MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 64 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
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 7:58:17 AM
Lincoln was anti-slavery, but more importantly, he was devoted to the US Constitution, and knew that the Constitution had to be amended in order to make slavery illegal.

It is a known fact that Canada could not repulse an invasion from the US. And GB had no stomach to go to war with he United States. The reasons I have listed before.

In addition, remember that GB had a significant investment in American railroads which precluded any declaration of war.

Plus, Queen Victoria had to sign off on going to war with the US. Recall that she decided that GB was NOT to aid Denmark in their war with Imperial Germany .
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 8:01:17 AM
Quote:
3-27 in history, moved to new page for more discussion!?

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??

Comments?
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
3/28/2023 8:05:44 AM
Quote:
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


Hi MD. When you asked why there was support for the Confederacy in the Canadian provinces I wanted to indicate that Lincoln's failure to emancipate the slaves early on caused a lot of supporters of the US in the Canadas to lose faith in President Lincoln. And so in their minds and in the newspapers, the US was painted as a bully toward the southern states. They felt that Lincoln's moral compass was spinning and that he had forgotten about slavery. Whether they were right or wrong is irrelevant I think. It helps to account for the loss of faith in the US among British North Americans.

As well, invasion of BNA was a topic that had a lot of traction in the US. The US was very angry that Confederate officers and agents were active in the Canadas and the Maritimes. Events like the attempts to free Confederate soldiers from Johnston Island, the Trent Affair and the St. Alban's Affair only heightened the tension.

The St. Alban's affair involved Confederates in Canada East (Québec) crossing the line into Vermont. They robbed a bank and killed a man and then fled back to Canada. A posse crossed into Canada and nabbed them but a British soldier stopped them and sent them home. The Confederates were charged but the courts freed the men as it was determined that they had not violated any Canadian laws and were acting as recognized belligerents. I forget the name of the US officer sitting on the border with hundreds of troops but he said that he was going to invade. He was forbidden to do so.

There was a lot of support for an invasion and fulfillment of Manifest Destiny but Lincoln realized that an invasion would bring the British into it and the last thing that he needed was hundreds of RN ships of the line showing up off US and Confederate ports. That could have turned the war.

However, I must add that events like the St. Alban's affair and another raid from Canada West to steal a USN vessel on Lake Erie began to change the attitudes of the Canadians toward the north. Bank robberies were not considered to be acts of war but just that, robberies. And the event on Lake Erie was precipitated by the theft of Canadian boats by the Confederate agents to allow them to sail toward the US vessel. One step too far by the Confederate agents.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 8:30:05 AM
Trent Affair:

A US ship knew that a British ship was transporting two Confederate negotiators to Britain. They stopped the ship on the high seas by firing shots across the bow. The US captain captured the two Confederates.

Britain was angry and considered going to war. To suggest, again and again, that the British had no stomach for a war with the US is incorrect. Protecting sovereignty was always important to the British.

I may suggest then that the US certainly did not wish to see Britain declare war and come in on the side of the Confederates. That would also likely have brought in the French who had economic interests in the south.

It was a near run thing as Britain pondered whether it was worth it to go to war. They had already sent thousands of troops to Halifax, just in case.

This threat of war caused economic problems in the US. The US bond values began to drop. British investment firms pulled out. The US had to cash out its own bonds and it was becoming more difficult already to fund the war effort.

I will be charitable and suggest that diplomats on both sides realized that a war between the US and Britain would not be a positive thing. It was the US that realized that it had to find some diplomatic way out of this as the British had already demanded an apology for the precipitous actions of a USN captain.

Lincoln ordered S of S Seward to find a solution. Lincoln did not want to see Britain entering the fray. Seward stalled the British S of State Lyons for over a week as Lyons demanded to know whether the US would apologize. Seward of course sought some way to get out of the problem without a full apology.

So he told the British that the USN captain had acted without the authority of the US government but that the captain did have the legal right to stop and search the vessel. But the captain should have escorted the Trent to a port for arbitration. Seward acknowledged that the captain should not have taken the two Confederates as prisoners.

He also tried to downplay the importance of the two diplomats. The US definitely did not want these two many, able negotiators both, to make it to England to lobby for more support. But Seward played them off as low level political functionaries. Seward agreed to hand them over.

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 8:49:37 AM
Quote:
Trent Affair:

A US ship knew that a British ship was transporting two Confederate negotiators to Britain. They stopped the ship on the high seas by firing shots across the bow. The US captain captured the two Confederates.

Britain was angry and considered going to war. To suggest, again and again, that the British had no stomach for a war with the US is incorrect. Protecting sovereignty was always important to the British.

I may suggest then that the US certainly did not wish to see Britain declare war and come in on the side of the Confederates. That would also likely have brought in the French who had economic interests in the south.

It was a near run thing as Britain pondered whether it was worth it to go to war. They had already sent thousands of troops to Halifax, just in case.

This threat of war caused economic problems in the US. The US bond values began to drop. British investment firms pulled out. The US had to cash out its own bonds and it was becoming more difficult already to fund the war effort.

I will be charitable and suggest that diplomats on both sides realized that a war between the US and Britain would not be a positive thing. It was the US that realized that it had to find some diplomatic way out of this as the British had already demanded an apology for the precipitous actions of a USN captain.

Lincoln ordered S of S Seward to find a solution. Lincoln did not want to see Britain entering the fray. Seward stalled the British S of State Lyons for over a week as Lyons demanded to know whether the US would apologize. Seward of course sought some way to get out of the problem without a full apology.

So he told the British that the USN captain had acted without the authority of the US government but that the captain did have the legal right to stop and search the vessel. But the captain should have escorted the Trent to a port for arbitration. Seward acknowledged that the captain should not have taken the two Confederates as prisoners.

He also tried to downplay the importance of the two diplomats. The US definitely did not want these two many, able negotiators both, to make it to England to lobby for more support. But Seward played them off as low level political functionaries. Seward agreed to hand them over.

George


1. Fact is, GB did not go to war with the US. Evidently, they didn't have the stomach to go to war.

2. GB sent 12,000 soldiers...the size of the 6th Corps at Gettysburg.

3. The Industrial might of the US came to the forefront.

4. GB continued to invest in American railroads.

5. Queen Victoria had the final say. She had already declared GB to remain neutral. Palmerston knew that, and obeyed her wishes.

6. Upwards to 50% of the food imported into GB to feed its population , came from the American Mid-west. So, ask yourself, would GB bite the hands which is feeding its populace, and Army and Royal Navy? An army marches on its stomach!

George agrees with me that the Canadian defenses were porous.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 9:53:10 AM
Another pivotal day in 1918 : a big German attack against strong British defences near Arras was very bloodily repulsed, with significant consequences for Ludendorff’s series of offensives.

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
3/28/2023 12:06:37 PM
Quote:
Another pivotal day in 1918 : a big German attack against strong British defences near Arras was very bloodily repulsed, with significant consequences for Ludendorff’s series of offensives.

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

With the Germans on the Spring Offensive 1918, would you say, like in the Civil War, it was easier to defend a strong defensive position that to attack?? Do these casualties prove this?

It would seem so?
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 12:37:52 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Another pivotal day in 1918 : a big German attack against strong British defences near Arras was very bloodily repulsed, with significant consequences for Ludendorff’s series of offensives.

