|
Subject: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: gnu Date: 12 Jun 12 - 07:04 PM Documentary on Maine PBS in an hour. I will tape it if the VCR will work for a change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Greg F. Date: 12 Jun 12 - 07:21 PM Ah, yes- the War of 1812- perhaps the most idiotic war the U.S. was ever involved in- Tho Viet Nam comes close to a tie for honors..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: kendall Date: 12 Jun 12 - 07:56 PM Idiotic? should the American government just ignored the British kidnapping American seamen and pressing them into the British Navy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 12 Jun 12 - 11:02 PM World War I. The US didn't HAVE to get involved. Of course, neither did Russia, Germany, France, UK.... But let's not forget the Mexican War or the Spanish-American War. The first was a land grab and the second a Hearst-supplied conflict. The US had justification, as Kendall points out, for the War of 1812. It also had justification for the war against the Barbary pirates ("...to the shores of Tripoli..."). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: kendall Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:08 AM My teachers made a big deal out of the British red coats burning the White House, but they never mentioned that Americans burned York, Ontario, first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Bobert Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:13 AM Ummmmmmm, not to split hairs here but the British Navy had war ships coming up the Potomac River toward Washington, D.C.... Dumb war on the Brits part... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Nancy King Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:23 AM I thought the PBS film was fascinating -- learned a lot! Most of what I'd known about the War of 1812 came from reading (many times) the Patrick O'Brien novels, which have, of course, a decidedly British point of view. In recent months I've learned more of the American viewpoint from music programs on the 1812 theme, but they still seemed to concentrate mostly on the sea battles. The film covered the whole picture from several points of view (British, American, Canadian, Native American). Very interesting. I also thought it was cool that Jimmie Driftwood's "Battle of New Orleans" song was included prominently (although misattributed). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:58 AM Didn't see it, but news filters in here from Back In The States rather slowly. The British burned Washington? The last we heard the Battle of Bladensburg was going well. What's happening in Detroit and on the Northwestern Frontier? Are the Indians involved? At least Ft. Detroit will hold firm! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:11 AM The war of 1812 is to a great war as a timbit is to a doughnut: War [Middle English warre, from Old North French werre, of Germanic origin; see wers- in Indo-European roots.] Word History: The chaos of war is reflected in the semantic history of the word war. War can be traced back to the Indo-European root *wers-, "to confuse, mix up." In the Germanic family of the Indo-European languages, this root gave rise to several words having to do with confusion or mixture of various kinds. One was the noun *werza-, "confusion," which in a later form *werra- was borrowed into Old French, probably from Frankish, a largely unrecorded Germanic language that contributed about 200 words to the vocabulary of Old French. From the Germanic stem came both the form werre in Old North French, the form borrowed into English in the 12th century, and guerre (the source of guerrilla) in the rest of the Old French-speaking area. Both forms meant "war." Meanwhile another form derived from the same Indo-European root had developed into a word denoting a more benign kind of mixture, Old High German wurst, meaning "sausage." Modern German Wurst was borrowed into English in the 19th century, first by itself (recorded in 1855) and then as part of the word liverwurst (1869), the liver being a translation of German Leber in Leberwurst. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:15 AM Now I'm hungry. I wonder if there's any liverwurst at the store? I haven't had any in a coon's age. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:15 AM Oh yes, soem folks may not recognize a Timbit (basically a salvaged center cut out of a doughnut).Timbit Did I say that, IMO, the mythical War of 1812 was about as interesting, when it comes to wars, as a Timbit (not to disrespect the Timbit lovers out there)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:19 AM Just in case you were checking out my last link, there is no War of 1812 (aka the great romp in the woods) Timbit in the (tasty, but small) Tim Horton's collection. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:31 AM Beware potential US of A raiders (and your Fenian hang-oners). Canada, and its British friends (with the former Aboriginal landowners),bravely fought you off in 1812. Canada now has lethal Timbits (diabetis beware) to shoot off at you - and you now have bigger heads (and possibly more massive bodies) for the Ango-loyalists (supported by the Franco-not-so-loyalists) to hit. (not sure if the Aboriginals can help, as there are few Tims to volly in the hinterland). