MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 34 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
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 4:10:28 PM
Text of those Acts are on Hyperwar.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 4:39:09 PM
Britain also had to present its books to the US Treasury Dept. and had to divest of assets owned by Britain in US. Otherwise no L-L until GB proved that the cupboard was bare.

As well, the US asked for trade concessions and an opening of the UK market to US manufactured goods, post war.

The cost of this war to Britain may be measured in casualties but also to its economy. Once the world's reserve currency, Britain was forced to devalue the pound considerably after the war.

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 4:44:59 PM
FDR insisted that the cash and carry be included.

And it was in WW I that the financial capital of the World transferred from London to Wall Street.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 5:12:44 PM
Quote:
Quote:
10-28 in history!? Moved to current page!

1704 John Locke passes away! He had some major ideas on how a government should be run! What say you about his influence on today's Western Governments??

Lockean philosophy anyone??
Regards,
MD

Also on 10-28,

1790 Spain yields to Great Britain on the Nootka Sound Controversy! What was this controversy about? What effect did it have on the future British Columbia!?? Comments!? Thanks George for reply on this!!

1886 the Statue of Liberty is dedicated! Who made out the best the US, or France with the Effil Tower?? Anyone?

1962 Nikta Khrushchev pull missiles out of Cuba! What caused him to do this? What say you??



More world history on 10-28!?

Also in 1919 Prohibition is enforced despite President Woodrow Wilson being against it! Who started this Prohibition thing anyway!? I'll drink to that!? Comments?? What other countries tried to prohibit Alcohol consumption, & sales!!??

1971 Great Britain launches a major satellite l why weren't they a major player in space?? What say you!?

Comments on any of 10-28 in history!??
Regards,
MD


----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 5:13:24 PM
Moved from previous page!?

Quote:
Quote:
On this day in 1918, German sailors refused – for the first of five times – to go to sea to face the Royal Navy. I believe, in any western navy, a refusal to obey legitimate orders falls under the term “mutiny”.


IIRC, the order to sail against the RN was German Admiralty based, declared without reference to German civilian governing bodies. By the fifth refusal, the issue had spread both to the naval base at Kiel and to some unionized workers involved in naval support. In effect, the mutiny of German sailors meshed with civilian workers to undermine the pro-war faction of the German government, thereby weakening Germany’s ability to make war.



In the wake of the Versailles Treaty, both the Imperial Navy’s refusal to sail and the the link between navy refusal and labourers was considered to indicate one element of Bolshevik undermining of the Imperial war effort. Under Nazi rule, the German Navy was the least trusted and least supported of German armed forces.


Cheers,
Brian G

Hi Bri,

The refusal of the German Navy to fight the RN 5 times!? How can a countries navy get away with that?? Your right it IMHO is mutiny!!??

Any other comments on it?? Anyone?
Regards,
MD

Also today 10-30-95 Quebec almost breaks away from Canada!? How can this be? & A simple vote is a legal means to break.away?? Boy if it happened Canada would be fractured!??

Help me understand this??
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
10/30/2022 8:12:02 PM
Quote:
Also today 10-30-95 Quebec almost breaks away from Canada!? How can this be? & A simple vote is a legal means to break.away?? Boy if it happened Canada would be fractured!??


1995 was the second referendum on sovereignty in Québec with the first taking place in 1980.

Separatism raises its head from time to time but since 1995 it seems that Quebeckers have decided that they do not want to deal with the issue. That doesn't mean that they have stopped electing political parties both provincially and federally which, at their core, are separatist. The people don't want to deal with it right now and so even the separatist parties generally keep quiet about the issue. The do push Québec nationalism however. That is a constant theme in Québec and even our federal politicians have acknowledged that Québec is a "nation within a nation".

In 1980, the Parti Québecois proposed a referendum question that went like this:

Quote:
The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?


The essential concept was called "sovereignty-association". It was an ambiguous question and fortunately 59.9% of Quebeckers rejected the concept. But that was not a solid approval rating for the status quo. PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau, recently elected before the referendum vote had promised that even if the vote was NO, he was prepared to negotiate a new type of a asymmetrical federalism.

Fast forward to 1995 and there had been two failed attempts to come to an agreement on the constitution. Quebec was demanding that it be recognized as a "distinct society" and that didn't sit well with many in the Rest of Canada (ROC). That led to the election of a separatist party in Québec putting the Parti Québecois back into power. And this party promised another referendum.

And the PQ posed another less than clear referendum question:

Quote:
Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?"


They were promising all sorts of things to the people telling them that yes, they would be a sovereign nation. But they wouldn't have to give up the Canadian dollar. And Québec would have a seat at the Bank of Canada to ensure input on monetary policy. Now there would be nothing wrong for a country to decide to use the CDN dollar but definitely something wrong with thinking that that country would dictate monetary policy.

The result of the second referendum was too close for comfort as it became apparent that the YES side had been gaining on the NO. People from the ROC bused or flew into Québec to wave Canadian flags and to tell the Quebeckers that they were loved.

50.58% of the voters voted NO and so separation would not happen.

It has become clear that the Québec referendum of 1995 could have seen a Québec government demanding to separate based upon a pretty sketchy question.

However, the federal government realized that they had to do something and so they came up with the following:

1. Québec would be recognized as a distinct society within Canada.
2. Different regions of the country were granted veto power over constitutional changes
3. Certain powers devolved from the feds to the provinces, including labour and training, and apprenticeships

But it was also necessary to develop some clear rules for any province that was thinking about seceding from Confederation.

In 1998 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the province of Québec did not have the right to unilaterally secede from Canada. However, it was unanimous that if a province indicated a clear majority who wished to secede then the federal government and the remaining provinces would be compelled to negotiate with the separatists. Unilateral secession was perceived to be in violation of the Canadian constitution and international law.

In 2000, the federal government passed a law that is known as the Clarity Act. So a clear question and what defines a "clear majority" must be determined before the question is presented. And then if a province votes to secede then it may begin to negotiate its separation from Canada.

The Clarity Act was accepted by Québec and they understand that a referendum question has to be unambiguous and has the approval of the House of Commons. As well, the actual percentage that represents a clear majority would have to be decided upon.

For those legal beagles out there, this is the Clarity Act

[Read More]

I have often wondered which issues would have to be dealt with should we reach the point whereby a province was going to leave.

With Québec, there is the basic matter of area. The Québec land mass of today is much larger than it was at Confederation. For administrative purposes, many provinces increased in area as the federal government parcelled out land.

This was Canada from 1867 to 1870



Even if Canada insisted that Québec could only claim land mass as it was in 1870, we still have a problem in that the ROC has no southern land bridge to the Maritimes.

Other issues include the sharing of assets and debts. Canada has a debt and Québec would have to accept a share of that.

There are federal properties in the Province of Québec whose value would have to be appraised and then a decision on ownership would have to be made.

Military assets would have to be divided.

And finally there is the issue of First Nations wishes and the FN in Québec have said that their treaties are with the federal government of Canada and that they have no intention of leaving Confederation.

A hell of a mess it certainly would be.

Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/31/2022 6:01:50 AM
On October 31, 1776, in his first speech before British Parliament since the leaders of the American Revolution came together to sign of the Declaration of Independence that summer, King George III acknowledges that all was not going well for Britain in the war with the United States.