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

With the Germans on the Spring Offensive 1918, would you say, like in the Civil War, it was easier to defend a strong defensive position that to attack?? Do these casualties prove this?

It would seem so?
Regards,
MD


Dave,

Firepower lent advantage to the defensive in the Great War, just as it had in your Civil War.

The positional warfare in France and Flanders 1914-18 gave ample evidence of this in terms of casualty figures.

When offensives failed, the disparity could be dramatic, with the attackers being repulsed and losing far greater numbers of men than the defenders.

But when an offensive was successful, the tables could be turned, as the defenders launched costly counterattacks in their attempts to regain lost ground.

In static warfare, a small feature of the ground could be immensely important, lending observation and excellent fields of fire, and to lose such terrain was regarded as calamitous.

Hence the appalling loss of life in those battles that we associate with that warfare.

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
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 4:34:21 PM
Quote:
1. Fact is, GB did not go to war with the US. Evidently, they didn't have the stomach to go to war.


I don’t think the case for war was particularly strong but clearly the will was there. Britain fought (and defeated, with France) a more powerful enemy than the US was at the time (Russia) less than a decade earlier.

Quote:
2. GB sent 12,000 soldiers...the size of the 6th Corps at Gettysburg.


It was more the Royal Navy clearing the Union blockade and wrecking US commerce that was the threat. I think the British regulars and Canadian militia would have fought well enough in a delaying action.

Quote:
3. The Industrial might of the US came to the forefront


It wasn’t a patch on Britain’s at this point. It wouldn’t surpass British output until nearly a generation later.

Quote:
4. GB continued to invest in American railroads.


Indeed. GB liquidated these holdings to fund the defeat of Germany in WW1.

Quote:
5. Queen Victoria had the final say. She had already declared GB to remain neutral. Palmerston knew that, and obeyed her wishes.


Absolute nonsense and shows your complete lack of understanding of British Parliamentary democracy within our Constitutional Monarchy.

Quote:
6. Upwards to 50% of the food imported into GB to feed its population , came from the American Mid-west. So, ask yourself, would GB bite the hands which is feeding its populace, and Army and Royal Navy? An army marches on its stomach!


I agree with this and would also agree it was the pivotal point. Securing wheat supplies was a critical need for the British government, especially one still mindful of the devastation of the starvation in Ireland and the Highlands of Scotland.

Quote:
George agrees with me that the Canadian defenses were porous.


Did he?

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."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 5:05:00 PM
1. The US defeated GB in 1781 and 1814.

2. British generals know that the forts along the border had fallen into dis-repair. Cannons were rusting. The Americans would have enlisted Irish immigrants who would have gladly fought and defeated the British regulars and Canadian military. We all now that militia withers in front of a trained Army.

3.And surpass it, WE DID!

4. Backs my point that GB continued to invest in American RRs, Thus realizing their liability if they dared go to war with the US. Thank you!

5. In 1864, GB threatened to go to war with Germany over Schlewiig-Holstein. Queen Victoria said NO! , as she was pro German. "Although Great Britain claimed that the Treaty of London was valid whether Denmark fulfilled the edict of December 1851 or not, neither Palmerston nor fellow statesman John Russell could win the support of Queen Victoria or the cabinet for a pro-Danish policy." https://www.britannica.com/event/German-Danish-War/War-and-the-final-settlement-of-the-Schleswig-Holstein-question

Don't you hate it when the pesky facts get in the pesky way! And I got an 800 on the European Achievement SAT in 1969.

6. Thank you !

7.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada Posts: 12782
Joined: 2009 PM
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


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.



Cheers,

George

"that there was little chance that they could be repelled."....Certainly sounds porous to me!!

Cheers,

NYGiant
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 5:47:43 PM
I guess you can win any argument in your head if you just invent facts and purport nationalist propaganda to ‘win’ debates.

You’ll get no further bites from me on 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."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 5:54:51 PM
Don't you hate it when the pesky facts get in the pesky way? Especially when you have a citation!!



George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 8:01:28 PM
Quote:

1. Fact is, GB did not go to war with the US. Evidently, they didn't have the stomach to go to war.

2. GB sent 12,000 soldiers...the size of the 6th Corps at Gettysburg.

3. The Industrial might of the US came to the forefront.

4. GB continued to invest in American railroads.

5. Queen Victoria had the final say. She had already declared GB to remain neutral. Palmerston knew that, and obeyed her wishes.

6. Upwards to 50% of the food imported into GB to feed its population , came from the American Mid-west. So, ask yourself, would GB bite the hands which is feeding its populace, and Army and Royal Navy? An army marches on its stomach!

George agrees with me that the Canadian defenses were porous.


God I hate to do this with you because you are clearly baiting again but you consistently demonstrate little understanding of a constitutional monarchy and persist in trying to prove that the British quaked at the thought of war with the US.

1. PM Palmerstone was eager to go to war. He wrote a letter to Queen Victoria indicating that a break-up of the US would benefit British manufacture. He was also convinced that if the US subdued or came to an understanding with the south that the US would pore troops over the border to attack Canada.

If we wish to talk of which side had no stomach for war, it was the US that sought a diplomatic solution. When made aware of the anger of the British people and government over the Trent Affair there were people in the US government like Charles Sumner of all people who urged calm as he felt that the US had no legal basis for seizing the Confederates from RMS Trent. Sec. of State Seward sought some way to placate the angry British. You many know this but the American Ambassador to Great Britain, Charles Francis Adams, wrote a scathing piece in which he criticized the manner in which Lincoln and Seward handled the Trent situation. He felt that the US had acted immaturely and should have simply apologized for the illegal action. Adams felt that this would have taken the wind out of the sails of the British and showed that the US could respond to a minor foreign affairs crisis with aplomb and diplomatic skill. Instead Seward chose to try to save face by not saying clearly that the US was apologetic. Fortunate for the US that the British accepted the response of the US as an apology.

Please read this paper written by Charles Francis Adams. I wish that you could approach historical events with less nationalistic hyperbole. So take a read and let me know what you think of Adams' view of the US response to the Trent Affair.

[Read More]

5. The Royal Prerogative. I am not sure whether you are well versed in what this means or the limitations that have been placed on monarchs over the centuries to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.
The British constitution is unwritten and governed by many laws and conventions.
The monarch has the right to refuse royal assent to any act of Parliament but that has not happened since 1708. The monarch retains the right to declare war but over the centuries that right has been assumed by the executive and cabinet of the government. Parliament does have control over the decisions of the executive. Perhaps the confusion is that the message of Parliament and the PM and cabinet is conveyed by the crown.

A declaration of war would be made by the monarch under the advisement of his or her ministers. Was it so in 1861?

Queen Victoria and PM Palmerston often argued about the Queen's involvement in foreign affairs. So I doubt that Queen Victoria declared neutrality on her own even though the Royal Prerogative as I understand it, would have given her the right to do so. So if you have evidence that Queen Victoria acted unilaterally or overruled the PM and his cabinet on this matter, I should be happy to read about that. "Queen Victoria had the final say" reflects limited understanding of the Royal Prerogative. Was Queen Vic a hands on monarch? Indeed she was. I suspect that she offered her opinions on war and neutrality but as I said I do not believe that she acted unilaterally.