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:32 AM Oops, a spelling error (Diabetus Bewarus) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Les from Hull Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:35 AM It was more about kidnapping British seamen who were pretending to be American, which it was easy to do in the days before birth certificates. There had been a massive increase in the American merchant marine, taking New World goods to Europe, as the Royal Navy had made it difficult for these goods to be transported in French and allied ships. Many British seaman took advantage of this to join American ships. The British view of this was that they were still British and liable to impressment (a loathsome system, but nevertheless part of British law). The USA also complained about the imposition of the blockade, but compare this with British blockade runners running into Confederate ports in the American Civil War. I personally think of this war as an attempted American land grab, at a time when Britain was heavily involved in another war. And as for the chaps waiting at Bladensburg - on your marks, get set ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Charmion Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:37 AM Scene: Drinks at the bar after dinner at a snazzy Washington restaurant Characters: U.S. Army officers hosting British and Canadian military guests American, scraping for conversation: "Well, you know, you British actually burned Washington." Brit, well-marinated: "I remember we burned Joan of Arc, but I didn't know we even caught Washington." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: gnu Date: 13 Jun 12 - 11:00 AM Excellent program. Learned a lot! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 13 Jun 12 - 11:30 AM The War of 1812 had absolutely nothing to do with restraint of trade or the impressment of sailors - they were excuses used to sell the venture. The real reason for the War of 1812 and the War of Independence goes back to the Seven Years War in which the British signed treaties with the Native Americans which restricted westward expansion. The British fully intended to honour those Treaties the Americans were anxious to break them, so Les from Hull is right - War of 1812 was an attempted land grab - in the end what you did come away with you paid France for - Louisiana. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Greg F. Date: 13 Jun 12 - 12:41 PM ... should the American government just ignored the British kidnapping American seamen and pressing them into the British Navy? Well, Kendall, you tell me: were the 25,000+ U.S. casualties worth avenging the impressment of a copuple of a hundred sailors? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 13 Jun 12 - 02:08 PM Dunno where you got those figures. The Information Please Almanac lists: War of 1812 (1812–1815) Total servicemembers 286,730 Battle deaths 2,260 Nonmortal woundings 4,505 Wikipedia states that about 15,000 died from causes directly related to the War. British casualties (Wikipedia): British losses in the war were about 1,600 killed in action and 3,679 wounded; 3,321 British died from disease. There doesn't seem to be any casualty figures for Canadian militiamen or Indians fighting for either side. There's also this: at least 3,000 American slaves escaped to the British because of their offer of freedom, the same as they had made in the American Revolution. Many other slaves simply escaped in the chaos of war and achieved their freedom on their own. The British settled some of the newly freed slaves in Nova Scotia. Four hundred freedmen were settled in New Brunswick. The Americans protested that Britain's failure to return the slaves violated the Treaty of Ghent. After arbitration by the Tsar of Russia the British paid $1,204,960 in damages to Washington, which reimbursed the slaveowners. Depending upon the index you use, multiply the amount Britain paid by USD 14.60 (for purchasing power) or USD 182.00 (for unskilled labor) or USD 15,900.00 for Consumer Price Index for the cost in 2010 dollars. If you want it in pounds do it yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Desert Dancer Date: 13 Jun 12 - 02:24 PM PBS website for the program: The War of 1812. It first aired last fall. ~ Becky in Long Beach |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: GUEST,Dazbo at home Date: 13 Jun 12 - 04:39 PM Ahah! the war of 1812 that the US "won". The RN might have been searching for, and impressing deserters, on US ships but hardly an excuse for the attempt to grab Canada |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: gnu Date: 13 Jun 12 - 05:06 PM "The real reason for the War of 1812 and the War of Independence goes back to the Seven Years War in which the British signed treaties with the Native Americans which restricted westward expansion. The British fully intended to honour those Treaties the Americans were anxious to break them, so Les from Hull is right - War of 1812 was an attempted land grab..." Fully intended to honour those treaties??? Well, I got a different story regrding our Native brothers and how the Brits manipulated them and the Yanks but I can't support it. Who waged war against the Native Americans? Who owned the big "Yank" companies? the banks? the railroads? the mines? the agriculture? Who wages war in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and anywhere else the Brits feel the need to to this day? The Brits are masters at warfare... whether it's by bullet or coin... or