Parliament was established long before the US civil war but I think that you may feel that the monarch still ruled by diktat. Most British sites say that the British government issued a declaration of neutrality. But that initiative is expressed by the crown in the British parliamentary system.

Some of the most recent information indicates that despite anger at the US for the Trent Affair there was really little public support for intervention after it was resolved.

That was a good thing for the US. Is it probable that an intervention by British land forces and the RN in support of either side would have meant defeat for the other side? As well, the French had considered an alliance with the British to intervene. France supported the Confederacy and Both GB and France were opposed to Lincoln's blockade of the ports. By remaining neutral, Britain allowed the two sides to work it out, as bloody and awful as negotiation by war can be.

PM Lord Palmerston was a supporter of the Confederacy. He saw things through an economic lens and felt that a split in the US would be beneficial for Britain which would engage in important trade with a new Confederate nation. King Cotton was very important to the British economy but perhaps too much emphasis is placed on cotton as a factor in formulating British foreign policy. Britain did provide relief to the textile workers who were suffering but also found other sources of cotton.

Palmerston was anti-slavery. He was also anti-US, a nation that he saw as a threat to Great Britain. He and his foreign secretary, Lord Russell despised the US Secretary of State, William Seward and with good reason. The PM and Queen Victoria did not get along. She saw him as a man who only wanted to increase the power and influence of GB across the world even as social problems plagued GB. She did respect him as a good manager.

Seward was very much anti-British and had plans to evict Britain out of North America. He blustered that even a recognition of the south as a belligerent would bring on war. Well, that happened but Lincoln was not interested in a second war while he was trying to put down an insurrection in house.

However, it was with caution that Palmerston sent troops to Canada because of the Trent Affair and the bluster and threats of Seward. Britain was concerned that the US would turn on Canada once peace between the north and the south was made.

In the British Parliamentary system, the crown authorizes all legislation even if the monarch had nothing to do with its creation. Even today in Canada, when the government passes a bill it will be signed in to law by the Governor-General who is the King's representative in Canada. It is a formality and a recognition of our historical roots.

So PM Palmerston and Lord Russell kept their opinions to themselves but decided that avoidance of a war with the US was wise. Foreign policy decisions by every country always consider what is best for their country. A declaration of neutrality was deemed best for Britain.

No doubt you object to the construction of ships that wound up with the Confederacy. Perhaps we should discuss why the British weren't initially aggressive toward the ship builders.


Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 1:48:12 PM
Quote:
Quote:
The King gives permission Parliament to send soldiers to theAmerican colonies, Queen Victoria tells the Government that GB is not going to interred in the Prussian Danish war, Queen Victoria tells the Government tat GB will remain neutral in the American Civil war. Do you see a pattern here?

Rabble.. Patriots. The winner in the American Revolution will write the history and will decide to call them Patriots.

IIRC, those mobs are not entirely an American invention.

What united the Colonies, who had never been united before except for the Albany Conference, was the abuse towards Boston. They realized that what happened in Boston could happen in their Colony too. Hence the Committees of Correspondence to get the information distributed to the colonies as fast as possible.



Quote:
The King gives permission Parliament to send soldiers to theAmerican colonies, Queen Victoria tells the Government that GB is not going to interred in the Prussian Danish war, Queen Victoria tells the Government tat GB will remain neutral in the American Civil war. Do you see a pattern here?


Why don't you identify the pattern? Are you suggesting that the British were and are duplicitous? Or are you suggesting that they tend to intervene in situations all over the world?

Such is the way of the superpowers. Surely as an American, you can see a pattern there?
BTW, it is my understanding that upon receiving advice from her ministers, Queen Victoria issued the declaration of neutrality. The supremacy of Parliament was established long before the US civil war but I think that you may feel that the monarch still ruled by diktat. Most British sites say that the British government issued a declaration of neutrality. But that initiative is expressed by the crown in the British parliamentary system.

Some of the most recent information indicates that despite anger at the US for the Trent Affair there was really little public support for intervention after it was resolved.

That was a good thing for the US. Is it probable that an intervention by British land forces and the RN in support of either side would have meant defeat for the other side? As well, the French had considered an alliance with the British to intervene. France supported the Confederacy and Both GB and France were opposed to Lincoln's blockade of the ports. By remaining neutral, Britain allowed the two sides to work it out, as bloody and awful as negotiation by war can be.