Did the Queen have the final say on neutrality? She did and she didn't. So are you telling me that the queen overruled the deliberations of the PM and cabinet? If so, please cite your source. It would be worth exploring just how much influence Queen Vic had on the decision. Perhaps our British friends have some relevant information.

Understanding the Royal Prerogative and its limitations is difficult for all of us who live under a British style Parliamentary system. So here is a short primer on the subject published by the British government. It is difficult to comprehend that the power of the monarch in the British system has been diminished greatly over the centuries.

[Read More]


2. Troops to Canada. I have already acknowledged that the British had informed the colonies that in the event of war with the US over the Trent Affair that it is quite likely that British and Colonial troops would initially have to cede Canada West and the parts of Canada East south of the St. Lawrence. That meant that the British would consolidate its forces in Canada East and the Maritimes to better defend. It is the commitment of the RN that would be most problematic for the US and they knew it. The USN with its fleet suited best for inshore fighting would not be able to prevent an RN blockade of northern ports. However, it would be the breaking of the USN blockade of southern ports that would alter the war. The intent would not have been to give up these provinces forever in BNA.

Note that Britain did not maintain great standing armies in her colonies. Power was projected by the strongest navy on earth, the RN. So the initial influx of British troops associated with the Trent Affair was an indicator of possible developments. We shall defend our colonies was the message.

It is all speculation as to whether Britain and the Confederate forces could defeat the US armies but I do know that the US government wanted to avoid bringing Britain and likely France into the conflict. I believe that you know that as well, NY.

By the middle of the 19th century, British foreign policy leaned more to avoiding wars that did not further its interests and war with the US would simply disrupt profitable trade which had already happened when the civil war broke out.

4. British investment. I did not say that the British dispensed with all investment but some British investment firms ceased to play in the US bond market. This affected the ability of the US to wage war as it was compelled to cash in its own bonds to finance the war effort.

Here's the thing, NY. We all can see that you will persist in repeating the same error filled narrative about a subject despite being presented with information that may give you food for thought. And yet you continue to post exactly the same thoughts that do not reflect any respect for nuances or subtleties example: "Britain didn't have the stomach to go to war." You will continue to repeat that line because it is a narrative to which you have become comfortable. You completely ignore historical record that shows that the US, perhaps more than Britain, wished to avoid war with Britain over the Trent Affair. And the US certainly did not wish to see Britain come in on the side of the Confederates. The US was already apoplectic that Britain had recognized the Confederates as belligerents.

A while back you made some comment that Britain wouldn't have lost so many people in the French and Indian Wars if they had listened to the colonials. I spent a good deal of time dispelling that myth which is pervasive in US lore. The British army sought ways to fight a war that sometimes occurred in heavy forests. And they did win this hybrid war though employing infantry in regular formation and light infantry in the bush. But no response from you at all. Your initial comment was inaccurate. You take great delight in trying to point out errors that others have made even if they aren't evident to anyone else but say little when disabused of your view.

You have a bad habit of trying to put words in other people's mouths and then claiming victory. USA, USA, USA becomes most tiresome especially when you make inaccurate claims. You know that the War of 1812 was not a victory for the US and most historians including US historians agree with that assessment. But you keep saying the same unsubstantiated claims.


BTW, I have never heard anyone on this forum tout their educational achievements. Really, your SAT score.

Quote:
.And surpass it, WE DID!
. Tell us, NY. How does a stupid comment like this further discussion and good relations on this forum?






NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 9:05:30 PM
Quote:
Quote:

1. Fact is, GB did not go to war with the US. Evidently, they didn't have the stomach to go to war.

2. GB sent 12,000 soldiers...the size of the 6th Corps at Gettysburg.

3. The Industrial might of the US came to the forefront.

4. GB continued to invest in American railroads.

5. Queen Victoria had the final say. She had already declared GB to remain neutral. Palmerston knew that, and obeyed her wishes.

6. Upwards to 50% of the food imported into GB to feed its population , came from the American Mid-west. So, ask yourself, would GB bite the hands which is feeding its populace, and Army and Royal Navy? An army marches on its stomach!

George agrees with me that the Canadian defenses were porous.


God I hate to do this with you because you are clearly baiting again but you consistently demonstrate little understanding of a constitutional monarchy and persist in trying to prove that the British quaked at the thought of war with the US.

1. PM Palmerstone was eager to go to war. He wrote a letter to Queen Victoria indicating that a break-up of the US would benefit British manufacture. He was also convinced that if the US subdued or came to an understanding with the south that the US would pore troops over the border to attack Canada.

If we wish to talk of which side had no stomach for war, it was the US that sought a diplomatic solution. When made aware of the anger of the British people and government over the Trent Affair there were people in the US government like Charles Sumner of all people who urged calm as he felt that the US had no legal basis for seizing the Confederates from RMS Trent. Sec. of State Seward sought some way to placate the angry British. You many know this but the American Ambassador to Great Britain, Charles Francis Adams, wrote a scathing piece in which he criticized the manner in which Lincoln and Seward handled the Trent situation. He felt that the US had acted immaturely and should have simply apologized for the illegal action. Adams felt that this would have taken the wind out of the sails of the British and showed that the US could respond to a minor foreign affairs crisis with aplomb and diplomatic skill. Instead Seward chose to try to save face by not saying clearly that the US was apologetic. Fortunate for the US that the British accepted the response of the US as an apology.

Please read this paper written by Charles Francis Adams. I wish that you could approach historical events with less nationalistic hyperbole. So take a read and let me know what you think of Adams' view of the US response to the Trent Affair.

[Read More]

5. The Royal Prerogative. I am not sure whether you are well versed in what this means or the limitations that have been placed on monarchs over the centuries to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.
The British constitution is unwritten and governed by many laws and conventions.
The monarch has the right to refuse royal assent to any act of Parliament but that has not happened since 1708. The monarch retains the right to declare war but over the centuries that right has been assumed by the executive and cabinet of the government. Parliament does have control over the decisions of the executive. Perhaps the confusion is that the message of Parliament and the PM and cabinet is conveyed by the crown.

A declaration of war would be made by the monarch under the advisement of his or her ministers. Was it so in 1861?

Queen Victoria and PM Palmerston often argued about the Queen's involvement in foreign affairs. So I doubt that Queen Victoria declared neutrality on her own even though the Royal Prerogative as I understand it, would have given her the right to do so. So if you have evidence that Queen Victoria acted unilaterally or overruled the PM and his cabinet on this matter, I should be happy to read about that. "Queen Victoria had the final say" reflects limited understanding of the Royal Prerogative. Was Queen Vic a hands on monarch? Indeed she was. I suspect that she offered her opinions on war and neutrality but as I said I do not believe that she acted unilaterally.

Did the Queen have the final say on neutrality? She did and she didn't. So are you telling me that the queen overruled the deliberations of the PM and cabinet? If so, please cite your source. It would be worth exploring just how much influence Queen Vic had on the decision. Perhaps our British friends have some relevant information.

Understanding the Royal Prerogative and its limitations is difficult for all of us who live under a British style Parliamentary system. So here is a short primer on the subject published by the British government. It is difficult to comprehend that the power of the monarch in the British system has been diminished greatly over the centuries.