both. Am I rambling? grasping at straws? Or do my postulations and conspiracy theories merit consideration? Dismiss them as you may but don't be too rash in doing so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Les from Hull Date: 13 Jun 12 - 05:30 PM Does anybody actually believe that the USA 'won' the war of 1812? The war, started by the USA, ended without any of their war aims being gained, their economy wrecked and a third of their navy lost. All a British sailor in an American port had to do was appear before a Justice of the Peace (or equivalent) and tell him he was American he could get a piece of paper with his name and description which he could use to avoid service in the Royal Navy. And he could do this in any other port and get more of them to sell to other English sailors of similar description who had never even seen America. If we regard those poor impressed 'Americans' as draft dodgers at best and traitors at worst you might understand the feeling in the Royal Navy. I don't want to defend the system of impressment - it was conscription at a time when conscription was not the normal system. But if you went to sea you know you were liable to serve in the navy in time of war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 05:35 PM I have to agree with gnu, Britain seemed to get their noses involved in alot of wars/conflicts throughout history. Are they warlike people, or just "get around"? Britain and wars Assorted causes of a dull war? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: meself Date: 13 Jun 12 - 06:41 PM Well, if "they" are warlike people, I think that means that a good percentage of us North Americans are warlike, as essentially the same people. And the answer is, yes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: kendall Date: 13 Jun 12 - 07:36 PM No one won the war of 1812. Greg F, at the beginning, the US government was forced to address the insults by the British and they were convinced that war was the only answer. It was only much later that they all realized the cost. Perhaps if they had had second sight they would have found another way. Of course, England could have just stayed home, and left America alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 07:56 PM Well, if "they" are warlike people, I think that means that a good percentage of us North Americans are warlike, as essentially the same people. And the answer is, yes. I guess that is like saying we are all people are much like primitave man? Would the answer in this case be, yes also? Sound logic? Ummm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 07:59 PM ""No one won the war of 1812"". What would a "win" resemble, in that, so called, war - or any war? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: gnu Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:01 PM For me, it's simple because I don't know enough of the real history. The MPBN (PBS) TV program taught me a lot, but, a two hour documentary doesn't explain the "simple" things that matter to me in addition to what I learned. Just once more (yeah, I hear youse all saying "Bullshiut gnu!" and yer prob'ly right)... the rich subjugate the poor. The War of 1812 was orchestrated by a bunch of rich Brits and Yanks to get richer. The Brits signed the treaties because they couldn't spare the troops to take out the Native Americans due to that short guy running amok in Europe. They needed to buy time and to buy an ally in persuing that goal. They eventually supplied a lot of troops to the Yanks to do just that... how many bodies did they supply to General Custer et al? from Garryowen In Glory? In any case, like I said above, I really don't have support for any of my ramblings or conspiracy theories so I'll just say another of my "theories" again... the Brits?... don't fuck with the Brits. Of course, I will also say again, I am happy to be on their "side" in the Commonwealth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:12 PM Of all things, I happen to be reading a biography of John Percival at the moment (Kendall, I think you served under him). He was impressed, served on "Victory" under Nelson (no, not at Trafalgar) and another ship, and finally escaped with some other impressed sailors by rowing 21 miles to an American merchantman. According to this book (published by the Naval Institute Press), the most of the officers in the RN, including Nelson, didn't like impressed seamen because they were seem to have had bad attitudes, were kinda resentful for some reason. Impressment officially ended in, I believe, 1805. Officially ended. But don't forget that the US had been engaged in the "Quasi-War" with France. Seems like the US merchants didn't care who the traded with, but Britain seized goods bound for France and France seized bundles for Britain. The difference was that Britain paid for what they seized. Finally a treat was hammered out between France and the US. The US Navy had also been involved with the Barbary pirates prior to the Unpleasantness of 1812-15. The US invaded Canada in 1812 for the same reason they invaded Canada in the American Revolution: to prevent British troops from coming down from the north. In the 1812 instance the Americans eventually gained naval control of the Great Lakes (Battle of Lake Erie, et al.). Even if the US had taken Canada from the British, whatever would we have done with it? Nothing but trouble. Between the Quebecois and the Newfies and the Ontarians and whatever then call the people in New Brunswick -- jeez, we'd have given it back when the war was over just to save all the trouble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:19 PM Come on Rap, what territory has the US of A ever voluntarily given back - if there was a $dollar$ to be made , or a military staging point :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:24 PM Japan. Iwo Jima. The Philippines. To name three. