MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 63 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
3/24/2023 4:52:52 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Another example how the American colonists were oppressed by the British Government.


Yes, oppressed by their fellow countrymen who died by the thousands to defend them from French and Indian attacks.


Maybe, just maybe, if they had listened to he Colonists on how to adapt and fight like the French and Indians did, they would have not offered such tremendous casualties?

Just sayin'.

Cheers,
NYGiant


They did adapt of course. That they did not adapt is a myth, one of many that has become folklore in early American history. British forces had been involved in irregular warfare in Scotland and in other campaigns in Europe including parts of the Seven Year's War of which the French and Indian War was a part.

The type of warfare fought in the French and Indian War has been described as hybrid and it was the British who solicited participation from colonials in some of the units formed that were well able to fight in the bush. After Braddock's defeat, John Campbell took over and he proposed the creation of units who would dress somewhat differently and train to fight in the bush.

It is also a myth to believe that every colonial was an adept marksmen. They were not. Most who joined militia or provincial units did not live on the frontier. They lived in long developed communities well away from the frontier.

Quote:
It is an easy fashion today to imagine that every colonial was an adept in Indian warfare, or that if they could not all follow a trail with Deer slayer's adeptness at least they knew some tricks of the woods and could take care of themselves. That is a fond delusion. Loudon would have been only too glad if it had been true, if he could have depended on colonial woodsmen to provide for his command in America what British troops could not provide - a knowledge of the region and oflndian fighting....But most of the provincial army came from long-settled communities which had never seen an Indian in war-paint...3
. source: Stanley Pargellis


And it was the British who developed light infantry units to deal with the problem of fighting First Nations and French irregulars (French-Canadians) who were adept at fighting in the bush.

Instructions given to British commanders to develop these light infantry groups.

Quote:
“the Attack may frequently become personal between Man and man, It is therefore necessary to be particular in selecting Men for this Service not only of Activity and Bodyly [sic] Strength but also some Experience and approved Spirit.” The light infantry were expected to be equally proficient in both loose, skirmish order and in the closed ranks of batallion formations, with special attention given to their skills as marksmen.


These light infantry battalions were detached from their regiments and acted as scouts, foragers and skirmishers. Their uniforms were different and lightweight. They got rid of the cocked hat which was awkward in the bush, in favour of a leather cap. They all carried tomahawks in addition to muskets. And those muskets were the Short Land Pattern musket. (2nd model Brown Bess)

They were taught to load and fire from a prone position or kneeling.

No white stockings either. They either wore tan coloured stockings or heavy leggings for trudging through rough country.

They were ordered to cut their hair short and they wore short red coats. They were aggressive and eager soldiers as well, selected for both traits. They were trained to face irregulars or regular French troops by Loudon. They were taught to march in line and to obey the command, "Tree All" which would send each man to find a protective tree. They were taught to pitch their tents and to strike them quickly and to carry all that they needed including a bit of food, on their person.

Many have heard of Rogers Rangers led by Robert Rogers and comprised of colonial troops. The British are portrayed often as snobbish and disrespectful of the colonials, but it was the Scot, Loudon who sent 56 officers to confer with the leader of the Rangers. He solicited advice from this man to better improve British performance. But the British found that colonials or colonial Ranger troops were not the best choice for Light Infantry soldiers who were expected to adapt to regular and irregular combat conditions. They did not have sufficient discipline to handle all of the assignments of a light infantry unit. And so, the British began to train regulars for light infantry duty.

After Loudon was recalled, it was Brigadier George Howe that put the finishing touches on the Light Infantry concept. Howe went to live with Robert Rogers and lived the life of a Ranger, down and dirty. When he came back to regular service, it was he who ordered:

Quote:
"throw off all useless encumbrances, cut their hair close, wear leggings to protect them from briers, brown the barrels of their muskets, and carry in their knapsack 30 pounds of meal."


Howe was killed but later commanders ordered that all regiments must form a light infantry unit and issued them with rifled carbines and bayonet which did exist at this time.




Major-General James Wolfe who had performed admirably during the British victory at Fortress Louisbourg in 1758 was an avid proponent of the use of light infantry. And it was Wolfe, of course, who defeated Montcalm at the Plains of Abraham in 1759 in a traditional European style battle which was the beginning of the end for the French in North America and which ironically lead to westward expansion of the 13 colonies, something that the British wished to avoid.

He ordered that all light infantry would discard the heavy red waistcoat in favour of a tight frock coat with sleeves sewn on it. Extra pockets were added for flint and ball. Knapsacks were to be carried higher with, "a strap of web over the shoulders, as the Indians carry their pack." Cartridge boxes were slung to the left, powder horns to the right, cartridges under the left arm and a tomahawk hung from the belt. Wolfe eliminated the tricorn hat by cutting it down into a cap, ""with as much black cloth added as will come under his chin and keep him warm when he lies
down."44"

Without going into all the details of the victory at the Plains of Abraham, it was British light infantry that finally cleared the woods to the north of the First Nations warriors and French irregulars who were sniping at the British forces. This allowed the British to press forward into the fortress. The Scots regulars with their frightening Claymores were being cut down by these people from hiding spots in the bush.

So it is inaccurate indeed to suggest that the British did not listen or try to learn from some of the colonials although in the end they found that regulars including those from the colonies made far better candidates for light infantry. Historians like I. K. Steele have said that the suggestion that the colonial fighters were superior to the British is mostly myth. If not then at least we must realize that the British were a very adaptable army who soundly defeated the French and their First Nations allies.

The Developm.ent of British Light
Infantry in North America During the Seven Years' War

[Read More]

Cheers,

George


EDIT: I have been remiss in not giving credit to the RN which was essential to the success of the final great battles against the French. The ability of the RN to navigate the St. Lawrence and bring massive ships of the line right in front of Fortress Québec was critical.

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/24/2023 4:55:58 PM
Quote:
I am basing my history on the book "Crucible of War" by Fred Anderson. It is a good read.

Since the American Colonists were not protected by the English Bill of Rights, like British subjects were, they can hardly be considered British. Nor did they had any voice nor representation in Parliament. And since they had no representation, they refused taxation. Taxation without Representation, you know.

Cheers,
NYGiant


Just saying it again and again doesn't make it so.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/24/2023 5:52:29 PM
"Just saying it again and again doesn't make it so."

Well, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 says so. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 listed the right of the king’s subjects “not to be burdened with the sojourning of soldiers against their will.”

The English Mutiny Act, a law dealing with military matters, provided that troops could take over inns and other public houses. The owners of these establishments were then compensated by the British government.
In America during 1754, the question of quartering troops first arose, when British soldiers began arriving to fight in the French and Indian War. Lord Loudoun, the commander-in-chief of the British army in North America, realized that the quartering provisions of the Mutiny Act applied only to England and not to its colonies. Using his military authority, Lord Loudoun decreed that if barracks were not available, then the owners of both public and private houses would have to provide accommodations for his men.