PM Lord Palmerston was a supporter of the Confederacy. He saw things through an economic lens and felt that a split in the US would be beneficial for Britain which would engage in important trade with a new Confederate nation. King Cotton was very important to the British economy but perhaps too much emphasis is placed on cotton as a factor in formulating British foreign policy. Britain did provide relief to the textile workers who were suffering but also found other sources of cotton.

Palmerston was anti-slavery. He was also anti-US, a nation that he saw as a threat to Great Britain. He and his foreign secretary, Lord Russell despised the US Secretary of State, William Seward and with good reason. The PM and Queen Victoria did not get along. She saw him as a man who only wanted to increase the power and influence of GB across the world even as social problems plagued GB. She did respect him as a good manager.

Seward was very much anti-British and had plans to evict Britain out of North America. He blustered that even a recognition of the south as a belligerent would bring on war. Well, that happened but Lincoln was not interested in a second war while he was trying to put down an insurrection in house.

However, it was with caution that Palmerston sent troops to Canada because of the Trent Affair and the bluster and threats of Seward. Britain was concerned that the US would turn on Canada once peace between the north and the south was made.

In the British Parliamentary system, the crown authorizes all legislation even if the monarch had nothing to do with its creation. Even today in Canada, when the government passes a bill it will be signed in to law by the Governor-General who is the King's representative in Canada. It is a formality and a recognition of our historical roots.

So PM Palmerston and Lord Russell kept their opinions to themselves but decided that avoidance of a war with the US was wise. Foreign policy decisions by every country always consider what is best for their country. A declaration of neutrality was deemed best for Britain.

No doubt you object to the construction of ships that wound up with the Confederacy. Perhaps we should discuss why the British weren't initially aggressive toward the ship builders.


Cheers,

George

The pattern is the Monarch determines foreign policy.

If Great Britain intervened in the American Civil War, GB would have had its arse handed to them on the Queen's silver platter. Do I need to go over this with you again?

1. The distance that GB found burden across the Atlantic Ocean in 1777 had increased in length.

2. Canadian forts had fallen into dis-repair.

3.Palmerston's generals told him the Canada could not repel an invasion from the United States.

4. The cannon still present in Canadian forts had rusted and were useless.

5. Irish immigrants to the Unites States would have enlisted en masse to fight GB, and invade Canada. They would have demanded and received Irish independence and a free and united Ireland.

6 The St Lawrence River freezes during the winter making supplying of any British forces tenuous.

7. In 1860, GB could not feed its population and had to import food. 50% of the food imported to GB came from the American Midwest. So ask yourself, would lGB bite the hand that feeds it?

8. Palmerston had to get the permission of the Queen in order to go to war.

9. In addition, he had to get a bill declaring war through Parliament.

10. It was the aristocracy in GB that was still smarting from 2 losses already against the Americans. However, the English common man realized that the American Civil War was a struggle between slave wages and free wages and would not have enlisted nor fought.

11. English iron-clad could not navigate up American rivers.

12. American ironclads would have sunk British wooden ships.

13. The US could count on forming alliances with other countries. GB thought that she never needed any Allies. ( they discovered other wise during the 2nd Morocco crisis.

14. When the US threatened war with GB in 1864 because GB was building raiders for the Confederacy, GB stopped production.



Palmerston was anti-slavery and was anti US because he realized the economic potential of the US would threaten British dominance.

In the long run, it is probably good for Great Britain they they didn't interfere at all. A divided United States would not come to the aid of GB in WW I nor in WW 2. No American Pacific fleet to protect Australia. No American ships protecting convoys across the Atlantic. No lend-Lease so no replacement of British destroyers sunk by German submarines. No victory at El Alalamein. No Normany invasion.


George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 5:17:59 PM
NY, the fact that you repeat yourself endlessly to make the same erroneous arguments does not give them any more credibility. You have to do better to convince me that the US would crush both the Confederates and the British navy and army.

And a couple of them are ridiculously speculative like #10. I have given you enough information to prove that the US did not win the War of 1812 but you ignore all of it because you cannot conceive of the US losing and so you ignore the RN blockade and you begin the war after the US forces had been driven out of Canada, calling defensive actions evidence of victory. You cannot claim victory when on defence.

Britain was also an industrial and trading giant. It was the world's largest exporter with France as #2.

Yes it traded with the US. Is there anything that Britain made that the US needed? The US got most of its textiles and manufactured goods from Britain.