In his address, the king spoke about the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the revolutionary leaders who signed it, saying, “for daring and desperate is the spirit of those leaders, whose object has always been dominion and power, that they have now openly renounced all allegiance to the crown, and all political connection with this country.” The king went on to inform Parliament of the successful British victory over General George Washington and the Continental Army at the Battle of Long Island on August 27, 1776, but warned them that, “notwithstanding the fair prospect, it was necessary to prepare for another campaign.”

Despite George III’s harsh words, General William Howe and his brother, Admiral Richard Howe, still hoped to convince the Americans to rejoin the British empire in the wake of the colonists’ humiliating defeat at the Battle of Long Island. The British could easily have prevented Washington’s retreat from Long Island and captured most of the Patriot officer corps, including the commander in chief. However, instead of forcing the former colonies into submission by executing Washington and his officers as traitors, the Howe brothers let them go with the hope of swaying Patriot opinion towards a return to the mother country.
The Howe brothers’ attempts at negotiation failed, and the War for Independence dragged on for another four years, until the formal surrender of the British to the Americans on October 19, 1781, after the Battle of Yorktown.
=====================================================================================================================================================

1777 will be a troublesome year for the King. His forces will be decisively defeated at Saratoga, because of the fortifications of a Polish engineer.

One thing the Burgoyne did not appreciate were the distances between settlements in what was to become upstate New York.

See comment in Visiting battlefields.
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
10/31/2022 6:41:52 AM
Quote:
Good post, Colin. The US was determined to neuter the former great imperial powers and has supplanted them of course, especially in the middle east.

Do you feel that the UN initiative gave France and Britain a chance to withdraw with some honour intact? Were the British people and the press angry with the British government for the withdrawal?

Cheers,

George


Thanks George.

I don't think there was retreat with honour, to be honest. Militarily-speaking, the operation was a foregone conclusion. The humiliation was that the US now more or less dictated /approved UK foreign policy (France still fought in campaigns to preserve its overseas possessions). This made the end of empire much more imminent. I think even then the country knew the game was up. The country and press were angry enough that Eden resigned and Macmillan took over.

Cheers,

Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/31/2022 7:59:44 AM
Quote:
Thanks George.

I don't think there was retreat with honour, to be honest. Militarily-speaking, the operation was a foregone conclusion. The humiliation was that the US now more or less dictated /approved UK foreign policy (France still fought in campaigns to preserve its overseas possessions). This made the end of empire much more imminent. I think even then the country knew the game was up. The country and press were angry enough that Eden resigned and Macmillan took over.

Cheers,

Colin


The Empire crumbled during WWII and under extreme economic pressures at the end of the war, the maintenance of colonies was not possible.

There is the school of thought that FDR and the US government sought to hasten the demise of Empire by making Britain beholden to the US financially.

British historian, John Charmley, has suggested that Churchill was a dupe who fell into that trap prepared by FDR. Other British historians have tossed cold water on Charmley's assertions. I have not read Charmley's book, "Churchill's Grand Alliance" but it is in this book that he suggests that FDR saw the war as an opportunity to supplant Britain as the world's most powerful and influential country.

If someone has read this book, I wouldn't mind reading a critique.

I need to do a lot more reading to determine whether the US planned to make it impossible for imperial Britain to exist by destroying the pound. The usual argument is that Lend Lease and the post war loans were an example of US generosity. What little reading I have done indicates that the US was quite angry at some British initiatives taken at the end of the war such as the British intervention in Greece in which British soldiers shot unarmed civilians in a square in Athens, in December of 1944. The US saw this action as an attempt to revitalize imperial Britain.


The article that I posted yesterday by US historian, George Herring said that the US was angry about events like these because they appeared to be the actions of an imperialist. He also said that that may have negatively impacted the deal between FDR and WSC to extend Lend-Lease beyond the end of the war.

Britain went through some very challenging economic and social times in the immediate post war years. For those of us who exited the war with some debt but with the potential to recover quickly, it is hard to appreciate what the British people went through even though it was a victor in this war. The US and certainly Canada saw an economic boom post war.

Canada had given Britain, $1 billion dollars in 1942 and had also floated a $700 million dollar non-interest bearing loan to Britain. It sounds generous. It probably was but Canada had a problem because of Lend-Lease. After asking Canada to expand its industrial capacity when the war started, Britain began to cancel orders for goods and munitions because it was compelled to order from the US because of L-L. The billion dollars and the loan were to be spent in Canada.

That money was used up quickly so in 1943 Canada initiated its Mutual Aid programme to lend manufactured goods and food to the allies. It was Canada's answer to Lend-Lease but on a smaller scale.

Canada did absorb a lot of costs associated with the British Commonwealth Air Training Programme too but at the end of the war also gave a $1.2 billion dollar loan to GB. It too was paid off in 2006.

It seems to me that we should have done better to help Britain during the reconstruction phase. Loans like this seem punitive, in a sense. Did we not appreciate the state of the British economy?



Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/31/2022 11:13:24 AM
I think you give FDR too much intelligence to some up with something like that, hastening the demise of the British Empire.

Recall that that the foreign policy of Great Britain had been for years, not to let a European power become more dominant than GB. Hence, going to war with Germany and they attacked Poland, an ally of GB. And once at war with Germany, Imperial Japan attacked the British Empire in the far East, and threatened Australia.

Basically, there were just too many fronts for the Brits to fight. Twice the Army had to fight in Europe, there was the air war defending the Island. And there were the Naval fronts in the Med and the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Recall that by the turn of the 19th into he 20th Century, GB was already de-colonizing. Canada, and Australia were on their own, the Irish finally won their freedom. India was wishing to be independent.

Churchill had to mortgage the Empire in order to save the Island from Germany. And I think he did the right thing.





Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/31/2022 12:15:59 PM
Some might suggest that it was the other way round: that Churchill mortgaged Britain in order to save the 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
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/31/2022 2:23:17 PM
If anything, GB had a problem with some of the wording of the Atlantic Charter. From the US point of view, the Atlantic charter was a useful counter to American anti-interventionists who argued that Britain was just trying to drag the US into another conflict.
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
10/31/2022 4:02:49 PM
"I think you give FDR too much intelligence to some up with something like that, hastening the demise of the British Empire."

LOL
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/31/2022 4:19:14 PM
Quote:
I think you give FDR too much intelligence to some up with something like that, hastening the demise of the British Empire.

Recall that that the foreign policy of Great Britain had been for years, not to let a European power become more dominant than GB. Hence, going to war with Germany and they attacked Poland, an ally of GB. And once at war with Germany, Imperial Japan attacked the British Empire in the far East, and threatened Australia.

Basically, there were just too many fronts for the Brits to fight. Twice the Army had to fight in Europe, there was the air war defending the Island. And there were the Naval fronts in the Med and the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Recall that by the turn of the 19th into he 20th Century, GB was already de-colonizing. Canada, and Australia were on their own, the Irish finally won their freedom. India was wishing to be independent.

Churchill had to mortgage the Empire in order to save the Island from Germany. And I think he did the right thing.


I would cite certain developments as an indication that the days of Empire were winding down. The Statute of Westminster acknowledged what the Balfour Report of 1926 had said should happen and that was that the Dominions were equal in status to Great Britain.