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:27 PM You gave Japan back? What a big mistake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:32 PM The Panama Canal Zone, Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, South Korea, the Falkland Islands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:35 PM You gave Cuba back. Another mistake. I vacationed there. A nice place. Neat cars. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:36 PM Haiti :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:39 PM Rap Of those many places you mentioned. How many did you leave without guarintee a military staging point? How many did you folks never intervene in again? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:52 PM Well, let's see. The US has been in ROK since 1953; the forces there have been steadily decreased and the plans currently are to bring everyone "home" -- this is under the UN command, by the way, and other nations also have troops there. Japan, well, yes, there are US bases there and they work with the Japanese Defense Forces (my nephew was stationed there a couple years ago and a cousin-in-law is on his way there). There is talk of closing US bases there, but the Japanese government is leery of it. Haiti -- there are no US bases there. Troops went in under the UN a couple of times recently. Cuba -- Gitmo, on a 100 year lease that should expire one of these days. Other than Gitmo the US doesn't have bases in Cuba. Dominican Republic -- no US bases there. Philippines -- no US bases there (Subic Bay and Clark AFB were closed quite some years ago). Nicaragua -- no US bases. Panama Canal Zone -- I don't know if we still have bases there, but it's a self-governing country. DON'T piss me off by bringing up Reagan! Falkland Islands -- no US troops or bases there; we gave them to the Brits in 1832. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:02 PM Japan, well, yes, there are US bases there and they work with the Japanese Defense Forces (my nephew was stationed there a couple years ago and a cousin-in-law is on his way there). There is talk of closing US bases there, but the Japanese government is leery of it. Haiti -- there are no US bases there. Troops went in under the UN a couple of times recently. Cuba -- Gitmo, on a 100 year lease that should expire one of these days. Other than Gitmo the US doesn't have bases in Cuba.""Attempted Intervention"" Dominican Republic -- no US bases there.""Intervention"" Philippines -- no US bases there (Subic Bay and Clark AFB were closed quite some years ago).""Marcos"" Nicaragua -- no US bases.""Intervention"" Panama Canal Zone -- I don't know if we still have bases there, but it's a self-governing country. DON'T piss me off by bringing up Reagan!""OK"" Falkland Islands -- no US troops or bases there; we gave them to the Brits in 1832. ""Sheep"" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Beer Date: 13 Jun 12 - 09:25 PM To get back to the topic of the War of 1812 for a moment, I just want to say that I live on land that was invaded by the U.S. In fact I have a large rock that appears to have U.S carved on it. About 2 miles from me is a musium which has lots of interesting facts about the U.S. being stopped in their hopes of conquering Montreal. The French farmers, militia and the Mohawks sent the soldiers back across the border. Kendall, you say there were no winners in the war of 1812. And I say you are right. There are no winners in war. But I do reside on land that is called "CANADA" and damn proud for what my ancestors did. The Battle where I live that was fought was called "The Battle of the Chateauguay and actually took place in 1813. Here is a small cut and paste from Winki.... "The Battle of the Chateauguay was a battle of the War of 1812. On 26 October 1813, a force consisting of about 1,630 French Canadian regulars and militia and Mohawk warriors under Charles de Salaberry repulsed an American force of about 4,000 attempting to invade Canada. The Battle of the Chateauguay was one of the two battles (the other being the Battle of Crysler's Farm) which caused the Americans to abandon the Saint Lawrence Campaign, their major strategic effort in the autumn of 1813." Adrien |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 13 Jun 12 - 10:33 PM Sorry, I was thinking of the occupation of these territories by the US -- not "interventions." For instance, the US occupied Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 14 Jun 12 - 03:42 AM "The Brits signed the treaties because they couldn't spare the troops to take out the Native Americans due to that short guy running amok in Europe." - gnu IIRC gnu in 1812 when the Americans attacked Canada they were met by local militia forces a few British Regulars and Native Americans who were fighting for the British primarily because they knew that the Americans (as they were by this stage) wanted to push them off their land. Battle of Queenstown Heights involved 1,300 British against 3,500 Americans - the British won, the commanders on the day were Major-General Isaac Brock, Major-General John Hale Sheaffe and the Native American Chief Tecumseh. So at what point during the War of 1812 was it ever Britains plan to "take out the Native Americans"??