Do you suppose that Britain also traded with other countries for food? I'm not sure where you are getting the figure of 50% for foodstuffs imported from the US. Check this out. It seems to indicate that Europe was still the most important source of wheat and other products. South America was an important trading partner, especially Brazil and Argentina. Britain itself was undergoing and Agricultural Revolution and its crop yields were increasing yearly.

[Read More]

To speculate that men would not enlist in the British forces has no basis in fact. Were you just dreaming? In 1862 Britain had raised a volunteer force of 160,000 from enlistment in each of the counties. This was to supplement the army. In 1863, Parliament passed the Volunteer Act which would eventually lead to greater integration between these volunteers and the regular army.

If Great Britain had declared war say because of the Trent Affair it is more than probable that the Confederates would have won. And it wasn't the land forces that would do it. The RN would have broken the blockade of southern ports. And your ironclads could just stay up the river if they liked.

And the RN would have quickly moved to blockade the US ports. Do you think that the USN could have defeated the RN in 1861? With ports blockaded what would happen to the US economy remembering that Britain was selling a lot of stuff to both sides.

Britain already had an ally in France, a country that also was angered at the closure of southern ports. I read that when Britain was contemplating whether to go to war over the blockades that it had to consider whether an alliance with France was going to be positive or whether they would wind up at each other's throats.

We have already discussed why the British preferred neutrality at that time. Britain's decisions were primarily based on economic concerns.

You seem to have a lot of misinformation on the power of the monarchy. You have it backwards. As far as I know, there was a constitutional convention that gives the power to declare war to the PM aided by the Minister of Defence. During Queen Vic's days she did not have the power to dictate to government. Perhaps our British friends will correct me or confirm.

Quote:
In the long run, it is probably good for Great Britain they they didn't interfere at all. A divided United States would not come to the aid of GB in WW I nor in WW 2. No American Pacific fleet to protect Australia. No American ships protecting convoys across the Atlantic. No lend-Lease so no replacement of British destroyers sunk by German submarines. No victory at El Alalamein. No Normany invasion.


Hard to keep up with your equine droppings NY. Your claims to greatness on the part of the US in these events that you mentioned need to be questioned because as usual, you fail to substantiate your claims. We could have a feisty debate on the actual importance of the US contribution to WW1. To suggest that the US won this war is an insult to those countries and their soldiers who had been dying since 1914.

We could discuss how important the USN was to the WWII convoy system given that the USN was forced by circumstances to leave station when the Japanese attacked. Perfectly understandable but those "neutrality patrols" had to end for the most part.

We could discuss how the US failed to protect merchant ships with any kind of a convoy system in 1942 resulting in the u-boats experiencing their greatest successes of the war. Meanwhile the RN and RCN continued to escort hundreds of ships to safety.


Destroyers?
Are we talking about the old and obsolete four stackers that were traded to Britain at great cost with Britain forced to allow the US access to military bases on British possessions for 99 years. Look, I acknowledge the importance of the provision of modern destroyer escorts but it took more than a year before US industrial capacity could bring these on line.
You insult the sailors of the RN and most certainly the RCN when you do not even address how important both were to the delivery of convoys to Britain.

And you also failed to mention that Britain was bankrupted by the US cash and carry system that the US insisted upon before Lend Lease.

Oh and how about the Tizard Mission in which Britain shared its most impressive industrial inventions that were important to any military. I sometimes think that the UK more than paid its way with the technology provided to the US.

I could go on but your initial statement smacks of ignorance. Most serious students of WWII will acknowledge how important it was for the US to join this war but they also know how important Britain and the Commonwealth was to the victory. You insult a lot of people with this jingoistic BS.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 5:39:37 PM
Quote:
1813 the battle of Chateauguay, mostly Frenchmen turn back attempt to take Montreal!? Comments?


I wrote a long piece about this battle in another section. I think that I will include it here.

This battle was a bungled attempt by the US to use a pincer movement to seize Montréal. A large American force was heading up the shores of the Chateauguay River near Montréal. The US forces were led by Gen. Wade Hampton. Hampton had about 3,000 men though many of the New York militia refused to cross into Canada. I forget how many men that was.

The other side of the pincer was travelling down the St. Lawrence River and it was led by Gen. James Wilkinson.

Wilkinson and Hampton hated each other.

Anyway, the Americans were stopped by a small force of French-Canadians and First Nations led by Lt. Col. Charles de Salaberry. There were very few casualties on either side. Hampton's attack failed and he thought that he was opposed by a larger force because of the way that De Salaberry managed the battle.