And with the statute, the British Parliament acknowledged that the Dominions were equal in status to Great Britain. Those Dominions, the "white Dominions", had been lobbying for greater independence even before the Great War. But the sacrifices of the people of those Dominions in the war and the development of nationalistic tendencies because of great deeds done meant that Britain had to look to accommodate their wishes. Canada had already taken steps to show its independence in 1922 when Britain asked for help in Turkey. Canada's PM refused unless Parliament approved. Canada and the US had also signed a fisheries treaty without approval from GB. Canada also established an embassy in Washington in 1926 and appointed a Canadian as ambassador. Big steps for the former colony.

But this statute only applied to former colonies that had achieved Dominion status. That would be Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Irish Free State and Newfoundland. There were still many colonies and protectorates across the world that did not have Dominion status. The statute gave extraordinary powers to the Dominion that were not available to other colonies and protectorates.

They could enact laws in their own legislatures that may have violated colonial policy. The Dominions were able to establish a Supreme Court in their judiciary system which meant that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was no longer the final court of appeal. That Canada waited until 1949 to take advantage of this power still baffles me.

I think that the maintenance of a great Empire for 300 years is more attributable to an image of strength and reliability of Great Britain. Certainly Britain did not maintain control of conquered or assumed territories with large garrisons. It was the mighty RN that projected power across the world.

I think that Great Britain gave great service to the world in the expenditure of blood and money to defend certain "western" principles in two bloody conflicts in the 20th century. Indeed, Churchill was an imperialist and I am sure that he wondered throughout WWII whether he would be able to ensure that the Empire lived. I don't regard everything about the Empire as evil. Many countries in this world including mine and other colonies that may have had greater reason to hate GB, have benefited from the influence of a liberal democracy that gave us the institutions and the principles of good governance. Even India which probably had as big an axe to grind as anyone with respect to Britain, learned a different way to govern a large nation. And yes, India was indicating that it wanted to be independent.

India still committed thousands of troops to the allied cause in WWI and II but Indian nationalists also fought on the side of the Japanese and so there were Indians on both sides at one of the greatest battles and defeats given to Imperial Japan, Imphal and Kohima.

I suppose we could say that Empire died in 1945 but I think that that would be a hasty conclusion. As Britain allowed certain powers to devolve to the colonies, it paved the way for independence. Whether that was the plan or not, I really do not know.

The word "Commonwealth" was used in 1926 to describe the relationship between the Dominions and other colonies and the Crown. And that Commonwealth still exists. It is the evolution of the Empire. It is true that many of Britain's former colonies have recently decided to become republics. The Commonwealth of Nations consists of 56 countries who voluntarily maintain membership in this group even with Charles III as the head of the Commonwealth. Those that are no longer constitutional monarchies still maintain membership in the Commonwealth association. Four of the members were never part of the British Empire and yet they sought membership.

And I believe that 15 of the members are still constitutional monarchies who govern themselves fully independently but retain Charles III as their head of state but not the head of government, a critical distinction.

Some question the relevance of the Commonwealth. I like to think of its existence as an evolutionary process. It is the legacy of Empire even if the mother country, by 1945, could no longer afford to service, own or protect the Empire.

George


George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/31/2022 4:21:56 PM
Quote:
I think you give FDR too much intelligence to some up with something like that, hastening the demise of the British Empire.


That is the claim of George Herring, the US historian, not mine.

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/1/2022 6:12:21 AM
In the face of widespread opposition in the American colonies, Parliament enacts the Stamp Act, a taxation measure designed to raise revenue for British military operations in America.

Defense of the American colonies in the French and Indian War (1754-63) and Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763-64) were costly affairs for Great Britain, and Prime Minister George Grenville hoped to recover some of these costs by taxing the colonists. In 1764, the Sugar Act was enacted, putting a high duty on refined sugar. Although resented, the Sugar Act tax was hidden in the cost of import duties, and most colonists accepted it. The Stamp Act, however, was a direct tax on the colonists and led to an uproar in America over an issue that was to be a major cause of the Revolution: taxation without representation.

Passed without debate by Parliament in March 1765, the Stamp Act was designed to force colonists to use special stamped paper in the printing of newspapers, pamphlets, almanacs, and playing cards, and to have a stamp embossed on all commercial and legal papers. The stamp itself displayed an image of a Tudor rose framed by the word “America” and the French phrase Honi soit qui mal y pense—”Shame to him who thinks evil of it.”

Outrage was immediate. Massachusetts politician Samuel Adams organized the secret Sons of Liberty organization to plan protests against the measure, and the Virginia legislature and other colonial assemblies passed resolutions opposing the act. In October, nine colonies sent representatives to New York to attend a Stamp Act Congress, where resolutions of “rights and grievances” were framed and sent to Parliament and King George III. Despite this opposition, the Stamp Act was enacted on November 1, 1765.
The colonists greeted the arrival of the stamps with violence and economic retaliation. A general boycott of British goods began, and the Sons of Liberty staged attacks on the customhouses and homes of tax collectors in Boston. After months of protest and economic turmoil, and an appeal by Benjamin Franklin before the British House of Commons, Parliament voted to repeal the Stamp Act in March 1766. However, the same day, Parliament passed the Declaratory Acts, asserting that the British government had free and total legislative power over the colonies.

Parliament would again attempt to force unpopular taxation measures on the American colonies in the late 1760s, leading to a steady deterioration in British-American relations that culminated in the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775.
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
11/1/2022 10:15:18 AM
Why the colonists thought they should not have to pay taxes levied largely for their common defence continues to baffle me. Representation in Parliament would have come in due course, like it did for the rest of society back in Great Britain. Alternatively, the Thirteen Colonies would have evolved into something resembling the Dominions over time.

Cheers,

Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/1/2022 12:57:35 PM
uote]Why the colonists thought they should not have to pay taxes levied largely for their common defence continues to baffle me. Representation in Parliament would have come in due course, like it did for the rest of society back in Great Britain. Alternatively, the Thirteen Colonies would have evolved into something resembling the Dominions over time.

Cheers,

Colin

I tend to agree Colin. The North American phase of the Seven Years War against the French was a costly one for the British. Britain had committed thousands of troops and the RN to eliminate the French fact in North America.

France and Britain jockeyed for control of the known part of North America and they claimed the Mississippi Valley and built forts to help them engage in trade with the First Nations who generally supported the French. Of course, the British colonists also coveted the lands to the west of the Allegheny Mountains. The colonists themselves would prompt the British to assist them in their desire to be rid of the French.

In 1755 the British expelled the Acadians from Nova Scotia and have received much criticism for that action. From Britain's point of view, the Acadians had violated their oath, taken in 1730, to remain neutral in any conflict between France and Britain. As well, France had built the strategically place Fortress Louisbourg on Ile Royale (now Cape Breton). That is very close to Halifax.

In anticipation of war, the Nova Scotia governor and the Massachusetts Bay governor determined that it was time for the Acadians to go.

What is not addressed is that the New England colonists were most anxious to have the Acadians removed from Nova Scotia and committed colonists to assist the British in the expulsion. Governor William Shirley of Massachusetts Bay feared that the French in Nova Scotia were a threat to the colony. It was Shirley who recruited about 2000 colonists to assist in the expulsion. And of course, there were many British soldiers as well. The round-up took place over a period of years and it was most unpleasant as many Acadians died in transit and anyone deported lost everything.