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: kendall Date: 14 Jun 12 - 08:53 AM I see both of the wars with the UK as family feuds more than wars. We have gotten plenty from England; our language, customs, laws, arrogance, the belief that we are better able to run things than any other country,our constitution is a direct result of the Magna Carta. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 14 Jun 12 - 09:10 AM Don't forget the parts of the Constitution that came from the Five Nations, Kendall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Les from Hull Date: 14 Jun 12 - 11:01 AM Royal Naval impressment has never been repealed. It fell out , after being cof use in 1815, so no one has been 'press ganged' since then. Foreign sailors sailing on British ships for two years or more or marrying a British woman became liable for impressment. It is hard to know what percentage of sailors were impressed because they could be offered a bounty (money) if they volunteered after being caught by the press gang. Service conditions in the Royal Navy were not necessarily worse than the merchant service. The work was easier (many more men to do it) the food sometimes even better! - ship owners didn't provide rations on the same scale as the navy but the quality for both could be very variable. The main problem for pressed men was loss of liberty. In the merchant service you would expect to get home to your wife and family from time to time. In the navy you might finish one commission of several years and then get turned over to a new ship. Here in the port of Hull our main trade at the time was Greenland whaling. There were sometimes pitched battles with the press gang when whalers returned to port, lives were even lost. After spending a long season catching whales the men just wanted some time at home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 14 Jun 12 - 11:13 AM "I see both of the wars with the UK as family feuds more than wars." - Kendall The "Revolutionary War" or the "War of Independence" was an out and out land grab seized upon by Louis XVI of France as an excuse to attack Britain. This "family feud" as you consider it went "global" very quickly, with France, Spain and The Netherlands getting involved, fighting ranged throughout the world and it was as a result of this that the foundations for what became known as the British Empire were laid. Britain lost thirteen colonies and gained the world, "the sprat to catch the mackerel", at the end of it all of America's allies were ruined, Louis ultimately lost his head because of the financial ruin he had visited on his country. The Dutch never seriously challenged British supremacy at sea again. The "War of 1812" another opportunistic land grab by rapacious "in-comers" launched while the Americans thought the British were too occupied elsewhere fighting against Napoleon (who was not short for the age) at 5' 6" he was of average height. The only thing on this occasion the Americans did not figure on the skill, courage and determination of the Canadians and the native tribes they faced. The US militia men were absolutely terrified of the latter. Unfortunately for the Americans 1812 marked the pinnacle of Napoleon's power, from the time they started their "War", the tide against them and Napoleon was only ever going to flow one way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: gnu Date: 14 Jun 12 - 03:07 PM Rap... "...whatever then call the people in New Brunswick..." Are you serious? I thoght everyone knew... Herring Chokers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 14 Jun 12 - 03:10 PM Oddly enough, maybe one may speculate that we gained alot from wars. But, it is hard to look at it that way (especially if you are one of the dead folks, or their kinfolk). Possibly what we now see as good in our societies today, may have evolved differently - but, resulted as being "just as good (or better)" if events went unfolded without all those wars? Whether North America developed under one flag, or another, may not have been such a big deal afterall. I suspect the big benefit was for those who had, and could retain colonies, to enlarge their riches? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Beer Date: 14 Jun 12 - 03:14 PM Gnu, did you also know that there was a time when they were also called "Bluenosers" just like the Nova Scotian's. True. ad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Rapparee Date: 14 Jun 12 - 03:19 PM Well, Teribus, that's an opinion, yup, sure is. If it's true it set things up for Britain to enchain India even more, hook the Chinese on opium, and squash the Cornish, Irish, Welsh and Scots ever more under the British thumb. This forced more and more children into Britain's factories and mines, where the conditions were so bad that they literally coughed up their lungs from coal dust and cloth dust as they worked their twelve or fourteen hour days -- but then, Britain wasn't in the slave business any more by 1812 because the money from slaving had fallen off and besides, the children were closer to home. That's another opinion. Yup, sure is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Les from Hull Date: 14 Jun 12 - 04:37 PM I think you're referencing the rich and powerful British there, Rapparee. It was changes in agriculture and industry that allowed them to put us poor people into factories. The UK abolished the slave trade in 1807. That William Wiberforce was 'from Hull' as well! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Ed T Date: 14 Jun 12 - 04:47 PM I was led to believe that NB'ers were called herring chokers. But, according to what I recently read, the term generally applies to all Canadian Maritimers? Beats me, as I never had any desire to choke a herring - or even a bloater (or, any other animal, for that matter). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: kendall Date: 14 Jun 12 - 05:07 PM How many people know that George Washington started the French and Indian wars? King Louis hatred of the British was stronger than his love for Americans, and he reaped what he sowed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Jun 12 - 05:59 PM I enthusiastically agree with Teribus' analysis of the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Mind you, I'm Canadian, not American, so I'm seeing it from a different historical and cultural angle than Americans do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: gnu Date: 14 Jun 12 - 06:54 PM "Explosion 1812", History Channel, Sunday, 22:00h ADST. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 15 Jun 12 - 10:15 AM "This forced more and more children into Britain's factories and mines, where the conditions were so bad that they literally coughed up their lungs from coal dust and cloth dust as they worked their twelve or fourteen hour days -- but then, Britain wasn't in the slave business any more by 1812 because the money from slaving had fallen off and besides, the children were closer to home" - Rapparee And child labour at that time anywhere else was different?? Certainly not in the USA apparently: Child Labor in U.S. History Forms of child labor, including indentured servitude and child slavery, have existed throughout American history. As industrialization moved workers from farms and home workshops into urban areas and factory work, children were often preferred, because factory owners viewed them as more manageable, cheaper, and less likely to strike. Growing opposition to child labor in the North caused many factories to move to the South. By 1900, states varied considerably in whether they had child labor standards and in their content and degree of enforcement. By then, American children worked in large numbers in mines, glass factories, textiles, agriculture, canneries, home industries, and as newsboys, messengers, bootblacks, and peddlers. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the numbers of child laborers in the U.S. peaked. And of course you still had your slaves, well slaves in all but name, I know Abe Lincoln "freed" them in 1863, or whenever, but talk was cheap, the reality was they didn't get their civil rights acknowledged until when was it again Rap?? - 1968. Not opinion Rap that's FACT, Yup sure is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Greg F. Date: 15 Jun 12 - 12:57 PM How many people know that George Washington started the French and Indian wars? How many people know that that is simplistic nonsense? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Jun 12 - 01:14 PM George Washington made a contribution to getting that war going, but I'd say that the war was in any case inevitable. The French and British empires had conflicting interests in North America (as well as elsewhere), and would certainly have gotten into that war regardless of George Washington. In any case, here is a brief account of the incident alluded to: "In 1753 Washington was sent as an ambassador from the British crown to the French officials and Indians as far north as present-day Erie, Pennsylvania. The following year he led another expedition to the area to assist in the construction of a fort at present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Before reaching that point, he and some of his men, accompanied by Indian allies, ambushed a French scouting party. Its leader was killed, although the exact circumstances of his death were disputed. This peacetime act of aggression is seen as one of the first military steps leading to the global Seven Years' War. The French responded by attacking fortifications Washington erected following the ambush, forcing his surrender. Released on parole, Washington and his troops returned to Virginia." Not exactly a glorious chapter in military history... Washinton did prove, however, to be a pretty fine military leader as time went by, and he had the good fortune to end up on the winning side eventually in the American Revolution. If he'd been on the losing side, he'd almost undoubtedly have been hanged for treason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Greg F. Date: 15 Jun 12 - 06:07 PM LH, I would refer you to Fred Anderson's Crucible of War and Lawrence Henry Gipson's multi-volume works on the Seven Years'War. Skip Francis Parkman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War of 1812 on PBS 2012.06.12 9PM ADST From: Greg F. Date: 15 Jun 12 - 06:11 PM the US government was forced to address the insults by the British Ah, yes- The American Way. Somebody insults ya, kill him. Thiings ain't changed all that much from 1812 I guess - or from Dodge City, Deadwood, Chicago in the 20's & 30's............. |