The other side of the pincer was defeated in battle at Crysler's Farm which was in Upper Canada. That took place on Nov. 11. The British and Canadian militia were tailing the Americans when the US commander decided to turn and fight. And he was defeated.

This is the piece that I wrote a while ago

War of 1812, the two battles that saved British North America
10/26/2019 5:42:53 PM
Oct. 26, 1813. War of 1812

In Sept. of 1813, the Americans had defeated the British on Lake Erie.

As a result, land forces under William Henry Harrison had pushed the British forces out of SW Upper Canada and had defeated the British and killed Tecumseh at the Battle of Moraviantown (Thames) on Oct. 5.

Another invasion of the Niagara Peninsula had resulted in the loss of Fort Erie and Fort George. The American advance on the Niagara Peninsula had been checked at Stoney Creek.

The British knew that they did not yet have enough troops to carry on offensive action.

But the Americans, gaining in strength had plans to seize Montréal in 1813. From there they would be able to backtrack and take Fort Henry at Kingston and then the capital of Upper Canada, York. All of UC would be in American hands.

After Montréal, the Americans would be free to attempt an attack on Québec City.

So I have set the stage and there are some historians who will say that two battles fought in Lower Canada at the end of 1813 were the battles that saved British North America.

One was the Battle of Chateauguay on Oct. 26 and the other was the Battle of Crysler's Farm on Nov. 11.



You can see Chateauguay just 50km to the south of Montréal while Crysler's farm is to the west, in Upper Canada.




American battle plan to seize Montréal:

US Sec. of War, John Armstrong devised a plan to attack Montreal from two directions.

US. Maj-Gen. Wade Hampton commanded a force of 4,000. He was to attack Montréal by heading north from Lake Champlain.

Another division led by Maj. Gen. James Wilkinson was to come down the St. Lawrence River, leaving from Sackett's Harbor on Lake Ontario. The two battle groups were to meet at Montréal and take the city.

I should mention that Wilkinson and Hampton hated one another. In fact, Hampton initially told Sec. Armstrong that he wanted nothing to do with the assignment if Wilkinson had anything to do with it. Armstrong told Hampton that he personally would take charge of the mission and that somewhat placated him.

Even at this later stage of the war, the US was still having some command problems.

EDIT: Note that both Hampton and Wilkinson were old war horses who had served in the revolution. The US army had several up and comers like George Izard, Jacob Brown and of course, Winfield Scott. These men would re-model the army to make it more professional and the results were evident in 1814. Izard was 2IC at Chateauguay and took command after Hampton was relieved of duty.

Of the two battles, Chateauguay and Crysler's Farm, Chateauguay was first and the result left Maj. Gen Wilkinson on his own to fight at Crysler's Farm.

Battle of Chateauguay

Maj. Gen Hampton first tried to attack by travelling alongside the Richelieu River. But hot conditions that summer had reduced the river where Hampton was to a trickle. There was insufficient water for the men and horses.

So Hampton moved closer to the Chateauguay River and set up camp in Upper New York State. Sec. Armstrong's plan would have seen Hampton and Wilkinson join forces at the mouth of the Chateauguay.

Hampton had very little information on the status of the British. His men were out of sorts, ill and still wearing their thread bare summer kit. Hampton actually considered packing it in but he had sent his large vanguard on ahead and could not recall them.

There were no British regulars to oppose Hampton's force but he did not know that.

Instead, the militia of Lower Canada led by a French-Canadian, Gen. Charles de Salaberry, were the opposition.

De Salaberry managed this battle quite brilliantly as he martialed his Voltigeurs (militia trained to military standard), the embodied militia and First Nations to meet Hampton's forces at a bend in the Chateauguay River. There were about 2600 of them in total.

De Salaberry's men had cut down trees and left them all over the road upon which the American's advanced. This slowed them down and allowed the French-Canadians to prepare their position.

They built breastworks on each side of the river. Just below the position was a swampy bush area and De Salaberry placed the First Nations warriors and buglers there just to make a lot of noise.
Barricades in depth were constructed.

Hampton ordered his vanguard under Col. Purdy to move to a ford in the river and to cross and outflank the British forces. Purdy had about 1500 men in his battle group

Hampton would wait until he heard firing at the ford and then he was going to attack. Hampton heard the firing alright but he did not know that the vanguard had been intercepted well before the ford and were taking fire from French-Canadian chasseurs. The vanguard never did reach the ford in the river.