The colonists also sent their own militia into the disputed territories on the other side of the Allegheny Mountains. They were upset that the French were building forts in the Ohio Valley to the south of Lake Erie. George Washington himself led a force into the Ohio Valley but he was sent packing. He was also accused of being party to the assassination of a French envoy named Jumonville. At this time Washington was a British officer leading this militia group.

The British experienced a number of losses against the French in the early part of the war. The colonists were most concerned about this but PM Pitt decided to expand the British military presence in North America and things began to go the way of the British.

In the end of course it was the British, led by James Wolfe, who defeated the French on the Plains of Abraham in 1759. Wolfe had already participated in the capture and destruction of Fortress Louisbourg in 1758.

Britain committed forces to Martinique and Guadaloupe in the Caribbean. The RN also crushed the French Navy at Quiberon Bay on Nov. 20, 1759. This eliminated the threat that France would invade Britain but also ensured that the French navy could not send a rescue mission to Québec City where French troops had the city, now occupied by British forces since the defeat of Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham, under siege.

The British would lose to the French at Québec in 1760, again at Québec, in the Battle of St. Foy with the result that French troops would maintain the siege of Québec.

EDIT: The siege was not laid until after the Battle of St. Foy in 1760, when French troops returned to Québec to take it back after the defeat in 1759.

The French did send a small number of boats in an attempt to resupply Québec but these were intercepted by the RN and destroyed at the Battle of Restigouche which was really an entrapment of the French vessels up the river. And so in the spring of 1760, the French and the British looked hopefully down river to see which ships would appear when the ice went out. And it was the RN that appeared below Québec City. The siege was broken.

And that was it for France. British troops went to Montréal and the remaining French forces surrendered rather than fight an impossible fight.

So I have gone on at length with a synopsis of what the British did to protect their subjects in North America and to expand the number of British colonies. It was only 15 years later that the colonists were angry about a series of taxes and later some British legislation that they called intolerable. And not long after they were climbing into bed with the French, the same France whose actions against the colonists in conjunction with First Nations allies had resulted in so much enmity toward the French.

Do I think that the colonists deserved representation in Parliament? I do. But I also feel that the tiny level of taxation imposed by the Stamp Act was not onerous and perhaps was owed as a responsibility to share the burden of war.

It must have seemed like a sordid betrayal to Britain and to some of the troops who had fought in the North American part of the Seven Years War when the colonists went to war against GB and then joined France in its act of retribution against Britain.

Would independence have come to the colonies without war? I think so. Certainly it did in Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. The revolution may have delayed the evolution to independence in the remaining British colonies because Britain felt the need to crack down on those colonies. However, gradually reforms were set in place and achieved with very little blood shed.

I understand that a post like this is bound to raise some hackles but I have always felt that the narrative spun by the victors is less than a fulsome account of the details surrounding the insurrection in Massachusetts and then the full on revolt.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/1/2022 1:56:44 PM
A little late for "this day" but what the heck. The first elected legislature in Nova Scotia first sat on Oct. 2, 1758. As such, it was the first of all the colonies that remained after the rebellion in the 13 colonies, to achieve representative democracy. That of course, does not include many of the First Nations groups that had long experienced representative forms of government.

Even at that, you had to be Protestant to vote in Nova Scotia. And you had to be a property owner. By 1789, the religious restriction had been removed.

Note that this development granted by the Colonial Office took place during the Acadian expulsions and the French and Indian Wars.

It took a while longer before this form of government became truly a representative democracy whereby the appointed representatives on the Executive Council of Nova Scotia were beholden to the elected assembly and not the other way around. That happened in 1848. The erosion of unelected executive power had been ongoing since the 1780's in Britain.

In 1854 Nova Scotia increased the size of the electorate by giving the vote to all males. Supposedly, Nova Scotia was the first government in North America to do so but I am open to correction.

So it seems that reforms in colonial governments were indeed possible in British North America prior to the American Revolution.

Other British colonies like mine, Ontario (then Upper Canada) did not move in lock step with Nova Scotia. There had been representative democracy in Upper Canada since 1792 but the legislative assembly was not fully in charge. There was an appointed council and a Lt. Gov. that could override the legislature. That led to revolts in 1837 in Upper and Lower Canada that were supported by American sympathizers. There was talk of war between the US and GB because of American interference in colonial matters. The violence in UC and LC paled in comparison to the revolution in the 13 colonies but it was enough for the Crown to crack down initially and then to investigate and then to reform the governments in Upper and Lower Canada to make them more representative.

So yes, reform of goverment to increase the extent of democracy and representative government can and did happen in other parts of British North America.

I would not say that the American Revolution influenced reform in the remaining British colonies after the revolution. For the most part, the form of republicanism as practiced in the US was despised as it seemed to be rule by mob. However, that revolution did see thousands of Loyalists choose to leave the lands of their birth to come to British North America. These people believed in representative government but they did not support revolution. And so they lobbied for reform.

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/1/2022 4:45:10 PM
Pretty simple actually.
Many colonists felt that they should not pay these taxes, because they were passed in England by Parliament, not by their own colonial governments. They protested, saying that these taxes violated their rights as British citizens.

The colonists never did vote for any members of Parliament.
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
11/1/2022 6:44:58 PM
The same colonists also demanded the Crown supply armed forces to protect them from French, Spanish and Native American attacks. Who did they think was paying for that? However, I do accept the general point of no taxation without representation. There could have been an accommodation without warfare.

Cheers,

Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/1/2022 8:47:31 PM
MD, two days ago you said: Quote:
Also today 10-30-95 Quebec almost breaks away from Canada!? How can this be? & A simple vote is a legal means to break.away?? Boy if it happened Canada would be fractured!??

Help me understand this?
I tried to answer this on the date, but lost the post.

Hard one to answer, but as we saw today still a challenge for Canadians.

This is the text of the referendum (cited by Wiki, from whence I have drawn it.):
“Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
French: Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?

The 1995 Referendum was, admittedly, a near-run thing. Keeping in mind only Quebec voters were eligible to vote, check these numbers:
• Total registered voters: 5,087,009
• Total votes cast: 4,757,509
• Percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot: 93.52%
Quebeckers on both sides took this seriously, something Canada did no do until very late in the game.

How did the vote play out? At the final count, it was very close:
• Yes votes (in support): 2,308,360
• No votes (against) 2,362,648
The referendum was defeated by 54,288 votes, or 1.16%.

Since 1995, Quebec has raised the concept of separation from Canada on a number of occasions. So have Alberta, BC and other provinces or regions. Everybody kinda laughs and shrugs. And in Quebec, it remains a serious issue.

Today in Quebec, certain newly elected members of Quebec’s National Assembly (and yes, by inference they see their provincial legislature as a national one) refused to swear an oath to King Charles. In their comments, I hear echoes of 1914 and 1939, when many Québecois were prepared to fight to defend Canada, but not for “King and Country”, since in their eyes George VI was “not their king”.

Here’s the article from CBC. It’s worth a read:
[Read More]

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/1/2022 8:50:35 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Also today 10-30-95 Quebec almost breaks away from Canada!? How can this be? & A simple vote is a legal means to break.away?? Boy if it happened Canada would be fractured!??


1995 was the second referendum on sovereignty in Québec with the first taking place in 1980.