So, I have to ask...does Parliament make the laws or does a British General supercede Parliament?

Logic dictates that the American colonists were not the King's subjects, since soldiers were sojourned against their will.

Cheers,
NYGiant
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/24/2023 6:38:54 PM
Quote:
Guys, Moved to the new page for easy viewing & discussions!?

From 3-24 in history! The following happened!?

1765 British Parliament passes Quartering Act making Colonists house British Military! How did this piss the Colonists off!? What say you??

1837 Canada gives it's Black citizens the right to vote! Why were the so ahead of the US on this?? Comments??

1853 Canada allows a anti slavery newspaper in Windsor! Any info on this? Again Canada is sypathetic to Blacks & slaves! Why so??

1906 census shows The British Empire includes1/5th of the worlds population! Wow, any comments on how this was accomplished!? & was this at it's height??

1941 German troops move into Lybia, how was breaking the German code going to lose the Nazis N. Africa?? Comments, anyone??

1942 the US move Japanese American citizens into camps? Sad what happened after Pearl!?? Comments?

On 3-24-1844 the RAF sends 811 bombers at Berlin?! What's the actual story?? Comments anyone? Also a RAF gunner on this day, falls 18,000 feet without a parachute, & is hardly injured!? How in the hell???

1945, Canadian Paratroopers involved in Operation Varsity over the Rhine! How did this work out for the Allies?? What say you??

1971 Great Britain injects direct rule over Ireland! How did this go over? Anyone??

Some new topics! Comments, anyone??
MD

BTW thanks for everyone's recent comments! Certainly continue with current debates!?


Also what about the British Quartering Act, where the Colonists were forced to put up British Soldiers, in their own homes? Isn't that a bit harsh, & pushy??
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/24/2023 6:53:29 PM
MD you note:Quote:
On 3-24-1844 the RAF sends 811 bombers at Berlin?! What's the actual story?? Comments anyone?

I’m not quite sure what you mean when you ask, “What’s the actual story?”

Two days ago, I mentioned this assault as an alternative to a raid on Berlin by the US 8th AF. I wrote:Quote:
There was a raid by RAF Bomber Command on 24/25 March 1944. It was the last raid on Berlin by BC before the bomber focus was redirected (with reluctance, for Bomber Harris) towards targets related to Overlord. It was, in effect, the last major RAF BC raid of the war against Berlin. High winds created chaos with navigation and target-marking. 811 a/c were involved, with 72 losses (8.9%). Damage to Berlin was minimal.
I don’t know what else you’re looking for.

“Bomber” Harris had set his sights on Berlin as the obvious culmination of the bomber war. He felt a continuous assault against Berlin, conducted in concert with US 8th forces, would lead to the end of the war. He was wrong. He could not muster the forces he wanted (the 8th did not join his battle) and he didn’t as yet have sufficiently accurate navigation or marking tools or techniques. Berlin, a relatively new city, was not a good target for the type of area bombing Harris had developed. German anti-aircraft forces were evolving in more effective ways; flak concentration around Berlin was extremely high and relatively effective, and evolving night fighter techniques and weapons (“Zahm Sau” and “Shräge Musik”) were claiming their toll against Bomber Command aircraft.

More important, the Allied realization that a landing and land campaign would be necessary (for a host of reasons) to defeat Germany caused a shift of emphasis in the role of Bomber Command. By early in 1944 both US 8th and RAF Bomber Command were required to play an a support role. Harris did not support the new role Bomber Command faced, but was ultimately forced to re-direct his forces. As a result, the 811 a/c raid on Berlin on 24/25 March is seen as the last raid of the Battle of Berlin.

It was not the last RAF attack on Berlin by any means, and the assets of Bomber Command were often diverted to targets of Harris’s choosing, based on decisions within his power to make.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/24/2023 7:46:50 PM
Quote:
Also what about the British Quartering Act, where the Colonists were forced to put up British Soldiers, in their own homes? Isn't that a bit harsh, & pushy??


Not so MD. There were some instances of private homes being used for billets during the French and Indian War. But not when the war ended.

[Read More]

George

NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/24/2023 8:12:54 PM
The very presence of armies stationed in American cities during peacetime was a threat to American liberty.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/24/2023 8:30:19 PM
Quote:
Logic dictates that the American colonists were not the King's subjects, since soldiers were sojourned against their will.


So any perceived violation of the rights of an Englishman is grounds to declare oneself a sovereign citizen? In those days, one could not reject status as a British subject. You are pushing a premise that the American colonists were not British and then searching for an argument to prove what is really just wishful thinking.

Oddly the Quartering Act itself which was an amendment to the Mutiny Act did not cause a great deal of unrest.

Just what did the average colonists think about being a British subject? Was he offended by that status?

And what you ignore is that fact that most were proud to be British subjects and part of the Empire. It may be convenient to portray the relationship between the mother country and the colonies as consistently adversarial and confrontational but that is myth.

And as the troubles brewed and war began we know that 20-30% of the colonists were Loyalists and proud British subjects. And of the rest, not all were committed insurrectionists or separatists. One estimate that I read was that 40% of the colonists were committed separatists.

Let's have a less emotional discussion about the root causes of the revolution, unclouded by some of the myths that continue to be reported. For example, how many Americans still feel that British soldiers were billeted in private homes after the French and Indian War? That's the type of misinformation that clouds issues.

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/24/2023 8:41:55 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Logic dictates that the American colonists were not the King's subjects, since soldiers were sojourned against their will.


So any perceived violation of the rights of an Englishman is grounds to declare oneself a sovereign citizen? In those days, one could not reject status as a British subject. You are pushing a premise that the American colonists were not British and then searching for an argument to prove what is really just wishful thinking.

Oddly the Quartering Act itself which was an amendment to the Mutiny Act did not cause a great deal of unrest.

Just what did the average colonists think about being a British subject? Was he offended by that status?

And what you ignore is that fact that most were proud to be British subjects and part of the Empire. It may be convenient to portray the relationship between the mother country and the colonies as consistently adversarial and confrontational but that is myth.

And as the troubles brewed and war began we know that 20-30% of the colonists were Loyalists and proud British subjects. And of the rest, not all were committed insurrectionists or separatists. One estimate that I read was that 40% of the colonists were committed separatists.

Let's have a less emotional discussion about the root causes of the revolution, unclouded by some of the myths that continue to be reported. For example, how many Americans still feel that British soldiers were billeted in private homes after the French and Indian War? That's the type of misinformation that clouds issues.

George


You have insisted that the American Colonist were British subjects. British subjects had a right that British soldiers would not be sojourned into their homes. Parliament passed the Quartering Act....which means that they considered the Colonists not to be British subjects.Or, they removed a liberty from them given to British subjects.

A standing Army in the Colonies threatened the Colonists Liberty.

That pride eroded when the Colonists saw their rights being taken away from them by Parliament.