Myth or fact: No-one is really sure whether the main battle was actually started by De Salaberry or not but so the story goes, the Americans were advancing to the main position of De Salaberry and an American who knew French called out for the British forces to surrender. So the story goes, De Salaberry stood up and shot the man dead and his men cheered in the background.

So the bugles were blaring from the wood and the vanguard was being hounded and pounded as Hampton discovered. Most of the fighting for the Americans was done by the vanguard and that group of 1500 was opposed by fewer than 400 militia men and 185 Haudenosaunee (Mohawk) warriors. Preventing this force from outflanking De Salaberry's defensive position was critical.

Hampton became discouraged. There would be no flanking movement and his men at the front were being held in check by the French-Canadians and the First Nations.

Hampton withdrew and took his men into winter quarters in New York state.

Meanwhile, Gen. Wilkinson was on the move on the St. Lawrence river and was being hounded by British skirmishers along the shore.

On Nov. 11, Wilkinson's force would meet a British force at Crysler's farm. This was the bigger of the two battles and Wilkinson was defeated. Thus ended the American campaign on the St. Lawrence. American plans changed and they decided, incorrectly I think, to continue their activities on the Niagara Peninsula.

The Battle of Chateauguay was significant because it was the only battle that was fought only by militia and First Nations.

I have read estimates that 90% of the defending force were French-Canadians.

De Salaberry was thanked for his service but was resentful that he did not receive more rewards for saving Montréal.

Just off the Trans-Canada highway to the south of Montréal is the Battle of Chateauguay National Historic Site. There is an interpretive centre there that I have not yet visited. It also includes a 14 km groomed trail that passes through the whole battlefield area which was along the river.

[Read More]


I am not sure why the Americans didn't focus more attention on Lower Canada and the St. Lawrence River. The seizure of Quebec City would have been a fatal blow for the British.

So Chateauguay and Crysler's Farm. Two of the most important battles of the War of 1812.










NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 5:53:17 PM
When offered war in 1864, GB backed off. That's a fact.


The rest of your comment is pure bovine scatology.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 6:18:46 PM
Quote:
NY, the fact that you repeat yourself endlessly to make the same erroneous arguments does not give them any more credibility. You have to do better to convince me that the US would crush both the Confederates and the British navy and army.

And a couple of them are ridiculously speculative like #10. I have given you enough information to prove that the US did not win the War of 1812 but you ignore all of it because you cannot conceive of the US losing and so you ignore the RN blockade and you begin the war after the US forces had been driven out of Canada, calling defensive actions evidence of victory. You cannot claim victory when on defence.

Britain was also an industrial and trading giant. It was the world's largest exporter with France as #2.

Yes it traded with the US. Is there anything that Britain made that the US needed? The US got most of its textiles and manufactured goods from Britain.

Do you suppose that Britain also traded with other countries for food? I'm not sure where you are getting the figure of 50% for foodstuffs imported from the US. Check this out. It seems to indicate that Europe was still the most important source of wheat and other products. South America was an important trading partner, especially Brazil and Argentina. Britain itself was undergoing and Agricultural Revolution and its crop yields were increasing yearly.

[Read More]

To speculate that men would not enlist in the British forces has no basis in fact. Were you just dreaming? In 1862 Britain had raised a volunteer force of 160,000 from enlistment in each of the counties. This was to supplement the army. In 1863, Parliament passed the Volunteer Act which would eventually lead to greater integration between these volunteers and the regular army.

If Great Britain had declared war say because of the Trent Affair it is more than probable that the Confederates would have won. And it wasn't the land forces that would do it. The RN would have broken the blockade of southern ports. And your ironclads could just stay up the river if they liked.

And the RN would have quickly moved to blockade the US ports. Do you think that the USN could have defeated the RN in 1861? With ports blockaded what would happen to the US economy remembering that Britain was selling a lot of stuff to both sides.

Britain already had an ally in France, a country that also was angered at the closure of southern ports. I read that when Britain was contemplating whether to go to war over the blockades that it had to consider whether an alliance with France was going to be positive or whether they would wind up at each other's throats.

We have already discussed why the British preferred neutrality at that time. Britain's decisions were primarily based on economic concerns.