Separatism raises its head from time to time but since 1995 it seems that Quebeckers have decided that they do not want to deal with the issue. That doesn't mean that they have stopped electing political parties both provincially and federally which, at their core, are separatist. The people don't want to deal with it right now and so even the separatist parties generally keep quiet about the issue. The do push Québec nationalism however. That is a constant theme in Québec and even our federal politicians have acknowledged that Québec is a "nation within a nation".

In 1980, the Parti Québecois proposed a referendum question that went like this:

Quote:
The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?


The essential concept was called "sovereignty-association". It was an ambiguous question and fortunately 59.9% of Quebeckers rejected the concept. But that was not a solid approval rating for the status quo. PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau, recently elected before the referendum vote had promised that even if the vote was NO, he was prepared to negotiate a new type of a asymmetrical federalism.

Fast forward to 1995 and there had been two failed attempts to come to an agreement on the constitution. Quebec was demanding that it be recognized as a "distinct society" and that didn't sit well with many in the Rest of Canada (ROC). That led to the election of a separatist party in Québec putting the Parti Québecois back into power. And this party promised another referendum.

And the PQ posed another less than clear referendum question:

Quote:
Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?"


They were promising all sorts of things to the people telling them that yes, they would be a sovereign nation. But they wouldn't have to give up the Canadian dollar. And Québec would have a seat at the Bank of Canada to ensure input on monetary policy. Now there would be nothing wrong for a country to decide to use the CDN dollar but definitely something wrong with thinking that that country would dictate monetary policy.

The result of the second referendum was too close for comfort as it became apparent that the YES side had been gaining on the NO. People from the ROC bused or flew into Québec to wave Canadian flags and to tell the Quebeckers that they were loved.

50.58% of the voters voted NO and so separation would not happen.

It has become clear that the Québec referendum of 1995 could have seen a Québec government demanding to separate based upon a pretty sketchy question.

However, the federal government realized that they had to do something and so they came up with the following:

1. Québec would be recognized as a distinct society within Canada.
2. Different regions of the country were granted veto power over constitutional changes
3. Certain powers devolved from the feds to the provinces, including labour and training, and apprenticeships

But it was also necessary to develop some clear rules for any province that was thinking about seceding from Confederation.

In 1998 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the province of Québec did not have the right to unilaterally secede from Canada. However, it was unanimous that if a province indicated a clear majority who wished to secede then the federal government and the remaining provinces would be compelled to negotiate with the separatists. Unilateral secession was perceived to be in violation of the Canadian constitution and international law.

In 2000, the federal government passed a law that is known as the Clarity Act. So a clear question and what defines a "clear majority" must be determined before the question is presented. And then if a province votes to secede then it may begin to negotiate its separation from Canada.

The Clarity Act was accepted by Québec and they understand that a referendum question has to be unambiguous and has the approval of the House of Commons. As well, the actual percentage that represents a clear majority would have to be decided upon.

For those legal beagles out there, this is the Clarity Act

[Read More]

I have often wondered which issues would have to be dealt with should we reach the point whereby a province was going to leave.

With Québec, there is the basic matter of area. The Québec land mass of today is much larger than it was at Confederation. For administrative purposes, many provinces increased in area as the federal government parcelled out land.

This was Canada from 1867 to 1870



Even if Canada insisted that Québec could only claim land mass as it was in 1870, we still have a problem in that the ROC has no southern land bridge to the Maritimes.

Other issues include the sharing of assets and debts. Canada has a debt and Québec would have to accept a share of that.

There are federal properties in the Province of Québec whose value would have to be appraised and then a decision on ownership would have to be made.

Military assets would have to be divided.

And finally there is the issue of First Nations wishes and the FN in Québec have said that their treaties are with the federal government of Canada and that they have no intention of leaving Confederation.

A hell of a mess it certainly would be.

Cheers,

George



Hi George,

Great & informed post on Quebec's separatists & other possible areas & peoples wanting to break away!? At least unlike the US in the Civil War they did not declare independence, & get ready for warfare!?

Canadian Civil War anyone??
Cheers,
MD
----------------------------------
"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
11/1/2022 9:17:30 PM
As Englishmen, they believed they had the same rights and protection as any and all Englishmen.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/1/2022 9:32:16 PM
It is my belief that should the day come that there will not be a military challenge to Québec's decision to separate, should they follow the Parliamentary procedure to which they have agreed.

There are many people in the rest of Canada who would welcome their departure. In a way, since asymmetrical federalism became an accepted fact, Québec has tried to manage many files on their own and separately from the rest of Canada. For example, we have a Canada Pension Plan in this country which is part of the social safety net. It is a rock solid and well managed plan. But Québec chooses to operate its own plan. Québec wants whatever monies it is due in federal transfers but does not want to be accountable for its use.

Unfortunately, other provinces are spouting some of the same ideas.

In Canada we have an equalization plan so that the federal government transfers money to those that are financially weaker to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to the same social services and quality of life. It has long been claimed by some provinces that Québec gets too great a share of the pie and that is why it can offer social programmes that are better than in most provinces. I don't know whether that is true but there is resentment of Québec.

Some are appalled at Québec's language laws and its laws that seem to discriminate against other religions. There is not always good will between the ROC and Québec.

However, should they separate there will be intense negotiations. They will not be permitted to leave without a settlement that sees Québec assuming its share of Canada's federal debt. Trade and monetary policy would be on the table.

"If Canada is divisible, then so is Québec". That is the argument that many Canadians say must be emphasized to Québec, that is, it will not be permitted to walk away with all the area of land that it currently administers. It has been suggested that in the areas of Québec where separatism is not strong, the people should vote separately. That would likely see the city of Montréal voting to stay with Canada. There are several million people in Québec who are not separatists and with whose rights Canada must also be concerned.

If there is any potential for violence, I think that it would be over the partition of Québec. Personally, I would ask the federal government to partition the south shore of the St. Lawrence River that contains parts of Québec. Even the Gaspé peninsula would have to remain with Canada so that we can link the ROC with the Maritimes.

Last point. There is no guarantee that with the separation of Québec and the economic recession that would likely ensue, that other parts of Canada would not seek independence.

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/2/2022 6:18:35 AM
On November 2, 1777, the USS Ranger, with a crew of 140 men under the command of John Paul Jones, leaves Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for the naval port at Brest, France, where it will stop before heading toward the Irish Sea to begin raids on British warships. This was the first mission of its kind during the Revolutionary War.

Commander Jones, remembered as one of the most daring and successful naval commanders of the American Revolution, was born in Scotland, on July 6, 1747. He became an apprentice to a merchant at 13 and soon went to sea, traveling first to the West Indies and then to North America as a young man. In Virginia at the onset of the American Revolution, Jones sided with the Patriots and received a commission as a first lieutenant in the Continental Navy on December 7, 1775.