[Read More]


2. Troops to Canada. I have already acknowledged that the British had informed the colonies that in the event of war with the US over the Trent Affair that it is quite likely that British and Colonial troops would initially have to cede Canada West and the parts of Canada East south of the St. Lawrence. That meant that the British would consolidate its forces in Canada East and the Maritimes. It is the commitment of the RN that would be most problematic for the US and they knew it. The USN with its fleet suited best for inshore fighting would not be able to prevent an RN blockade of northern ports. However, it would be the breaking of the USN blockade of southern ports that would alter the war. The intent would not have been to give up these provinces forever.

Note that Britain did not maintain great standing armies in her colonies. Power was projected by the strongest navy on earth, the RN. So the initial influx of British troops associated with the Trent Affair was an indicator of possible developments. We shall defend our colonies was the message.

It is all speculation as to whether Britain and the Confederate forces could defeat the US armies but I do know that the US government wanted to avoid bringing Britain and likely France into the conflict. I believe that you know that as well, NY.

By the middle of the 19th century, British foreign policy leaned more to avoiding wars that did not further its interests and war with the US would simply disrupt profitable trade which had already happen when the civil war broke out.

4. British investment. I did not say that the British dispensed with all investment but some British investment firms ceased to play in the US bond market. This affected the ability of the US to wage war as it was compelled to cash in its own bonds to finance the war effort.

Here's the thing, NY. We all can see that you will persist in repeating the same error filled narrative about a subject despite being presented with information that may give you food for thought. And yet you continue to post exactly the same thoughts that due not reflect any respect for nuances. example: "Britain didn't have the stomach to go to war." You will continue to repeat that line because it is a narrative to which you have become comfortable. You completely ignore historical record that shows that the US, perhaps more than Britain, wished to avoid war with Britain over the Trent Affair. And the US certainly did not wish to see Britain come in on the side of the Confederates.

A while back you made some comment that Britain wouldn't have lost so many people in the French and Indian Wars if they had listened to the colonials. I spent a good deal of time dispelling that myth which is pervasive in US lore. The British army sought ways to fight a war that sometimes occurred in heavy forests. And they did win this hybrid war though employing infantry in regular formation and light infantry in the bush.

You have a bad habit of trying to put words in other people's mouths and then claiming victory. USA, USA, USA becomes most tiresome especially when you make inaccurate claims. You know that the War of 1812 was not a victory for the US and most historians including US historians agree with that assessment. But you keep saying the same unsubstantiated claims.


BTW, I have never heard anyone on this forum tout their educational achievements. Really, your SAT score.








1. Tell me now, if Palmerston was so eager to go to war, why didn't he? The Queen decided on neutrality. That's not my opinion. It's the opinion of all British scholars I have talked to on this subject. Plus, Palmerston had to get a Bill though your House of Lords and House of Commons, and he couldn't. You recall the people of Manchester, right? It was agreed to send Barnard’s statue to Manchester. The unveiling ceremony in Platt Fields in 1919 was an unashamed celebration of Manchester’s liberal values, emphasising the noble sacrifices made by workers during the cotton famine, a sacrifice which allowed Lincoln to regard Britain as an ally in the Union cause. http://revealinghistories.org.uk/the-american-civil-war-and-the-lancashire-cotton-famine/places/statue-of-abraham-lincoln-lincoln-square-manchester.html



5. Evidently the Royal Prerogative was still in use in 1864 when Queen Victoria refused to allow GB to side with Denmark in its was with Imperial Germany, over Schleswig-Holstein. Recall that she was pro-German.

2. The St Lawrence river freezes in winter. And Canada could not support an Army.

4. Moot. Especially since the British retained their investments in American Rail Roads.

No comment for #3 nor #6. You must agree with me, and I know you agree with the porous Canadian border.


I apologize for the SAT comment. Checking my records, I received a 681 on the European History achievement test. ...711 on math level 1 Achievement Test. My bad. ( Using the terms Acheivement test dates me, alas).

Stay safe man!

Cheers,
NYGiant


George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 9:20:32 PM
NY, please read the Declaration of Neutrality. In that statement, Queen Victoria acknowledges that she took the advice of the Privy Council. In those days, the Privy Council was a powerful body comprised of top politicians in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Among its duties were to advise the monarch on the limits of the Royal Prerogative. The Privy Council could issue orders in council

I believe that Queen Victoria accepted the advice of her Privy Council and declared neutrality. If you know something different, please weigh in.



NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 9:31:19 PM
Quote:
NY, please read the Declaration of Neutrality. In that statement, Queen Victoria acknowledges that she took the advice of the Privy Council. In those days, the Privy Council was a powerful body comprised of top politicians in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Among its duties were to advise the monarch on the limits of the Royal Prerogative. The Privy Council could issue orders in council

I believe that Queen Victoria accepted the advice of her Privy Council and declared neutrality. If you know something different, please weigh in.






'When the threat of Prussian invasion was first imminent, Palmerston wanted to go to the aid of the Danes. When Victoria heard that Palmerston had informed the Prussian Minister to London, Count Bern- storEf, that Britain would aid the Danes, she sent Palmerston a letter informing him that England could not be committed to support Denmark, and that she would op- pose war over the matter (24). After the Prussian invasion of Jutland, Russell and Palmerston urged that the British EJeet be sent into the Baltic as a show of force in favor of Denmark. Once again the Queen stepped in and stopped the Government from taking aCtion (23, p. 274. "



THE DANISH-GERMAN WAR OF 1864 AND BRITISH POLITICS......I found this article.

I can copy it.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/28/2023 9:54:42 PM
Quote:
1944 thousands of Jews exterminated in Germany, was this their most horrific year? Tragic!?


Don’t know the number of Jews exterminated in Germany, but I would assume the number exterminated by Germans in 1944 may have approached 1 million. From the time of the Wansee Protocol (20 Jan 1942) with it’s codified Final Solution, Nazi Germany began building purpose-built extermination camps. IIUC, the camps were predominantly outside German territory (though at least some of the land that had been Poland was incorporated into the structure of the Greater Reich). Further, although the WP was a solution for the “Jewish Problem” the extermination camps were also convenient for solving “problems” arising from the existence of Slavs, Romanis, bolsheviks (if they ever got that far), sexual deviants and social misfits.

Whether 1944 was the “most horrific” year is probably moot, at least IMHO. The “most horrific” moment may have been when the Wanssee Protocol was signed: when an allegedly civilized nation formalized and put down in written form a means of destroying a people based on their faith alone. That is surely the nadir of a supposedly modern culture.

I’m not trying to push this argument into ugly debate, but I’d like to take my own thoughts to a conclusion. I sense that the term “Holocaust” is a label fairly appropriated by Jews and by Israel. To be honest, I don’t know if Jews include all the others who perished in Nazi camps in their definition. That’s not part of my concern. But I wonder whether the meaning of “Holocaust” might be at least as powerful for Germany, and whether it might include more issues. God knows, the Jews were victims. But Germans were the instigators and executioners. Bot have reason to argue “never again”!

Cheers
Brian G

----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/29/2023 12:21:26 AM
Brian,

You wrote :

“… a means of destroying a people based on their faith alone.”