You seem to have a lot of misinformation on the power of the monarchy. You have it backwards. As far as I know, there was a constitutional convention that gives the power to declare war to the PM aided by the Minister of Defence. During Queen Vic's days she did not have the power to dictate to government. Perhaps our British friends will correct me or confirm.

Quote:
In the long run, it is probably good for Great Britain they they didn't interfere at all. A divided United States would not come to the aid of GB in WW I nor in WW 2. No American Pacific fleet to protect Australia. No American ships protecting convoys across the Atlantic. No lend-Lease so no replacement of British destroyers sunk by German submarines. No victory at El Alalamein. No Normany invasion.


Hard to keep up with your equine droppings NY. Your claims to greatness on the part of the US in these events that you mentioned need to be questioned because as usual, you fail to substantiate your claims. We could have a feisty debate on the actual importance of the US contribution to WW1. To suggest that the US won this war is an insult to those countries and their soldiers who had been dying since 1914.

We could discuss how important the USN was to the WWII convoy system given that the USN was forced by circumstances to leave station when the Japanese attacked. Perfectly understandable but those "neutrality patrols" had to end for the most part.

We could discuss how the US failed to protect merchant ships with any kind of a convoy system in 1942 resulting in the u-boats experiencing their greatest successes of the war. Meanwhile the RN and RCN continued to escort hundreds of ships to safety.


Destroyers?
Are we talking about the old and obsolete four stackers that were traded to Britain at great cost with Britain forced to allow the US access to military bases on British possessions for 99 years. Look, I acknowledge the importance of the provision of modern destroyer escorts but it took more than a year before US industrial capacity could bring these on line.
You insult the sailors of the RN and most certainly the RCN when you do not even address how important both were to the delivery of convoys to Britain.

And you also failed to mention that Britain was bankrupted by the US cash and carry system that the US insisted upon before Lend Lease.

Oh and how about the Tizard Mission in which Britain shared its most impressive industrial inventions that were important to any military. I sometimes think that the UK more than paid its way with the technology provided to the US.

I could go on but your initial statement smacks of ignorance. Most serious students of WWII will acknowledge how important it was for the US to join this war but they also know how important Britain and the Commonwealth was to the victory. You insult a lot of people with this jingoistic BS.



Now now now George. I think we can agree that when offered war by the US in 1864, GB, with all its might, backed down. GB refused to go to war with the US.

We can agree that GB could not produce enough food to feed its population and had to import food from the US...not Canada, which had enough problems reedit its own population.

Please study the Entente Cordiale. THAT is when they became allies. A good book to read on this is Dreadnaughts.
On April 8, 1904, with war in Europe a decade away, Britain and France sign an agreement, later known as the Entente Cordiale, resolving long-standing colonial disputes in North Africa and establishing a diplomatic understanding between the two countries.

Formally entitled a Declaration between the United Kingdom and France Respecting Egypt and Morocco, the Entente Cordiale of April 1904 amounted more than anything to a declaration of friendship between these two great European powers. By its terms, France promised not to challenge British control over Egypt; for its part, Britain recognized France’s right, as a Power whose dominions are conterminous for a great distance with those of Morocco to act in that country to preserve order and to provide assistance to bring about whatever reforms in the government, economy or military it deemed necessary.

Please read about the Prussian Danish War and Queen Victoria telling her minister GB was not to get involved.

It was just the presence of the US that won World War I. Recall that all the combatants were pretty much spent by 1917, and that the addition of the US brought more soldiers onto the field which turned the outcome in favor of the Allies. recall that once the US declared war, Imperial Germany made sure Lenin had free access to Russia and that the revolution took Imperial Russia out of the war . Imperial Germany had hoped to transfer troops to the Eastern front to the Western Front and create an offensive to drive France and GB out of the way before the Americans arrived.

You forgot to mention the USN convoys in WW I.

Do you expect the US to just hand over war material and not be paid?




scoucer
Berlin  Germany
Posts: 3270
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
10/26/2022 6:46:33 PM
Quote:
The pattern is the Monarch determines foreign policy.


This is absolute nonsense.
Since the restoration of Charles II in 1660 after the Civil War and confirmed after the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Monarch is only a neutral figurehead. Sovereignty lies with parliament and foreign policy in the hands of the Foreign Minister. The monarch has no say in political policy making.

I suggest you stay by American History, of which you seem to be knowledgeable, and stay away from European History where you obviously have very little, or false, knowledge and make yourself embarrassing and cringe-worthy.

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.
Page 31 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