Let's discuss the facts....the Coercive Acts, the Boston Massacre, the Quebec Act. Let's discuss taxation without representation.






George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/24/2023 9:27:02 PM
Quote:
.Parliament passed the Quartering Act....which means that they considered the Colonists not to be British subjects.


Supposition. When did Parliament suggest that the colonists were not British subjects and then therefore could have a Quartering Act imposed? I don't believe that that was the rationale that was used.

text of Quartering Act of 1774

[Read More]




Quote:
Third Amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


So in a wartime emergency could your government pass laws to compel citizens to billet soldiers? Do you see parallels to the Quartering Act of 1774?
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/25/2023 6:02:38 AM
On this day in American History,....

On March 25, 1774, British Parliament passes the Boston Port Act, closing the port of Boston and demanding that the city’s residents pay for the nearly $1 million worth (in today’s money) of tea dumped into Boston Harbor during the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773.

The Boston Port Act was the first and easiest to enforce of four acts that together were known as the Coercive Acts. The other three were a new Quartering Act, the Administration of Justice Act and the MassachusettsGovernment Act.

As part of the Crown’s attempt to intimidate Boston’s increasingly unruly residents, King George III appointed General Thomas Gage, who commanded the British army in North America, as the new governor of Massachusetts. Gage became governor in May 1774, before the Massachusetts Government Act revoked the colony’s 1691 charter and curtailed the powers of the traditional town meeting and colonial council. These moves made it clear to Bostonians that the crown intended to impose martial law.



In June, Gage easily sealed the ports of Boston and Charlestown using the formidable British navy, leaving merchants terrified of impending economic disaster. Many merchants wanted to simply pay for the tea and disband the Boston Committee of Correspondence, which had served to organize anti-British protests. The merchants’ attempt at convincing their neighbors to assuage the British failed. A town meeting called to discuss the matter voted them down by a substantial margin.



Parliament hoped that the Coercive Acts would isolate Boston from Massachusetts, Massachusetts from New England and New England from the rest of North America, preventing unified colonial resistance to the British. Their effort backfired. Rather than abandon Boston, the colonial population shipped much-needed supplies to Boston and formed extra-legal Provincial Congresses to mobilize resistance to the crown. By the time Gage attempted to enforce the Massachusetts Government Act, his authority had eroded beyond repair.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/parliament-passes-the-boston-port-act
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy, the British are piling these Coercive Acts upon the oppressed American Colonists! No wonder they rebelled!!

One thing though, these Coercive Acts did unify the disparate 13 Colonies.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/25/2023 6:15:40 AM
Quote:
Quote:
.Parliament passed the Quartering Act....which means that they considered the Colonists not to be British subjects.


Supposition. When did Parliament suggest that the colonists were not British subjects and then therefore could have a Quartering Act imposed? I don't believe that that was the rationale that was used.

text of Quartering Act of 1774

[Read More]




Quote:
Third Amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


So in a wartime emergency could your government pass laws to compel citizens to billet soldiers? Do you see parallels to the Quartering Act of 1774?



We know from the English Bill of Rights, that British soldiers would not be sojourned in the homes of British subjects. Since Parliament did pass the Quartering Act upon the Colonists, it holds that Parliament did not consider the Colonists to be British subjects.

No I don't see any parallels, since there was no War in the Colonies at the time of the Quartering Act.

Cheers,
NYGiant
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
3/25/2023 7:20:01 AM
I fear we are all wasting our time here.
----------------------------------
"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
3/25/2023 7:41:20 AM
Quote:
I fear we are all wasting our time here.


agreed. It's a circle game with this one.

There will be cautionary posts to remind me of my folly in engaging.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/25/2023 8:01:38 AM
Moving on to Today in World History,

3-25 events, for example,

1199 Richard the Lion hearted wounded by a crossbow will die a week.later! How good of an English King was he?? Comments? Anyone??

1807 British Parliament out laws slavery! How effective was it? Comments?

1838 earlier in March, There is a rebellion on Pelee Island in Canadian territory, Lake Erie! What's this all about?? What say you??

1865 CW battles in Virginia, Florida, & Kentucky. Who won them?? Comments on the last year of the CW. Anyone??

1917 Canadian flying ace, Billy Bishop shoots down his first plane! What's the story on this Canuck Hotshot!? Comments, Anyone??

1965 MLK jr. Leads 25,000 to march on Montgomery, Alabama! How was he a great non violent leader for African Americans! What say you on King??

Any new topics MHOers?
MD

Also Brian,

Sorry about the repetition on your last post, I was a bit tired, my bad!

Also today in history 2023, (like right now!) Justin Trudeau pledged $420 million (is that Canaian?) for Great Lakes restoration, working with the US on this! Thank you Canada!! ☺ comments on the GLRI program, anyone??
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/25/2023 11:00:30 AM
Quote:
1807 British Parliament out laws slavery! How effective was it? Comments?


Not quite. This initiative only outlawed the trade in human beings. It would not be until 1833 that the British Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act which freed slaves in the colonies. Something in my memory tells me that that legislation did not apply to parts of India. Someone weigh in on that please.

Of note, my province of Ontario and the former colony of Upper Canada tried to ban the importation of slaves in 1793. Legislation called the Act to Limit Slavery in Upper Canada was the first legislation in the British Empire to attempt to limit slavery. Governor John Graves Simcoe was a supporter of an act to ban slavery entirely in the colony.

However, the legislation did not free the few slaves owned by people in Upper Canada as there were many people who wanted compensation for the loss of property. Some of these people were Loyalists who had arrived in the colony with their slaves. Approximately 2000 slaves accompanied their Loyalist owners to Canada after the American Revolution. 500 to 700 came to Upper Canada.

Unlike France, Britain had no protection for enslaved people. They were considered property and even though Britain itself had eliminated slavery in Britain in 1772, the court case that eliminated that institution did not apply to the colonies. I believe that the British legislation was not a complete abolition as slaves just became indentured servants.

We are currently reconciling with the fact that even members of the executive council of Upper Canada also bought slaves between 1793 (founding of Upper Canada) and 1816. There is a street in Toronto called Jarvis St. William Jarvis was a mover and shaker in the colony and we now know that he also owned six slaves.

Anyway, Lt. Gov. Simcoe felt that he could not force a total ban on slavery and so a different legislation was introduced with the awkward title of "An Act to Prevent the further Introduction of Slaves and to limit the Term of Contracts for Servitude" shortened to the Act to Limit Slavery in Upper Canada. It received Royal Assent in 1793.

But no slaves were freed but it was illegal to bring any more into the province. It did not prevent the sale of slaves within the province or to the US. Sales to New York state continued until 1799 when NY passed its own similar law.

So if you were a slave you remained so for the rest of your life unless freed by your owner. Children born to enslaved women after the law would pass would have to be freed at the age of 25 and if any women in that group were to give birth, that child would be free at birth. And so the attempt to abolish slavery failed in favour of a law that would see the number of slaves gradually peter out.