After departing Brest, Jones successfully executed raids on two forts in England’s Whitehaven Harbor, despite a disgruntled crew more interested in “gain than honor.” Jones then continued to his home territory of Kirkcudbright Bay, Scotland, where he intended to abduct the earl of Selkirk and then exchange him for American sailors held captive by Britain. Although he did not find the earl at home, Jones’ crew was able to steal all his silver, including his wife’s teapot, still containing her breakfast tea. From Scotland, Jones sailed across the Irish Sea to Carrickfergus, where the Ranger captured the HMS Drake after delivering fatal wounds to the British ship’s captain and lieutenant.​



In September 1779, Jones fought one of the fiercest battles in naval history when he led the USS Bonhomme Richard frigate, named for Benjamin Franklin, in an engagement with the 50-gun British warship HMS Serapis. After the Bonhomme Richard was struck, it began taking on water and caught fire. When the British captain of the Serapis ordered Jones to surrender, he famously replied, “I have not yet begun to fight!” A few hours later, the captain and crew of the Serapis admitted defeat and Jones took command of the British ship.

One of the greatest naval commanders in history, Jones is remembered as a “Father of the American Navy,” along with fellow Revolutionary War hero Commodore John Barry. John Paul Jones is buried in a crypt at the U.S. Naval Academy Chapel in Annapolis, Maryland.
=================================================================================================================================================

Jones exemplified the fighting spirit of the US Navy, in refusing to surrender to a British warship.​
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/2/2022 7:32:59 AM
Quote:
MD, two days ago you said: Quote:
Also today 10-30-95 Quebec almost breaks away from Canada!? How can this be? & A simple vote is a legal means to break.away?? Boy if it happened Canada would be fractured!??

Help me understand this?
I tried to answer this on the date, but lost the post.

Hard one to answer, but as we saw today still a challenge for Canadians.

This is the text of the referendum (cited by Wiki, from whence I have drawn it.):
“Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
French: Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?

The 1995 Referendum was, admittedly, a near-run thing. Keeping in mind only Quebec voters were eligible to vote, check these numbers:
• Total registered voters: 5,087,009
• Total votes cast: 4,757,509
• Percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot: 93.52%
Quebeckers on both sides took this seriously, something Canada did no do until very late in the game.

How did the vote play out? At the final count, it was very close:
• Yes votes (in support): 2,308,360
• No votes (against) 2,362,648
The referendum was defeated by 54,288 votes, or 1.16%.

Since 1995, Quebec has raised the concept of separation from Canada on a number of occasions. So have Alberta, BC and other provinces or regions. Everybody kinda laughs and shrugs. And in Quebec, it remains a serious issue.

Today in Quebec, certain newly elected members of Quebec’s National Assembly (and yes, by inference they see their provincial legislature as a national one) refused to swear an oath to King Charles. In their comments, I hear echoes of 1914 and 1939, when many Québecois were prepared to fight to defend Canada, but not for “King and Country”, since in their eyes George VI was “not their king”.

Here’s the article from CBC. It’s worth a read:
[Read More]

Cheers
Brian G


Thanks for the CBC article. It reveals the cynical and hypocritical nature of the separatist parties

The latest polls show tepid support for separation in the province.

32% are happy with the status quo and think that Québec has sufficient levels of sovereignty granted in our federal system.

28% are staunch separatists

30% want more powers to devolve to the province but still wish to remain a part of Canada


The Parti Québecois leader, Pierre Plamondon speaks of a "secular" society and yet the National Assembly of Québec has passed legislation that will not permit the hiring of people to public service jobs if they wish to wear religious symbols. A woman wearing hijab cannot teach in Québec schools. Kippahs, and turbans are also banned under Bill 21.

Initially the wearing of a small Christian cross as a necklace was not targeted. I believe that necklaces are verboten but a tattoo of a cross is not and you could wear a t-shirt with a cross on it.

Civil rights activists in Québec, and there are many, point out the hypocrisy in laws of this nature and point to the giant cross with a crucified Jesus on it, that hangs in the National Assembly. Rather, it used to hang. Under considerable pressure, the cross was recently removed.

Premier Francois Legault had initially said that it should remain because it was more of an historical symbol than a religious symbol.

The rest of Canada is, for the most part, appalled by this legislation and other legislation that promotes the exclusive use of the French language in the province.

I think that the PQ and the CAQ parties realize that support for the core plank of their platform, separation, is weak and they have to find a cause to rile up the Quebeckers once again. So far, it has not worked but this problem hangs about our necks and plagues us.

Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/2/2022 9:19:01 AM
Back in the late 1970s, I have a chance to go to McGill to study, but was put off by the political turmoil.

Plus, in the US, sicker people were offered surgical operations, from what I was told.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/2/2022 9:42:23 AM
Quote:
It is my belief that should the day come that there will not be a military challenge to Québec's decision to separate, should they follow the Parliamentary procedure to which they have agreed.

There are many people in the rest of Canada who would welcome their departure. In a way, since asymmetrical federalism became an accepted fact, Québec has tried to manage many files on their own and separately from the rest of Canada. For example, we have a Canada Pension Plan in this country which is part of the social safety net. It is a rock solid and well managed plan. But Québec chooses to operate its own plan. Québec wants whatever monies it is due in federal transfers but does not want to be accountable for its use.

Unfortunately, other provinces are spouting some of the same ideas.

In Canada we have an equalization plan so that the federal government transfers money to those that are financially weaker to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to the same social services and quality of life. It has long been claimed by some provinces that Québec gets too great a share of the pie and that is why it can offer social programmes that are better than in most provinces. I don't know whether that is true but there is resentment of Québec.

Some are appalled at Québec's language laws and its laws that seem to discriminate against other religions. There is not always good will between the ROC and Québec.

However, should they separate there will be intense negotiations. They will not be permitted to leave without a settlement that sees Québec assuming its share of Canada's federal debt. Trade and monetary policy would be on the table.

"If Canada is divisible, then so is Québec". That is the argument that many Canadians say must be emphasized to Québec, that is, it will not be permitted to walk away with all the area of land that it currently administers. It has been suggested that in the areas of Québec where separatism is not strong, the people should vote separately. That would likely see the city of Montréal voting to stay with Canada. There are several million people in Québec who are not separatists and with whose rights Canada must also be concerned.

If there is any potential for violence, I think that it would be over the partition of Québec. Personally, I would ask the federal government to partition the south shore of the St. Lawrence River that contains parts of Québec. Even the Gaspé peninsula would have to remain with Canada so that we can link the ROC with the Maritimes.

Last point. There is no guarantee that with the separation of Québec and the economic recession that would likely ensue, that other parts of Canada would not seek independence.

George



So George, Bri., Steve, & all of Canada!

It looks like all of the wars & conflicts between France, & Great Britain have spilled into Canada!? The fact that French, & British seem to be in perpetual odds!?? In Quebec they don't even call butter tarts, butter tarts! instead sugar, or Sucre pies!? I'm buying my butter tarts from Ontario from now on!? BTW can Michigan residents now visit Canada with only a enhanced drivers license like prior to Covid? What's the deal??

Go figure,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/2/2022 10:06:12 AM
November 1, & 2, in World history!

Nov. 1, 1512 Michelangelo finishes the Sistene Chapel! I always thought it was the sixteen chapels, & he did a lot of art work on it? Now I got to rethink it!?? ☺ help?

1611 William Shakespeare's Tempest is played to great reviews!? I don't get it what makes this dude so great?? What say you??

11-1, 1952 the US tests Thermol nuclear bomb! Just what does that mean?? Anyone?

1776 the Stamp Act is enforced in the Colonies! Just another thing to piss off the future Americans!? Comments?