Wasn’t this based on their race, not their faith ?

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
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
3/29/2023 5:19:17 AM
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/race-ethnicity-heritage-and-immigration-among-u-s-jews/
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/29/2023 7:00:19 AM

On March 29, 1865, the final campaign of the Civil War begins in Virginiawhen Union troops under General Ulysses S. Grant move against the Confederate trenches around Petersburg. General Robert E. Lee’s outnumbered Rebels were soon forced to evacuate the city and begin a desperate race west.

Eleven months earlier, Grant moved his army across the Rapidan River in northern Virginia and began the bloodiest campaign of the war. For six weeks, Lee and Grant fought along an arc that swung east of the Confederate capital at Richmond. They engaged in some of the conflict’s bloodiest battles at Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor before settling into trenches for a siege of Petersburg, 25 miles south of Richmond. The trenches eventually stretched all the way to Richmond, and during the ensuing months the armies glowered at each other across a no man’s land. Periodically, Grant launched attacks against sections of the Rebel defenses, but Lee’s men managed to fend them off.



Time was running out for Lee, though. His army was dwindling in size to about 55,000, while Grant’s continued to grow—the Army of the Potomac now had more than 125,000 men ready for service. On March 25, Lee attempted to split the Union lines when he attacked Fort Stedman, a stronghold along the Yankee trenches. His army was beaten back, and he lost nearly 5,000 men. On March 29, Grant seized the initiative, sending 12,000 men past the Confederates’ left flank and threatening to cut Lee’s escape route from Petersburg. Fighting broke out there, several miles southwest of the city. Lee’s men could not arrest the Federal advance. On April 1, the Yankees struck at Five Forks, soundly defeating the Rebels and leaving Lee no alternative. He pulled his forces from their trenches and raced west, followed by Grant. It was a race that even the great Lee could not win. He surrendered his army on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Court House.


saymedia.com
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/appomattox-campaign-begins?cmpid=email-hist-tdih-2023-0329-03292023&om_rid=21539c69abde70e4e3fda02b9d14d1819c3badeaf5a2bcab48a023eefe0cd3d2
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/29/2023 8:05:16 AM
Hey MHO'ers,

Checking 3-29 in history, here's a whole ton of the events for discussion!? C'mon help us out here! Pitch in!?

845 Paris is seiged by the Vikings! Just how far into the middle of Europe did they advance?? Comments??

1794 the republic of Switzerland is formed! How did this little land locked country gain independence!? & why are they always neutral?? What say you about the Swiss???

1804 thousands of white people massacred in Haiti! How & why?? Did this have any effect on the US South!???

1847 the US captures Vera Cruz, Mexico! What famous US Civil War generals were involved?? Anyone??

1848 Niagara Falls stops! Yeah sure!? How & any news on it?? Comments?

1867 the Canadian Constitution is formed, Anyone enlighten us on how it differs from the US's!??? Comments or websites?

1865 the Appomattox Campaign starts over 7,500 men will die til April 9th, mostly Rebs.?? Anyone have the breakdown on casualties??

1912 Robert Falcon Scott makes his last entry in a tent in the Arctic, what mistakes did he make to lead to this tragedy!? What say you??

1936 Nazi propaganda says 99% of the Germans are pro Nazi! What's the real figure?? We really don't know?? Any figures on this? Anyone??

1942 the RN Cruiser Trinadad torpedoes itself!! How in the he'll could this happen!? Anyone know??

1942 RN bombing of Lubeck Germany, 1st Bomber Command attack! Was Bomber Harris involved? & how successful was it?? Anyone??

1945 last V-1 attack! How did the Allies stop these rocket attacks?? What say you??

1976 the US National Guard 8 of them indicted for killing 4 Kent State students! Who ordered this? Who was to blame? What ultimately happened to them?? Comments?

Any comparison of the V-1 & the V-2, & other rocket type weapons used by Hitler? How close to Atomic weapons was the Reich?? Anyone?

BTW tomorrow 03/30/1972 the last day of Rum Rations in the Royal Canadian Navy! What's up with this?? Certainly grounds for mutiny!???

Also anyone with any new topics from the end of March in history!!??

Carry on gents,
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
3/29/2023 8:15:45 AM
"Race" is a social construct.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/29/2023 8:43:38 AM
Quote:
Quote:
NY, please read the Declaration of Neutrality. In that statement, Queen Victoria acknowledges that she took the advice of the Privy Council. In those days, the Privy Council was a powerful body comprised of top politicians in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Among its duties were to advise the monarch on the limits of the Royal Prerogative. The Privy Council could issue orders in council

I believe that Queen Victoria accepted the advice of her Privy Council and declared neutrality. If you know something different, please weigh in.






'When the threat of Prussian invasion was first imminent, Palmerston wanted to go to the aid of the Danes. When Victoria heard that Palmerston had informed the Prussian Minister to London, Count Bern- storEf, that Britain would aid the Danes, she sent Palmerston a letter informing him that England could not be committed to support Denmark, and that she would op- pose war over the matter (24). After the Prussian invasion of Jutland, Russell and Palmerston urged that the British EJeet be sent into the Baltic as a show of force in favor of Denmark. Once again the Queen stepped in and stopped the Government from taking aCtion (23, p. 274. "



THE DANISH-GERMAN WAR OF 1864 AND BRITISH POLITICS......I found this article.

I can copy it.



Who is the author? I just need the url if it is on the web.

NY, no monarch in Britain has vetoed legislation since Queen Anne in 1708. The monarch may not introduce legislation and does not sit in Parliament except to open it. Even at that, Queen Victoria had to be persuaded to do so in 1866. She wasn't fond of entering the House.

You have been trying to paint the image of British monarchs as having their boot on the neck of Parliament. That is not so but dependent upon the monarch, different degrees of interest in the affairs of state were shown. Queen Elizabeth II had weekly meetings with her PM because she was interested in the affairs of the nation.

I understand that Queen Victoria also was interested in the affairs of state although sometimes accused of being reclusive. Monarchs including Queen Vic will and do offer their opinions and no doubt the Privy Council and the cabinet would take her views into consideration. Did she order the government to opt for neutrality? I doubt that as that sort of interference was ended when Charles I lost his head in 1649. So did Queen Vic use the Royal Prerogative to overturn the wishes of the Privy Council or simply make her views known.

If so, then the question is why did the government of Britain elect neutrality during the US civil war. The government or rather the House of Commons debated the neutrality policy throughout the war. There were those who felt that intervention on behalf of the Confederacy was the best policy and those who supported neutrality. Among the leadership, PM Palmerston was ambivalent though he appreciated the economic benefits to maintaining good relations with the US. He was also pro-Confederacy. The Foreign Minister Russell supported neutrality.

Even though the upper class elites and business classes, often the same people, were sympathetic to the Confederacy, Hansard shows that Parliament felt that neutrality was the best policy for Great Britain irrespective of individual support for either the Confederacy or the US.


In the end the Privy council reported to the Queen that it preferred neutrality and she declared it so. Could she have vetoed that declaration and opted for war? While the Royal Prerogative grants the monarch the right to declare war, constitutional conventions actually govern the decision to go to war and those conventions say that the PM and other ministers make that decision.