The act had a secondary effect to give impetus and growth to the abolition movement in Upper Canada. Note that similar attempts in Lower Canada did not meet with the same success.

Cheers,

George





George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/25/2023 11:46:32 AM
Quote:
1917 Canadian flying ace, Billy Bishop shoots down his first plane! What's the story on this Canuck Hotshot!? Comments, Anyone??


A brilliant fighter pilot was William Bishop and also a recipient of the Victoria Cross, CB, DSO and bar, MC, DFC. There was no doubt that he could fly and had many confirmed kills. In WWII he was involved heavily in recruitment for the RCAF and he helped to set up the British Commonwealth Air Training Programme.

He was destined to fly I think. Born in Owen Sound in Ontario. As I kid he built a flying machine from orange crates and bed sheets. He climbed onto the roof of his house with his contraption, slid down the roof hoping to soar and immediately crashed into his mother's rose bushes. He was unhurt.

In 1911 he enrolled in the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario. War broke out in his senior year and he and most of his classmates enlisted. He had enlisted in the army and was an excellent marksman and rider of horses so the army of course, put him in the cavalry. Once he got to England and was training at muddy Shornecliffe camp he was enamoured with the planes that he saw flying overhead. Better than the mud, he thought.

He applied for a transfer to the air services and entered as an observer. It would be months before he could start pilot training so observer was the next best thing and the transfer was immediate.

Once in pilot training he had top marks in meterology, and navigation. Received his wings in Nov. 1916 and was assigned to home defence of Britain.

This is Bishop standing beside his Nieuport 17 in August of 1917 while serving in France



Bishop didn't get to France until March of 1917 and by the end of May he had 22 kills. But the sortie that led to the award of his VC became controversial because it was awarded solely on Bishop's description of events. It was not confirmed by others. On June 2, 1917 Bishop claimed that he had been separated from his squadron and had flown to a German aerodrome and downed three airplanes. He flew low back to his squadron with four German aircraft above him.

He went back to Canada on leave with his VC, DSO, MC and bar all of which had been presented to him by the King.

He returned to England in 1918 as the Commander of SQ. 85, the Flying Foxes. They flew Royal Aircraft Factory S.E. 5 a, aircraft. He was recalled to England in June and by that time he had 62 kills. He was supposed to develop a Canadian Flying Corps. But he had 3 days before he left for England and in that short period, he shot down 10 more German aircraft.

June 12 was his last day in France and on that day he shot down 5 German aircraft in 12 minutes. His total was 72.

While in England, France awarded him the Legion of Honour and the Croix de Guerre with two palms.

The war ended and he went home and set up a flying business with another Canadian VC winner, William Barker.

In 1928 he visited Berlin and was made a member of the German Ace Association. He was the only non-German to be honoured in such a way.


Now for some controversy. In true Canadian tradition, we have often seen attempts to destroy our heroes by Canadians themselves. In 1982 the National Film Board of Canada released a documentary called, "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss" and that doc called into question some of Bishop's claims including his description of the events that led to the award of the VC.

The country was in an uproar. Bishop had been a great Canadian hero. Parliament ordered an investigation by the Senate and after much research they concluded that the the director of the documentary had taken great liberty with the facts and had often conflated one event with another. They proved conclusively that Bishop had not lied and recommended that the documentary be advertised as a docu-drama.

Since that time, historians have continued to argue over the veracity of Bishop's claims. There is little doubt that Bishop was a brilliant pilot and that most of his kills were corroborated.

Still his reputation has been tarnished.

This piece is a synopsis of information gleaned from the Canadian Encyclopaedia web site.

[Read More]

A good defence of Bishop

[Read More]



Cheers,

George



Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/25/2023 8:43:23 PM
Hi George,

Good post on Canada's best Ace, Billy Bishop, he can fly wing for me anytime!

BTW, your second "read more", comes across as a un secure site??

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
3/25/2023 9:06:09 PM
Quote:
Hi George,

Good post on Canada's best Ace, Billy Bishop, he can fly wing for me anytime!

BTW, your second "read more", comes across as a un secure site??

Regards,
MD


I can't explain the Not Secure label. The article is from the Canadian Military Journal which is official, professional publication of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence.

Here is the Journal website and its on the Government of Canada site and also Not Secure. I don't know what that means. We need tech support.

George
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/26/2023 4:11:13 AM
1918 : The Doullens Conference in France.

The situation was frightening: a German offensive of stupefying scale, force and intensity had ruptured the British front and the Anglo-French armies were in danger of separation and calamitous defeat.

Russia was down and out ; the Americans were not yet present in force on the field, and Germany had this window of opportunity to win the war after transferring huge numbers of men from the Eastern Front.

It came quite close to succeeding.

This conference at Doullens remains controversial.

The appointment of Foch as “Generalissimo” marked a turning point.

There was duplicity and despair, creating different accounts, but the outcome was beneficial and ultimately decisive in the victory of the Allies.


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
3/26/2023 6:59:58 AM
On this day in US Medical History...

On March 26, 1953, American medical researcher Dr. Jonas Salk announces on a national radio show that he has successfully tested a vaccine against poliomyelitis, the virus that causes the crippling disease of polio. In 1952—an epidemic year for polio—there were 58,000 new cases reported in the United States, and more than 3,000 died from the disease. For his work in helping to eradicate the disease, which is known as “infant paralysis” because it mainly affects children, Dr. Salk was celebrated as the great doctor-benefactor of his time.




Polio, a disease that affected humanity many times throughout recorded history, attacks the nervous system and can cause varying degrees of paralysis. Since the virus is easily transmitted, epidemics were commonplace in the first decades of the 20th century. The first major polio epidemic in the United States occurred in Vermont in the summer of 1894, and by the 20th century thousands were affected every year. In the first decades of the 20th century, treatments were limited to quarantines and the infamous “iron lung,” a metal coffin-like contraption that aided respiration. Although children, and especially infants, were among the worst affected, adults were also often afflicted, including future president Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in 1921 was stricken with polio at the age of 39 and was left partially paralyzed. Roosevelt later transformed his estate in Warm Springs, Georgia, into a recovery retreat for polio victims and was instrumental in raising funds for polio-related research and the treatment of polio patients.

Salk, born in New York City in 1914, first conducted research on viruses in the 1930s when he was a medical student at New York University, and during World War II helped develop flu vaccines. In 1947, he became head of a research laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh and in 1948 was awarded a grant to study the polio virus and develop a possible vaccine. By 1950, he had an early version of his polio vaccine.

Salk’s procedure, first attempted unsuccessfully by American Maurice Brodie in the 1930s, was to kill several strains of the virus and then inject the benign viruses into a healthy person’s bloodstream. The person’s immune system would then create antibodies designed to resist future exposure to poliomyelitis. Salk conducted the first human trials on former polio patients and on himself and his family, and by 1953 was ready to announce his findings. This occurred on the CBS national radio network on the evening of March 25 and two days later in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Dr. Salk became an immediate celebrity.