1994 NASA expands exploration towards the sun! Comments on the future of NASA it seems diminished lately? What say you?

11-2 in history,

1755 Marie Antoinette is born, how will she effect France, & their monarchy, government & is she the one who loses her head?? Anyone?

1889, both North, & South Dakota admitted as states!? Despite the low populations they are allowed 2 Senators each!? Does the scure power in the upper house??

1917 Britain seeks a home state for Jewish people in Palestine!? Is this fair?? Comments?

1936 the BBC comes into existence!? Is it fair balance news network!? What say you??

1949 Indonesia becomes independent from the Netherlands! Was there conflicts?? Anyone?

1983 President Reagan makes MLK Jr. Day a national holiday!? It did take away Presidents Day as a holiday, honoring Washington, & Lincoln?! What do you think about that??

2000 Russians come to the International space station! How many countries are still involved today?? Is your nation involved? Any good websites on it?

Any new topics?
Carry on!
Cheers,
MD


----------------------------------
"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
11/2/2022 11:55:21 AM
1983 President Reagan makes MLK Jr. Day a national holiday!? It did take away Presidents Day as a holiday, honoring Washington, & Lincoln?! What do you think about that??


Well, it did not detract from honoring Washington and Lincoln.
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
11/2/2022 12:10:57 PM
Quote:
2000 Russians come to the International space station! How many countries are still involved today?? Is your nation involved? Any good websites on it?
Cheers,
MD



ISS web page at NASA here: [Read More]

----------------------------------
"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
11/2/2022 12:20:30 PM
Quote:
So George, Bri., Steve, & all of Canada!

It looks like all of the wars & conflicts between France, & Great Britain have spilled into Canada!? The fact that French, & British seem to be in perpetual odds!?? In Quebec they don't even call butter tarts, butter tarts! instead sugar, or Sucre pies!? I'm buying my butter tarts from Ontario from now on!? BTW can Michigan residents now visit Canada with only a enhanced drivers license like prior to Covid? What's the deal??


MD, this isn't a Britain and France problem. It is solely a Canadian issue. We are the ones who declared that this country would have two official languages and it makes sense. 20-25% of Canadians speak French as their first language.

That is not without problems as the greatest percentage of French speakers live in Québec. The truth is that Quebeckers were not well treated in the earliest days of Confederation. Anglos owned the businesses and often would forbid their workers to speak French even on a factory floor. Tired of feeling like second class citizens, they began to demand more autonomy.

We came so close to breaking up in this country after the referendum dealing with separation that Québec has been granted some extraordinary powers and they have used them to create a French speaking oasis in North America. Their language laws are a bone of contention in this country as they are adamant that French will be the official language in Québec. Their laws actually violate the constitution but there is a type of waiver built in to the constitution that allows for their laws.

That is difficult to reconcile for some in Canada as we know that nationally or federally, Canada is bilingual. Québec does offer government services to Anglos but even those services have been eroded of late.

Québec is quite nearly sovereign though it does rely heavily upon federal transfers in order to give certain services to the people. Health care is one. All provinces receive money to operate health care plans and it amounts to about 23% of the cost of health care.

Another truth is that more Quebeckers are bilingual than anywhere else in the country though it does vary by region. Businesses are usually very accommodating. If I have purchased a product that is made or serviced in Québec and I have to phone for service, I am told, "For English, press 1". And an English speaking Quebecker will answer.

If I am in a restaurant in Québec, I always begin with "Bonjour". Sometimes a waiter will say, "Bonjour-Hi" and will continue in either English or French dependent upon how I respond.

Now I have tried to order food using my high school French. Rarely do I get past the first sentence before the waiter is already speaking to me in English. They know immediately that French is not your first language. But they do want you to at least try.

Another sentence that I have learned and is helpful when visiting parts of Québec where they do not use or understand English is, "Désolé je ne parle pas très bien le français." It means, "I'm sorry, I don't speak French very well." I was way out on the Gaspé peninsula many years ago and I wish that I had just led with that sentence. The people were great but my French wasn't. Still I managed to buy what I needed.

And Dave, I and a friend had just finished a week long canoe trip in LaVerendrye Park in Québec and we stopped at a diner for a bite. Very nice waitress. Didn't speak a lick of English but we got by. She asked something like, "Voulez vous un dessert". (Do you wish to have dessert?)

Using fumbling French we found that she had pies (tartes) on the menu. And that pie was "tarte au Sucre". They have been making sugar pie for as long as French Canadians have been in North America and the recipe can vary from region to region. The first French settlers came from North-west France and they brought recipes with them.

There are versions of this pie made in Maine. The Amish people make something similar called Shoo-fly pie. What sets the French-Canadian version apart is the maple syrup.

The Quebeckers often make it with syrup so this pie is very popular in the spring when the maple trees are tapped. It's a bit different than a butter tart because it is made with syrup and cream. It's sweet but less sweet than you would imagine.

So they aren't really stealing a butter tart recipe. They're just baking the way that that always have. Just ask for "tarte au sucre".

mmmm, tasty. And look, it's not runny like many butter tart recipes are. Just book an appointment with a cardiologist to make sure that you're cleared to eat it.:)



Cheers,

George








George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/2/2022 2:29:02 PM
Quote:
BTW can Michigan residents now visit Canada with only a enhanced drivers license like prior to Covid? What's the deal??


As far as I know, the enhanced driver's licence issued by your state is accepted for entry to the US. Those EDL's are issued by most of the border states and work for land crossings and boat crossings. Only a few states issue EDL's. Michigan is one of them. They won't work if you fly in. You will need a passport.

I got this information from the Canada Border Services Agency:

[quote\
Citizens of the U.S. who are members of the NEXUS program may present their membership card as proof of identification and as a document that denotes citizenship, when arriving by air (when coming from the U.S.), land, or marine modes.

Citizens of the U.S. who are members of the FAST program may use their cards as proof of identity when arriving by land and marine modes only.

Permanent residents of the U.S. who are members of the NEXUS or FAST programs must travel with a passport and proof of permanent residence, and may be asked to present these documents to the officer upon arrival at the border.


Remember it was you folks that tightened up the border after 9-11. The result was the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative that describes what the US will accept from foreign nationals trying to enter the US.

I presume that if you have a Michigan issued EDL that you can get back into Michigan or any other state.

I'm not sure why you folks don't just buy a passport. So much easier. A passport is the gold standard for international travel. Only about 37% of Americans have a passport.

About 70% of Canadian citizens have a passport. Do you folks have an aversion to passports? Is it a lack of trust in the government sort of thing? Fear of travel to other countries?

I know that Canadians and Americans live in big, big countries. You could spend your life travelling about either country or both and never run out of places to see. You would never have to leave the continent, which is a little sad. Still, Canadians seem to want a passport more than US citizens do.

Actually I was reading that the post 9-11 tightening of the borders led to a huge increase in the number of Americans with passports. Prior to that event, only about 10% of Americans carried a passport so the bump-up is significant. It makes travel to other countries easier and it certainly makes US border patrol happy. They like to see a US passport in the hand of a US citizen coming home.

Cheers,

George

Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/2/2022 7:49:16 PM
Quote:


And Dave,

mmmm, tasty. And look, it's not runny like many butter tart recipes are. Just book an appointment with a cardiologist to make sure that you're cleared to eat it.:)



Cheers,

George



George,

Getting hungry just looking at it!