I acknowledge that the degree to which a monarch could influence parliamentary or cabinet decisions has evolved over time.

George
GaryNJ
Cumberland NJ USA
Posts: 254
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
3/29/2023 9:29:26 AM
Quote:
Who is the author? I just need the url if it is on the web.


[Read More]

Gary
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/29/2023 2:24:37 PM
Phil, you are 100% correct. Sorry for muddying the waters.

Cheers
B
----------------------------------
"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
3/29/2023 2:32:26 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Who is the author? I just need the url if it is on the web.


[Read More]

Gary



Thanks Gary. That was an interesting article and I thank NY for providing it.

It is historical record that Queen Victoria was never shy about voicing her opinions and this article indicates that she was determined that there should be no war between Britain and the German states.

However, she was also in communication with her daughter Vicky who had been married off to the Crown Prince of Prussia (I think). The Queen had no qualms about pressuring her daughter to do the right thing when it came to issues pertaining her old country. The Queen often reminded Vicky that she must honour the country of her birth. During the Danish affair she wrote a harsh and critical letter to Vicky to encourage her to intervene to get the German states to back off.

We also know that when her close advisor, PM Lord Melbourne was about be defeated in Parliament that she was extremely angry and made anti-Tory comments. I forget how it all happened but Lord Melbourne was returned to office when the new PM Peel resigned for reasons that escape me now.

It is also true that even without Victoria's interference there was no consensus in Parliament that Britain should send troops to aid the Danes in their defence. A motion of censure of the government was put forward by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli was upset that the government was not letting the country or Parliament know where it stood on the Denmark-Germany issue. That motion failed by a narrow margin indicating that the MP's were conflicted by the issue irrespective of their Queen's opinions.

As I understand it, Britain was content to live in "splendid isolation" from affairs in Europe just so long as a balance of power existed. Britain did not want any single power to dominate. So the question was whether the German states would become much stronger as they reclaimed land from Denmark.

So again, thanks to NY for that piece. My question is what would have happened had the cabinet and Privy Council gone ahead with a decision to send troops to aid Denmark? Would there have been a constitutional crisis in 1864?

Lastly, the Monarch is not simply a figurehead in the British Parliamentary system. That person has a duty to be consulted, to consult, to ask questions and to offer opinion. Queen Victoria was that sort of monarch.


Regarding the other issue of neutrality during the US civil war, there was no substantial and sustained support for intervention in the US conflict. There was talk that the USN blockade of southern ports was damaging to the cotton trade but in the end, Britain found different sources for cotton. Britain was happy to see the US in some difficulty but happy to trade officially and unofficially if private blockade runners chose to do so.

Britain then was officially neutral but after the RMS Trent was boarded and two Confederates taken prisoner, it was more likely that there would be war. PM Palmerston was adamant that he would not stand for this breach of British sovereignty. Saner heads in Parliament sought a diplomatic solution.

However, when the cabinet crafted a bombastic letter to be sent to the Americans and sent it to Queen Victoria for approval, she was alarmed at the tone and she and her husband changed the letter so that it gave the Americans a way out. Was this overreach on the part of the Queen?

Text of the letter sent by the British government as edited by Prince Albert

Quote:
Her Majesty’s Government, bearing in mind the friendly relations which have long subsisted between Great Britain and the United States, are willing to believe that the United States’s naval officer who committed this aggression was not acting in compliance with any authority from his Government, or that if he conceived himself to be so authorized, he greatly misunderstood the instructions which he had received.

For the Government of the United States must be fully aware that the British Government could not allow such an affront to the national honour to pass without full reparation, and Her Majesty’s Government are unwilling to believe that it could be the deliberate intention of the Government of the United States unnecessarily to force into discussion between the two Governments a question of so grave a character, and with regard to which the whole British nation would be sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling.


Meanwhile the RN increased the size of the fleet on station in the Bahamas from 25 to 40 vessels. British troop presence in the Canadas and the Maritimes increased from 5000 to 17,000. This sounds paltry in consideration of the size of the Union army but it was an indicator that Britain was in preparation to fight. And this frightened the Americans.

Given that the US Ambassador to Britain, Charles Adams was trying to calm his own pit bull, William Seward who wished to be confrontational, it was perhaps a good thing that both sides had saner heads available to assist in negotiations.


NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
3/29/2023 3:19:32 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Who is the author? I just need the url if it is on the web.


[Read More]

Gary



Thanks Gary. That was an interesting article and I thank NY for providing it.







My pleasure George. It certainly was not the easiest piece of research to locate.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
3/29/2023 3:20:22 PM
Quote:
1867 the Canadian Constitution is formed, Anyone enlighten us on how it differs from the US's!??? Comments or websites?


This document, the Constitution Act of 1867 is called the British North America Act. It was amended several times over the decades That act was patriated to Canada in 1982 and with the addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document that governs us today. The BNA act then is our constitutional foundation but it was not intended to deal with rights and freedoms. It was assumed the rights and freedoms that the people had as members of the Empire would continue under the government of Canada. The objective was to amalgamate.



This is the text of the BNA act. You won't find references to rights and freedoms. All of that is contained in the Charter. This document describes how the country shall be put together, how to run elections, who is in charge, the powers of the provinces and the federal government, the judiciary, taxation, banking etc. I haven't read it in a while but I don't think that it even addresses the responsibilities of the Prime Minister. This is very much a blueprint for the setting up of government in a new political arrangement. The language is not flowery at all as it is in the US constitution.

Preamble to US constitution

Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


And the first words of the BNA. Very businesslike. We didn't fight a war to achieve Dominion status. We wanted it. the Brits wanted it. Nothing to get excited about I guess.

Quote:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire:

And whereas on the Establishment of the Union by Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:

And whereas it is expedient that Provision be made for the eventual Admission into the Union of other Parts of British North America:

Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, as follows:




Text of BNA act

[Read More]

Note that it was based on the British constitution and there are also other rules and conventions that determine how we are governed.

What did it do?

1. Amalgamated the United Province of Canada with the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and called that unit, the Dominion of Canada

2. Recognized the monarch of Great Britain as the Head of State of Canada but not the head of government.

3. Described the division of powers between the federal government and the provincial legislatures. Note the time period, just after the US civil war. The Fathers of Confederation felt that it was the form of federalism in the US that led to the schism and social unrest. And so, it was determined that if any new powers deemed necessary arose, those powers would come under the purview of the federal government and not the provincial legislatures. So when it came time to regulate radio broadcasting and aeronautics, the task fell to the federal government.
4. Described the judiciary
5. Described the structure of government.


I don't know whether I am prepared to give a treatise on the differences between US and Canadian constitutions. They are very different and of course ours is much newer. The web is full of articles that compare and contrast the two and in a comparison between the US constitution and the Bill of Rights, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is reviewed as perhaps a more useful document. We had the benefit of examination of yours and others in the design phase but it is not a copy of the US constitution at all. Many countries have chosen to adopt the Canadian style constitution rather than the American. And I realize that until 1982 the US constitution and Bill or Rights were copied heavily as new nations emerged.

Here is a comparison of the US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Note that our Charter is embedded in the Constitution. I believe that the US Bill of Rights exists as a separate document. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/29/2023 8:56:13 PM
Quote:
Hey MHO'ers, most of these, NOT YET COMMENTED ON!? ANYONE??