In 1954, clinical trials using the Salk vaccine and a placebo began on 1.3 million American schoolchildren. In April 1955, it was announced that the vaccine was effective and safe, and a nationwide inoculation campaign began. Shortly thereafter, tragedy struck in the Western and mid-Western United States, when more than 200,000 people were injected with a defective vaccine manufactured at Cutter Laboratories of Berkeley, California. Thousands of polio cases were reported, 200 children were left paralyzed and 10 died.

The incident delayed production of the vaccine, but new polio cases dropped to under 6,000 in 1957, the first year after the vaccine was widely available. In 1962, an oral vaccine developed by Polish-American researcher Albert Sabin became available, greatly facilitating the distribution of the polio vaccine. Today, there is no year-round transmission of poliovirus in the United States. Among other honors, Jonas Salk was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977. He died in La Jolla, California, in 1995.​.


https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/salk-announces-polio-vaccine?cmpid=email-hist-tdih-2023-0326-03262023&om_rid=21539c69abde70e4e3fda02b9d14d1819c3badeaf5a2bcab48a023eefe0cd3d2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I lived through the last great Polio epidemic in the US, and went to school with children who had lost a parent and who suffered the side-effects from that Epidemic.

Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
3/26/2023 8:11:04 AM
Quote:
This conference at Doullens remains controversial.


Hi Phil,

What was controversial about it?

Cheers,

Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/26/2023 8:16:45 AM
Hi Phil & Colin,

Here the Germans are threatening to win the "War to end all Wars, & the Allies are having trouble with formalities at the top!?

In the end things finally worked out!? I'm sure Phil can explain it far better than me?? ☺

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
3/26/2023 8:29:17 AM
Quote:
Quote:
1807 British Parliament out laws slavery! How effective was it? Comments?


Not quite. This initiative only outlawed the trade in human beings. It would not be until 1833 that the British Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act which freed slaves in the colonies. Something in my memory tells me that that legislation did not apply to parts of India. Someone weigh in on that please.

Of note, my province of Ontario and the former colony of Upper Canada tried to ban the importation of slaves in 1793. Legislation called the Act to Limit Slavery in Upper Canada was the first legislation in the British Empire to attempt to limit slavery. Governor John Graves Simcoe was a supporter of an act to ban slavery entirely in the colony.

However, the legislation did not free the few slaves owned by people in Upper Canada as there were many people who wanted compensation for the loss of property. Some of these people were Loyalists who had arrived in the colony with their slaves. Approximately 2000 slaves accompanied their Loyalist owners to Canada after the American Revolution. 500 to 700 came to Upper Canada.

Unlike France, Britain had no protection for enslaved people. They were considered property and even though Britain itself had eliminated slavery in Britain in 1772, the court case that eliminated that institution did not apply to the colonies. I believe that the British legislation was not a complete abolition as slaves just became indentured servants.

We are currently reconciling with the fact that even members of the executive council of Upper Canada also bought slaves between 1793 (founding of Upper Canada) and 1816. There is a street in Toronto called Jarvis St. William Jarvis was a mover and shaker in the colony and we now know that he also owned six slaves.

Anyway, Lt. Gov. Simcoe felt that he could not force a total ban on slavery and so a different legislation was introduced with the awkward title of "An Act to Prevent the further Introduction of Slaves and to limit the Term of Contracts for Servitude" shortened to the Act to Limit Slavery in Upper Canada. It received Royal Assent in 1793.

But no slaves were freed but it was illegal to bring any more into the province. It did not prevent the sale of slaves within the province or to the US. Sales to New York state continued until 1799 when NY passed its own similar law.

So if you were a slave you remained so for the rest of your life unless freed by your owner. Children born to enslaved women after the law would pass would have to be freed at the age of 25 and if any women in that group were to give birth, that child would be free at birth. And so the attempt to abolish slavery failed in favour of a law that would see the number of slaves gradually peter out.

The act had a secondary effect to give impetus and growth to the abolition movement in Upper Canada. Note that similar attempts in Lower Canada did not meet with the same success.

Cheers,

George








Hi George,

So British Canada's leadership handled Slavery as Lincoln did at the start of the CW, with "kid gloves"!? But the South did not want to piss off Britain? So I do remember British Canada at this time being a major deterrent to Slave catchers, & a haven objective for the Underground RR!!?

What say you??
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
3/26/2023 8:49:26 AM
Quote:
Hi George,

So British Canada's leadership handled Slavery as Lincoln did at the start of the CW, with "kid gloves"!? But the South did not want to piss off Britain? So I do remember British Canada at this time being a major deterrent to Slave catchers, & a haven objective for the Underground RR!!?

What say you??
MD


I suppose that there are some parallels but we must note the the initiative in Upper Canada took place nearly 70 years before Lincoln's time. Slavery had been banned completely in Upper Canada and the Empire in 1834. That's over twenty five years before the US fought a civil war over the issue.

As well, Lt. Gov. of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe, was an abolitionist who had to modify his initial plans to rid the colony of slavery and ironically he was under pressure from Loyalist slave owners who had supported the British during the revolution and arrived in UC with their slaves. That posed a problem for Simcoe. I don't believe that Lincoln was a staunch abolitionist. He was a staunch unionist and federalist who wanted to keep the United States, united.

Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation what legislation did Lincoln enact that could be compared to that of the legislation passed in Upper Canada in 1793?

EDIT: The Confederates would have been quite thrilled to see Great Britain at war with the US. The best that they could get was an acknowledgement that they were belligerents.

EDIT: Upper Canada indeed was a terminus for the Underground Railroad. Slave catchers did cross from the states in search of specific escaped slaves but the community of escaped slaves had built small towns or had gathered in places together. They had established themselves and were about 30,000 strong by the start of the US civil war. The numbers increased greatly with passage of the US Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 There were times that these slave catchers on the trail of an escaped slave would be surrounded by the people who refused to surrender the quarry. Or they simply hid the person.
Once an escaped slave crossed in Canada, he was considered a free man. His return could only occur through extradition which demanded an appeal to the Upper Canadian government to prove that the man had committed an extraditable crime in some state in the US. Sometimes a slave owner would argue that the slave escaped with clothing on his body that belonged to the master and that that constituted theft.

Cheers,

George
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/26/2023 3:57:14 PM
Quote:
Quote:
This conference at Doullens remains controversial.


Hi Phil,

What was controversial about it?

Cheers,

Colin


A heck of a lot, Colin.

The various personalities involved issued very different depictions of the whys and wherefores of what happened.

This is the case for many episodes in the varying crises of war, but there was something especially dramatic about this one.

The French blamed the British for precipitate retreat turning into a rout. They also suspected, with some legitimacy, that the British were planning to abandon them and escape across the Channel.