Can you say A1C through the roof!?

Regards,
MD





----------------------------------
"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
11/3/2022 7:19:46 AM
General George Washington is informed that a conspiracy is afoot to discredit him with Congress and have him replaced by General Horatio Gates. Thomas Conway, who would be made inspector general of the United States less than two months later on December 14, led the effort; as such, it became known as the Conway Cabal.

Conway, who was born in Ireland but raised in France, entered the French army in 1749. He was recruited to the Patriot cause by Silas Deane, the American ambassador to France, and after meeting with Washington at Morristown in May 1777, he was appointed brigadier general and assigned to Major General John Sullivan’s division.

Conway served admirably under Sullivan at the battles of Brandywine, in September 1777, and Germantown, in October 1777, before becoming involved in an unconfirmed conspiracy to remove General Washington from command of the Continental Army.

After the Continental Army suffered several defeats in the fall of 1777, some members of Congress expressed displeasure with Washington’s leadership and Conway began writing letters to prominent leaders, including General Horatio Gates, that were critical of Washington. After Washington got wind of Conway’s letter to General Gates, he responded with a letter to Congress in January 1778. Embarrassed, Conway offered his resignation in March 1778 by way of apology, and was surprised and humiliated when Congress accepted. After General John Cadwalader wounded him in a duel defending Washington’s honor, Conway returned to France, where he died in exile in 1800.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/3/2022 7:29:03 AM
Quote:
1611 William Shakespeare's Tempest is played to great reviews!? I don't get it what makes this dude so great?? What say you??


His plays are wonderful and timeless. He employed themes that we would recognize today and so do other playwrights. He examined the human condition and then wrote about them. We can recognize the emotions and desires of the characters in his plays.

Shakespeare wrote phrases in his plays that we still use today even if we don't know that we are quoting Shakespeare. He invented hundreds of words that we still use today.

Phrases that we use today:
[Read More]

Words invented by Shakespeare

[Read More]


There is a town in my province of Ontario called Stratford and yes it sits on the Avon River. And it also hosts what some say is the finest Shakespearean Festival in North America. It is the largest classical repertory theatre in North America.

It attracts 1.7 million people from around the world to its annual festival. My wife and I used to attend for a couple of plays every year when we lived a lot closer to Stratford. The focus is on Shakespeare but the Festival does put on plays by other writers. And MD, Stratford is not too far from Michigan. Under 3 hours from Detroit.

Certainly I am no Shakespearean expert and would have to read cheat sheets prior to attending to make sure that I didn't miss anything. Just like high school. But the actors are just so good that they often convey the meaning of the words with facial expression and body language. The experience of live theatre and at the wonderful theatres at the Festival is exhilarating.
Stratford Festival 2023

[Read More]

And Stratford, the town, is a pretty place especially in the theatre district.

This is the new Tom Patterson Theatre in Stratford on the Avon river. I haven't been to this theatre.



Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/3/2022 9:31:56 AM
General George Washington is informed that a conspiracy is afoot to discredit him with Congress and have him replaced by General Horatio Gates. Thomas Conway, who would be made inspector general of the United States less than two months later on December 14, led the effort; as such, it became known as the Conway Cabal.

Conway, who was born in Ireland but raised in France, entered the French army in 1749. He was recruited to the Patriot cause by Silas Deane, the American ambassador to France, and after meeting with Washington at Morristown in May 1777, he was appointed brigadier general and assigned to Major General John Sullivan’s division.

Conway served admirably under Sullivan at the battles of Brandywine, in September 1777, and Germantown, in October 1777, before becoming involved in an unconfirmed conspiracy to remove General Washington from command of the Continental Army.

After the Continental Army suffered several defeats in the fall of 1777, some members of Congress expressed displeasure with Washington’s leadership and Conway began writing letters to prominent leaders, including General Horatio Gates, that were critical of Washington. After Washington got wind of Conway’s letter to General Gates, he responded with a letter to Congress in January 1778. Embarrassed, Conway offered his resignation in March 1778 by way of apology, and was surprised and humiliated when Congress accepted. After General John Cadwalader wounded him in a duel defending Washington’s honor, Conway returned to France, where he died in exile in 1800.
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
11/3/2022 12:53:12 PM
Based on the information I am reading, "Congress did not accept Conway’s resignation; instead it promoted him to major general over twenty-three American officers senior to him." Furthermore; "Congress set up a new Board of War to oversee Washington—with Horatio Gates as president. Conway was to be Washington’s new inspector general!" Letters between Gates and Conway would lead to this entire matter blowing up.

That General Washington at one point considered a court martial against Conway after the Battle of Germantown may have been the impetus for Conway to begin to undermining Gen. Washington. When Gen. Washington got wind of the "cabal" and the letters between General Gates and Conway and the promotion Conway received and with a directive from; "Congress..." (to) "...set up a new Board of War to oversee Washington—with Horatio Gates as president. Conway was to be Washington’s new inspector general!", Gen. Washington sent a letter implying his resignation; "Washington fired both barrels at Richard Henry Lee over “as unfortunate a measure as was ever adopted” for the morale of his officers. Conway’s “importance in this Army exists more in his own imagination than in reality: For it is a maxim with him, to leave no service of his own untold.” He added a poignant note that may be read as a threat of resignation: “I have been a Slave to the service: I have undergone more than most Men are aware of, to harmonize so many discordant parts; but it will be impossible for me to be of any further service , if such insuperable difficulties are thrown in my way.” He later wrote a friend that he hoped “that those who come after may meet with more prosperous gales than I have done, and less difficulty.”

Seems that it was not only the British who tangled with the wrong General.

[Read More]
----------------------------------
"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
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/3/2022 1:19:49 PM
Quote:
Quote:
1611 William Shakespeare's Tempest is played to great reviews!? I don't get it what makes this dude so great?? What say you??


His plays are wonderful and timeless. He employed themes that we would recognize today and so do other playwrights. He examined the human condition and then wrote about them. We can recognize the emotions and desires of the characters in his plays.

Shakespeare wrote phrases in his plays that we still use today even if we don't know that we are quoting Shakespeare. He invented hundreds of words that we still use today.

Phrases that we use today:
[Read More]

Words invented by Shakespeare

[Read More]


There is a town in my province of Ontario called Stratford and yes it sits on the Avon River. And it also hosts what some say is the finest Shakespearean Festival in North America. It is the largest classical repertory theatre in North America.

It attracts 1.7 million people from around the world to its annual festival. My wife and I used to attend for a couple of plays every year when we lived a lot closer to Stratford. The focus is on Shakespeare but the Festival does put on plays by other writers. And MD, Stratford is not too far from Michigan. Under 3 hours from Detroit.

Certainly I am no Shakespearean expert and would have to read cheat sheets prior to attending to make sure that I didn't miss anything. Just like high school. But the actors are just so good that they often convey the meaning of the words with facial expression and body language. The experience of live theatre and at the wonderful theatres at the Festival is exhilarating.
Stratford Festival 2023

[Read More]

And Stratford, the town, is a pretty place especially in the theatre district.

This is the new Tom Patterson Theatre in Stratford on the Avon river. I haven't been to this theatre.



Cheers,

George



Hi George,

I stand corrected Shakespeare was a literary genius! even rockers %& other musicians use his phrases!?

Thanks,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Page 34 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