Checking 3-29 in history, here's a whole ton of the events for discussion!? C'mon help us out here! Pitch in!?

845 Paris is seiged by the Vikings! Just how far into the middle of Europe did they advance?? Comments??

1794 the republic of Switzerland is formed! How did this little land locked country gain independence!? & why are they always neutral?? What say you about the Swiss???

1804 thousands of white people massacred in Haiti! How & why?? Did this have any effect on the US South!???

1847 the US captures Vera Cruz, Mexico! What famous US Civil War generals were involved?? Anyone??

1848 Niagara Falls stops! Yeah sure!? How & any news on it?? Comments?

1867 the Canadian Constitution is formed, Anyone enlighten us on how it differs from the US's!??? Comments or websites?

1865 the Appomattox Campaign starts over 7,500 men will die til April 9th, mostly Rebs.?? Anyone have the breakdown on casualties??

1912 Robert Falcon Scott makes his last entry in a tent in the Arctic, what mistakes did he make to lead to this tragedy!? What say you??

1936 Nazi propaganda says 99% of the Germans are pro Nazi! What's the real figure?? We really don't know?? Any figures on this? Anyone??

1942 the RN Cruiser Trinadad torpedoes itself!! How in the he'll could this happen!? Anyone know??

1942 RN bombing of Lubeck Germany, 1st Bomber Command attack! Was Bomber Harris involved? & how successful was it?? Anyone??

1945 last V-1 attack! How did the Allies stop these rocket attacks?? What say you??

1976 the US National Guard 8 of them indicted for killing 4 Kent State students! Who ordered this? Who was to blame? What ultimately happened to them?? Comments?

Any comparison of the V-1 & the V-2, & other rocket type weapons used by Hitler? How close to Atomic weapons was the Reich?? Anyone?

BTW tomorrow 03/30/1972 the last day of Rum Rations in the Royal Canadian Navy! What's up with this?? Certainly grounds for mutiny!???

Also anyone with any new topics from the end of March in history!!??

One last shot at em!!????
Carry on gents,
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
3/30/2023 6:43:47 AM
Hoping to keep the New England colonies dependent on the British, King George III formally endorses the New England Restraining Act on March 30, 1775. The New England Restraining Act required New England colonies to trade exclusively with Great Britain as of July 1. An additional rule would come into effect on July 20, banning colonists from fishing in the North Atlantic.

The British prime minister, Frederick, Lord North, introduced the Restraining Act and the Conciliatory Proposition to Parliament on the same day. The Conciliatory Proposition promised that no colony that met its share of imperial defenses and paid royal officials’ salaries of their own accord would be taxed. The act conceded to the colonists’ demand that they be allowed to provide the crown with needed funds on a voluntary basis. In other words, Parliament would ask for money through requisitions, not demand it through taxes. The Restraining Act was meant to appease Parliamentary hardliners, who would otherwise have impeded passage of the pacifying proposition.

​Unfortunately for North and prospects for peace, he had already sent General Thomas Gage orders to march on Concord, Massachusetts, to destroy the armaments stockpiled in the town, and take Patriot leaders John Hancock and Samuel Adams into custody. The orders were given in January 1775 and arrived in Boston before the Conciliatory Proposition. Thus, on April 18, 700 Redcoats marched towards Concord Bridge. The military action led to the Revolutionary War, the birth of the United States as a new nation, the temporary downfall of Lord North and the near abdication of King George III. The Treaty of Paris marking the conflict’s end guaranteed New Englanders the right to fish off Newfoundland—the right denied them by the New England Restraining Act.​

saymedia.com
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/king-george-endorses-new-england-restraining-act?cmpid=email-hist-tdih-2023-0330-03302023&om_rid=21539c69abde70e4e3fda02b9d14d1819c3badeaf5a2bcab48a023eefe0cd3d2

================================================== ===========================
Mercantilism at its best.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/30/2023 9:50:43 AM
Taking away fishing! That's definitely worth fighting over!?

A perfect storm for revolution!?
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."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/30/2023 12:37:21 PM
Quote:
Quote:
1867 the Canadian Constitution is formed, Anyone enlighten us on how it differs from the US's!??? Comments or websites?


Text of BNA act

[Read More]

With regards to the British Monarchy in Canada, "Recognized the monarch of Great Britain as the Head of State of Canada but not the head of government."

Here is a comparison of the US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George



Hi George,

Just what is meant by the head of state, as opposed to head of the government? Which holds more power??

Cheers, & thanks,
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
3/30/2023 2:01:08 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1867 the Canadian Constitution is formed, Anyone enlighten us on how it differs from the US's!??? Comments or websites?


Text of BNA act

[Read More]

With regards to the British Monarchy in Canada, "Recognized the monarch of Great Britain as the Head of State of Canada but not the head of government."

Here is a comparison of the US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George



Hi George,

Just what is meant by the head of state, as opposed to head of the government? Which holds more power??

Cheers, & thanks,
MD



Hi MD,

In our constitutional monarchy, the head of state is the monarch but by convention he has little to do with governing the country. That falls to the PM and his cabinet and the other elected members of the House of Commons. The appointed Senate also plays a role in the review of legislation.

When legislation is written it must have the agreement of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Head of State before it can be enacted. In practice and by convention, the Head of State grants Royal Assent automatically. I say that with the knowledge that the G-G actually has "reserve" powers that would allow her to refuse Royal Assent for a bill but the last time that a Governor-General dared to challenge the will of the Prime Minister was in 1926.

One of the roles of the G-G is to call elections when the PM asks for it. In 1926 the PM was W.L. Mackenzie-King and plagued by some scandal he wanted to go to the people to improve the status of his minority government, to seek a majority in other words. The Governor General was Julian Byng, a Briton who had commanded the Canadian Corps at Vimy Ridge during WW1. He was a popular man in Canada. But he refused the PM's request and when that happens, by convention, the PM must resign. This he did and Byng appointed the opposition leader as Prime Minister.

In the next election, King campaigned on the issue of sovereignty and hammered away at the temerity of the King's representative to refuse a request. King won handily as the people felt that the war hero Julian Byng had overstepped the bounds of what Canadians felt a GG should by allowed to do. The King-Byng affair was the last time that a GG has refused a request to call an election or to prorogue Parliament.

Our current head of state is King Charles III and his representative in Canada is Governor General Mary Simon. In our past, the G-G was a Briton appointed by the King or Queen to serve a term in Canada. In 1952 and upon the recommendation of our PM, the first Canadian G G, Vincent Massey, was appointed. Since then, the GG's have all been Canadian, reflecting our independence but maintaining our association with the British crown.

So if not a figurehead then why is the Governor General as representative of the Head of State so important if they take advice from the PM on any actions needed from the GG.

The GG's primary role is to ensure that Canada always has a Prime Minister and a governing party that has the confidence of the House of Commons.

Other than that the King's representative has the following duties:

Quote:
-swearing into office the prime minister, Cabinet ministers and the chief justice of Canada;
-summoning, proroguing and dissolving Parliament;
-delivering the Speech from the Throne;
-granting Royal Assent to acts of Parliament;
-appointing members of the Privy Council, lieutenant governors and certain judges, on the advice of the prime minister; and
-signing into effect official documents, such as orders-in-council.