To make the cup run over, Petain, the French commander, opined that the British would be defeated and would surrender, followed by a French collapse and capitulation. First rate tactical commander that he was, he was yet prone to notorious pessimism and, good grief, this was to come to fruition a generation later !

Haig, the British commander, was keen - retrospectively- to insist that he was the advocate of appointing the Frenchman Foch as the leader who could impart the inspiration and coalescence that the Allies needed.

The duplicitous British PM David Lloyd George- who spent the rest of his life bad mouthing Haig - did all he could to claim credit for the transition that such an appointment brought about.

A truly desperate state of affairs, with competing egos producing different narratives with all the subsequent controversies based on differing interpretations and individual and national biases holding sway.

As for Foch himself, he just said “ We shall fight in front of Amiens, we shall fight in Amiens, we shall fight behind Amiens, we shall not surrender! “

Echoes of Churchill and his Finest Hour speech twenty two years later ?

I wonder if Winston was at Doullens, too.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/26/2023 10:21:40 PM
Quote:


The French blamed the British for precipitate retreat turning into a rout. They also suspected, with some legitimacy, that the British were planning to abandon them and escape across the Channel.

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

With all due respect, to you Brits., with regards to European mainland wars, it must be of some comfort that the British can in a pinch retire to their island fortress across the Channel. Look at WWII & what happened at Dunkirk! Also what you mentioned in the above comment!? But, Not being a resident of Britain, I can't say?

BTW just curious? I'm not suggesting the British plan on retreats?
But the Channel with the RN around is a comforting deterent to enemies?

What say you?
Peace,
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: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/27/2023 3:03:44 AM
Quote:
Quote:


The French blamed the British for precipitate retreat turning into a rout. They also suspected, with some legitimacy, that the British were planning to abandon them and escape across the Channel.

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

With all due respect, to you Brits., with regards to European mainland wars, it must be of some comfort that the British can in a pinch retire to their island fortress across the Channel. Look at WWII & what happened at Dunkirk! Also what you mentioned in the above comment!? But, Not being a resident of Britain, I can't say?

BTW just curious? I'm not suggesting the British plan on retreats?
But the Channel with the RN around is a comforting deterent to enemies?

What say you?
Peace,
MD



Good question, Dave !

The challenge of coalition warfare, more specifically, the tension between Anglo French allies, and the suspicion that the British- the English, particularly- were bound to depart the fight and leave their continental partners in the lurch, underscores the controversial narrative . The allure of the escape route by the sea, and the very maritime essence of British power and reach, made the French suspicious and the British fixated on the importance of the Channel Ports.

This came to the fore in 1914, 1918 and, of course, in 1940.

Each time there was a huge German advance and an existential crisis for the Franco-British forces being pushed back.

In 1914 and 1918, the Entente held things together- but the margin was frighteningly narrow. The Doullens Conference has been identified as its salvation in 1918.
There remains controversy here as to the motives and conduct of the principal participants.

In 1940, there were actors present who had been present at Doullens in 1918, and who argued for a repeat of that outcome, but it was not to be.

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
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/27/2023 5:08:37 AM
Quote:
Quote:
This conference at Doullens remains controversial.


Hi Phil,

What was controversial about it?

Cheers,

Colin


Hi Colin,

The very logo you use - Haig’s Order of the Day in April 1918- raises the question as to why, when and where he issued that uncharacteristically dramatic order.

The fighting at that point - although desperate and intense- was on a smaller scale than it had been in the earlier German onslaught which had raged between 21 March and 5 April 1918. In those sixteen days the two British armies that had been attacked In Picardy and Artois suffered 163,000 casualties: a colossal daily average of more than ten thousand. In the subsequent German offensive that lasted for three weeks between 9 and 29 April, the British forces attacked in Flanders suffered 76,000 casualties, a daily average of fewer than four thousand.

Yet it was at this juncture that Haig showed anxiety and agitation. This was fighting closer to the Channel Ports. The earlier battles had hinged on Amiens, the junction of the French and British armies. This time the fighting raged around Hazebrouk, the vital railhead that led to the Channel Ports.

The implication is clear.


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
3/27/2023 6:53:18 AM
On this day in US History,.....On March 27, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln meets with Union generals Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman at City Point, Virginia, to plot the last stages of the Civil War.

Lincoln went to Virginia just as Grant was preparing to attack Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s lines around Petersburg and Richmond, an assault that promised to end the siege that had dragged on for 10 months. Meanwhile, Sherman’s force was steamrolling northward through the Carolinas. The three architects of Union victory convened for the first time as a group—Lincoln and Sherman had never met—at Grant’s City Point headquarters at the general-in-chief’s request.

As part of the trip, Lincoln went to the Petersburg lines and witnessed a Union bombardment and a small skirmish. Prior to meeting with his generals, the president also reviewed troops and visited wounded soldiers. Once he sat down with Grant and Sherman, Lincoln expressed concern that Lee might escape Petersburg and flee to North Carolina, where he could join forces with Joseph Johnston to forge a new Confederate army that could continue the war for months. Grant and Sherman assured the president the end was in sight. Lincoln emphasized to his generals that any surrender terms must preserve the Union aims of emancipation and a pledge of equality for the formerly enslaved people.

After meeting with Admiral David Dixon Porter on March 28, the president and his two generals went their separate ways. Less than four weeks later, Grant and Sherman had secured the surrender of the Confederacy.



https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lincoln-sherman-and-grant-meet?cmpid=email-hist-tdih-2023-0327-03272023&om_rid=21539c69abde70e4e3fda02b9d14d1819c3badeaf5a2bcab48a023eefe0cd3d2
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/27/2023 7:44:01 AM
3-27 in history, A few topics, comments? Anyone?

196 bc, Ptolemy V takes the Egyptian throne, was he Egyptian, Greek or some other background? Who was this guy? How did he come to power? Anyone??

1513 Ponce de Leon, sites Florida, looking for the fountain of youth, did he find it? Why did he even think it existed?? Anyone?

1713 Spain loses Gibraltar in a treaty! How did this come about? This will haunt Spain forever!? What say you? Also how could the Brits hold it even against the Nazis?

1794 the USN is founded will this compete with the RN?? Comments?

1814 Andrew Jackson defeats the Indians in Alabama! Was Jackson good for the Native Americans? What say you??

1855 A Canadian Abe Gesner, patents kerosene! What's the story, & its effect?? Anyone??

1866 President Andrew Johnson vetos Civil rights bill! Why? Does he not believe in equality!?
Comments on this?

1924 Canada recognizes the USSR, why? & how did this differ with the US??

1944 thousands of Jews exterminated in Germany, was this their most horrific year? Tragic!?

1980 Mount St. Helens erupts was it felt even as far as Canada?? What say you??

All new topics? Comments?
Regards,
MD

BTW Phil, Good point the French could be a little sensitive about the possibility of the evacuation of the British over the Channel!?
----------------------------------
"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: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/27/2023 9:00:43 AM
Dave,

Regarding the French and their sensibilities about the behaviour of “ Perfidious Albion” , I tend to take an empathetic and - to a degree - a sympathetic view.
OTOH, I’m convinced that there is a paranoiac streak in French folklore, and it’s significant that a constant refrain of French soldiers during battlefield crisis through the modern ages has been “ We are betrayed!”.

Napoleon’s cherished Old Guard, when repulsed at Waterloo, resorted to this trope.

In 1914 the French were so suspicious of British intentions that they insisted on deploying a contingent of soldiers and marines on the Belgian coastline in case the sneaky English sought to withdraw across the sea. In 1918 they were convinced that they had been let down by the British army, even though it put up stern resistance and inflicted unprecedented casualties on the Germans.

As for 1940, you can imagine……

There is a volatility in French society and politics that has cast a shadow over perceptions of British conduct. De Gaulle refused to agree to British entry into the European Economic Community in the 1960s. He probably felt that the English, with their maritime outlook and their affinity with the Americans, would not adjust to the Continental way of things. He had been at the sharp end of war 1914-18 and 39-45, and exemplified the paranoia that I allude to.

The febrile French approach is all too apparent today as we see what’s happening in Paris, Bordeaux and elsewhere.

They’re still insisting on claims of betrayal by a leader who seeks to emulate the Anglo-Saxon method!

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/27/2023 1:51:52 PM
Thanks Phil,

This site always has me learning new terms ,& words! Like " Perfidious Albion"!? The French are good at coming up with terms to describe the perceived actions of you Brits., aren't they??

Thanks for the Franco- Anglican history lesson! ☺

MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
3/27/2023 4:04:50 PM
Hi Phil,

Thank you for the replies to my question. This topic is something I am quite keen to explore a bit more in depth (particularly around the familiar tropes of ‘Perfidious Albion’), so I will put up a post soon in the WW1 forum; perhaps you would be so kind as to please indulge me and discuss this a bit more?

Best wishes,

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."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/27/2023 5:09:02 PM
Quote:
Hi Phil,

Thank you for the replies to my question. This topic is something I am quite keen to explore a bit more in depth (particularly around the familiar tropes of ‘Perfidious Albion’), so I will put up a post soon in the WW1 forum; perhaps you would be so kind as to please indulge me and discuss this a bit more?

Best wishes,

Colin


Yes please, Colin, I would like that.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/27/2023 8:30:19 PM
Quote:
Hi George,

So British Canada's leadership handled Slavery as Lincoln did at the start of the CW, with "kid gloves"!? But the South did not want to piss off Britain? So I do remember British Canada at this time being a major deterrent to Slave catchers, & a haven objective for the Underground RR!!?

MD


I suppose that there are some parallels but we must note the the initiative in Upper Canada took place nearly 70 years before Lincoln's time.

Slavery had been banned completely in Upper Canada and the Empire in 1834.

That's over twenty five years before the US fought a civil war over the issue.

(Lincoln) He was a staunch unionist and federalist who wanted to keep the United States, united.

Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation what legislation did Lincoln enact that could be compared to that of the legislation passed in Upper Canada in 1793?

EDIT: The Confederates would have been quite thrilled to see Great Britain at war with the US. The best that they could get was an acknowledgement that they were belligerents.

EDIT: Upper Canada indeed was a terminus for the Underground Railroad.

They had established themselves and were about 30,000 strong by the start of the US civil war.

The numbers increased greatly with passage of the US Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.

Once an escaped slave crossed in Canada, he was considered a free man.

Cheers,

George


But George,

It seems like a major contradiction for Canada to be so anti-slavery, but yet harbor Confederates during the Civil War!?

What's up with that??
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
3/27/2023 8:49:07 PM
Friction with the US states along the Great Lakes and on to the sea. This was the closest we came to having a neighbor, so naturally we wanted to fight with them. Helping the Confederates was one way to thumb their noses at the North.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/27/2023 9:01:10 PM
Quote:
It seems like a major contradiction for Canada to be so anti gala very but yet harbor Confederate during the Civil War!?

What's up with that??
MD


Hi MD, I think that I understand your question by I am confused by the words, "anti gala". Is this a typo or something that I should know?

No matter, I think that I can answer.

There were also agents of the US stationed in Canada to keep an eye on the Confederates. And both were being watched by the Canadian police and the British. The Governor of British North America was Charles Monck (4th Viscount Monck) and he was determined to maintain a neutral stance and he received praise from an odd source, US Sec. of State, William Seward for his approach to maintaining neutrality.

It is true that the Confederates organized raids in Canada into the northern US. The Trent Affair and the St. Albans affair were the two most prominent and it was Monck who was responsible for smoothing ruffled feathers as the British considered going to war over the Trent Affair while the US was all up in arms over the St. Albans affair. Even the rabidly anti-Canada northern newspapers had praise for Monck.

Some of the raids were actually just good old fashioned bank robberies that had not been planned by the Confederate operators in Canada, led by a southerner named Thompson.

Police in Canada were kept busy trying to interdict Confederate operations and kept in regular contact with the US to share intelligence. The British wanted to maintain neutrality and Canadian authorities were largely in compliance.

But I think that your question has more to do with why there would be support for the south in many parts of Canada and not for the north. The Canadian provinces had little reason to be fond of the north. The northern newspapers and especially the influential New York Herald pounded away at an annexation of Canada theme. US Sec. of State Seward had been scheming to possess British North America for most of his life. I will say that he was less vociferous in his approach during the civil war after Lincoln instructed him that there would be no war against the British over the Trent Affair. "One war at a time" said Lincoln and Seward listened.

As well, the Canadian provinces could see the massive build-up of a million man army just to their south. The US had unofficially abandoned the Rush-Bagot Treaty that governed the number of armed vessels that could be stationed in the Great Lakes. This was alarming to the Canadas.


The British had told the Canadians that if the Americans decided to send troops northward that there was little chance that they could be repelled. British military officers told the Canadians that it was likely that most of Canada West (now Ontario) and Canada East (now Québec) south of the St. Lawrence would be abandoned to the Americans. British and Canadian colonial troops would consolidate in the rest of Canada East and the Maritimes and fight a defensive battle.


The British said that the fight would be carried by the RN which would erect a blockade of northern ports and assure that southern ports were open. It is unlikely that the USN could thwart these efforts by the RN.

So the concept of Manifest Destiny as spouted by too many US politicians made Canadians very wary of the US and its motives.

The rancour that existed between the north and the Great white north was not helped by the war of words that took place between the newspapers of the two countries. Many Canadian newspapers supported the south, seeing it as a small group of states being bullied by the powerful northern states. Already feeling that the north had plans for annexation, Canadian newspapers gloated over southern victories or alluded to giving the north another spanking as BNA did in the War of 1812. Quite unrealistic, that.