So the Constitution Act of 1867 places executive power in the hands of the King or his representative in a Commonwealth country that retains the King as head of state. In practice those executive powers are exercised by the Prime Minister and cabinet.

I think that the GG or King represents us on the world stage and that person carries no political baggage. They may handle all of the ceremonial duties that often fall to the head of government in other systems.

Many years ago I would have said that the Monarch as head of state unites the country as the representative of our values. I would not say that today and support for the monarchy is probably at an all time low.

The monarchy as head of state has been a stable position and eternal. No matter the coming and going of politicians, the Head of State endures as a neutral person in the government. Ideally the GG is a voice of reason who may give wise counsel to the Prime Minister. In practice today I doubt that that happens very often.

The Monarchist League of Canada will tell us that a constitutional monarchy is far less expensive than a republic. There is no separate election for the head of state. The head of state remains the head no matter which government is elected. So we don't spend millions on the election of a President. Our head of government is elected as an MP in our federal elections. As head of the winning party, that person becomes the PM and head of government.

I am a proponent of a constitutional monarchy as opposed to a republic though at times I think that I am probably more wedded to a Westminster style government than to the monarchy itself. Is it possible to maintain that style of government without a monarch? Not sure.

Is the position of GG and by extension the KIng worth keeping? I think so

In theory the GG has a lot of constitutional power that is rarely exercised. The PM has very few powers officially but uses or borrows the powers of the GG.

When we read about the role of Head of State in our system, we see that the GG and the King can act as a safeguard against a politician who would seize powers autocratically.

example: Prorogation is a mechanism in our system whereby the PM could terminate a sitting of Parliament for a variety of reasons. In my experience, the reasons have nearly always been specious. Prorogation has been called the "reset button". But the PM cannot terminate a sitting of Parliament without the permission of the GG. The prorogation cannot go on forever and if the GG approves the prorogation, she will also announce when Parliament will sit again.

I could foresee a time when an autocrat would attempt to prorogue Parliament multiple times in a row or try to announce that Parliament will not return. The Governor General as the representative of the head of state has the constitutional power to prevent that as the GG and King are charged with the assurance of a responsible government that has the confidence of the House of Commons.

Cheers,

George

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/30/2023 2:48:07 PM
Talking of the Monarchy and its relation to Parliament, it was good to see and hear our King addressing the German Parliament in Berlin today.

What do you reckon, Trevor😊 ?

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
Wazza
Sydney  Australia
Posts: 814
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
3/31/2023 1:44:52 AM
His speech was well received by the Germans.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/31/2023 3:08:42 AM
1889 : Eiffel Tower opened. A good centennial marker for the French people to reflect on their progress since the Revolution. The more recent humiliation of defeat in the Franco Prussian War could be partially expunged by this spectacular testimony to French industry and resurgence.

1980 : the legendary and totemic Olympic athlete Jesse Owens died at the age of 66.

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
3/31/2023 6:16:30 AM
On this date in United States History,....

In a letter dated March 31, 1776, Abigail Adams writes to her husband, John Adams, urging him and the other members of the Continental Congress not to forget about the nation’s women when fighting for America’s independence from Great Britain.

The future First Lady wrote in part, “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”

Nearly 150 years before the House of Representatives voted to pass the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote, Adams letter was a private first step in the fight for equal rights for women. Recognized and admired as a formidable woman in her own right, the union of Abigail and John Adams persists as a model of mutual respect and affection; they have since been referred to as “America’s first power couple.” Their correspondence of over 1,000 letters written between 1762 and 1801 remains in the Massachusetts Historical Society and continues to give historians a unique perspective on domestic and political life during the revolutionary era.​

Abigail bore six children, of whom five survived. Abigail and John’s eldest son, John Quincy Adams, served as the sixth president of the United States. Only two women, Abigail Adams and Barbara Bush, have been both wives and mothers of American presidents.​


saymedia.com
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abigail-adams-urges-husband-to-remember-the-ladies?cmpid=email-hist-tdih-2023-0331-03312023&om_rid=21539c69abde70e4e3fda02b9d14d1819c3badeaf5a2bcab48a023eefe0cd3d2
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
3/31/2023 8:05:49 AM


Checking 3-31, in history, here's a whole ton of the events for discussion!???

845 Paris is seiged by the Vikings! Just how far into the middle of Europe did they advance?? Comments??

1794 the republic of Switzerland is formed! How did this little land locked country gain independence!? & why are they always neutral?? What say you about the Swiss???

1804 thousands of white people massacred in Haiti! How & why?? Did this have any effect on the US South!???

1847 the US captures Vera Cruz, Mexico! What famous US Civil War generals were involved?? Anyone??

1848 Niagara Falls stops! Yeah sure!? How & any news on it?? Comment

1867 the Canadian Constitution is formed, Anyone enlighten us on how it differs from the US's!??? Comments or websites?

1865 the Appomattox Campaign starts over 7,500 men will die til April 9th, mostly Rebs.?? Anyone have the breakdown on casualties??

1912 Robert Falcon Scott makes his last entry in a tent in the Arctic, what mistakes did he make to lead to this tragedy!? What say you??

1936 Nazi propaganda says 99% of the Germans are pro Nazi! What's the real figure?? We really don't know?? Any figures on this? Anyone??

1942 the RN Cruiser Trinadad torpedoes itself!! How in the he'll could this happen!? Anyone know??

1976 the US National Guard 8 of them indicted for killing 4 Kent State students! Who ordered this? Who was to blame? What ultimately happened to them?? Comments?

Lots to discuss here,
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
3/31/2023 10:23:11 AM
Quote:



1865 the Appomattox Campaign starts over 7,500 men will die til April 9th, mostly Rebs.?? Anyone have the breakdown on casualties??



From Livermore :

Appomattox Campaign, March 29 -April 9 1865

Yankees, 9,066 killed and wounded, 1,714 missing.

Rebs, 6,266 killed and wounded, 13,769 captured March 29 to April 7, 26,765 surrendered on April 9.

The yankees suffered the greater bloodshed, because they made the big frontal attack against the rebel earthworks that started the final fighting. Nowhere near 7,500 men " died". Most of the casualties were wounded, outnumbering the killed by four or five to one. I reckon that three yankees died for every two rebs over the campaign. The loss suffered by the rebs in prisoners, surrendered and deserters was devastating.

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
scoucer
Berlin  Germany
Posts: 3270
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
3/31/2023 3:10:26 PM
Quote:
Talking of the Monarchy and its relation to Parliament, it was good to see and hear our King addressing the German Parliament in Berlin today.

What do you reckon, Trevor😊 ?

Regards, Phil


Well, no longer being one of his subjects, and the proud citizen of a Republic, I wasnt much bothered. He didnt drop round to my place with some duty free. Of course he was liked and his German wasnt bad but he is basically one of us Krauts. Since his family emigrated to Britain they seem to have done very well. Empire and all that. Quite the success story although seems to be getting difficult lately. Down to their last billion I have heard. And some countries want to give him the push. Maybe he should have popped in for some advice on Harry.

Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
Page 64 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