The north actually had support in BNA at the beginning of the war feeling that the north would be supportive of the abolition of slavery, but when Lincoln declined initially to do that the north was viewed as morally bankrupt. The anti-slavery movement in Canada saw that Lincoln was not interested in ridding his country of slavery so much as he was determined to, "preserve the union".

So you see, British North America was very much anti-slavery but felt that the US was not serious about abolition and moreover felt that the US would invade Canada if it managed to defeat the Confederates. Support for the south had nothing to do with the south's support of the institution of slavery but the south was not perceived as a threat to Canada.

Lastly, approximately 40,000 Canadians fought in the civil war and overwhelmingly, they fought for the north. Several won the Congressional Medal of Honor. I am pretty sure that the officer who captured John Wilkes Booth was a Canadian. Oddly conflicted those Canadians, weren't they?

Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 6:01:19 AM
On this day in United States History,....
American Revolution Notes- Parliament passes the Coercive Acts
Today, 04:54 AM
Upset by the Boston Tea Party and other blatant acts of destruction of British property by American colonists, the British Parliament enacts the Coercive Acts, to the outrage of American Patriots, on March 28, 1774.

The Coercive Acts were a series of four acts established by the British government. The aim of the legislation was to restore order in Massachusetts and punish Bostonians for their Tea Party, in which members of the revolutionary-minded Sons of Liberty boarded three British tea ships in Boston Harbor and dumped 342 crates of tea—nearly $1 million worth in today’s money—into the water to protest the Tea Act.

Passed in response to the Americans’ disobedience, the Coercive Acts included:

The Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid.

The Massachusetts Government Act, which restricted Massachusetts; democratic town meetings and turned the governor’s council into an appointed body.

The Administration of Justice Act, which made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in Massachusetts.

The Quartering Act, which required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in their private homes as a last resort.

A fifth act, the Quebec Act, which extended freedom of worship to Catholics in Canada, as well as granting Canadians the continuation of their judicial system, was joined with the Coercive Acts in colonial parlance as one of the Intolerable Acts, as the mainly Protestant colonists did not look kindly on the ability of Catholics to worship freely on their borders.



More important than the acts themselves was the colonists’ response to the legislation. Parliament hoped that the acts would cut Boston and New England off from the rest of the colonies and prevent unified resistance to British rule. They expected the rest of the colonies to abandon Bostonians to British martial law. Instead, other colonies rushed to the city’s defense, sending supplies and forming their own Provincial Congresses to discuss British misrule and mobilize resistance to the crown. In September 1774, the First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia and began orchestrating a united resistance to British rule in America.

​https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...-coercive-acts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to what the British intended, these Acts unified the disparate 13 Colonies into a force which would eventually defeat the greatest power on Earth ,at that time.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 7:43:13 AM
Quote:
Quote:
It seems like a major contradiction for Canada to be so anti slavery but yet harbor Confederate during the Civil War!?

What's up with that??
MD


Hi MD, I think that I understand your question by I am confused by the words, "anti gala". (Meant anti slavery) Is this a typo (yes) or something that I should know?

No matter, I think that I can answer.

There were also agents of the US stationed in Canada to keep an eye on the Confederates. And both were being watched by the Canadian police and the British. The Governor of British North America was Charles Monck (4th Viscount Monck) and he was determined to maintain a neutral stance and he received praise from an odd source, US Sec. of State, William Seward for his approach to maintaining neutrality.

It is true that the Confederates organized raids in Canada into the northern US. The Trent Affair and the St. Albans affair were the two most prominent and it was Monck who was responsible for smoothing ruffled feathers as the British considered going to war over the Trent Affair while the US was all up in arms over the St. Albans affair. Even the rabidly anti-Canada northern newspapers had praise for Monck.

Some of the raids were actually just good old fashioned bank robberies that had not been planned by the Confederate operators in Canada, led by a southerner named Thompson.

Police in Canada were kept busy trying to interdict Confederate operations and kept in regular contact with the US to share intelligence. The British wanted to maintain neutrality and Canadian authorities were largely in compliance.

But I think that your question has more to do with why there would be support for the south in many parts of Canada and not for the north. The Canadian provinces had little reason to be fond of the north. The northern newspapers and especially the influential New York Herald pounded away at an annexation of Canada theme. US Sec. of State Seward had been scheming to possess British North America for most of his life. I will say that he was less vociferous in his approach during the civil war after Lincoln instructed him that there would be no war against the British over the Trent Affair. "One war at a time" said Lincoln and Seward listened.

As well, the Canadian provinces could see the massive build-up of a million man army just to their south. The US had unofficially abandoned the Rush-Bagot Treaty that governed the number of armed vessels that could be stationed in the Great Lakes. This was alarming to the Canadas.


The British had told the Canadians that if the Americans decided to send troops northward that there was little chance that they could be repelled. British military officers told the Canadians that it was likely that most of Canada West (now Ontario) and Canada East (now Québec) south of the St. Lawrence would be abandoned to the Americans. British and Canadian colonial troops would consolidate in the rest of Canada East and the Maritimes and fight a defensive battle.


The British said that the fight would be carried by the RN which would erect a blockade of northern ports and assure that southern ports were open. It is unlikely that the USN could thwart these efforts by the RN.

So the concept of Manifest Destiny as spouted by too many US politicians made Canadians very wary of the US and its motives.

The rancour that existed between the north and the Great white north was not helped by the war of words that took place between the newspapers of the two countries. Many Canadian newspapers supported the south, seeing it as a small group of states being bullied by the powerful northern states. Already feeling that the north had plans for annexation, Canadian newspapers gloated over southern victories or alluded to giving the north another spanking as BNA did in the War of 1812. Quite unrealistic, that.

The north actually had support in BNA at the beginning of the war feeling that the north would be supportive of the abolition of slavery, but when Lincoln declined initially to do that the north was viewed as morally bankrupt. The anti-slavery movement in Canada saw that Lincoln was not interested in ridding his country of slavery so much as he was determined to, "preserve the union".

So you see, British North America was very much anti-slavery but felt that the US was not serious about abolition and moreover felt that the US would invade Canada if it managed to defeat the Confederates. Support for the south had nothing to do with the south's support of the institution of slavery but the south was not perceived as a threat to Canada.

Lastly, approximately 40,000 Canadians fought in the civil war and overwhelmingly, they fought for the north. Several won the Congressional Medal of Honor. I am pretty sure that the officer who captured John Wilkes Booth was a Canadian. Oddly conflicted those Canadians, weren't they?

Cheers,

George


Yes George,

A mis print, I meant anti slavery! I think your being tough on Lincoln, he really hated slavery, & always did! He has to consider at this time the entire country, & if he doesn't keep the Union together, the US isn't as strong, & freeing the slaves for the US isn't going to happen!? Also the North had its hands more than full fighting Lee & the South! I don't think invading our friends of British Canada ever crossed our minds!?

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Page 63 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