Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [WarOf1812] Re: Just Wondering WHAT IF

Expand Messages
  • BritcomHMP@aol.com
    ... Dear Dave, I think the expression claimed is not meant to indicate that US ships were not stoped, nor that aproximatly 1 in 4 of the seamen removed were
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 3 9:10 AM
      In a message dated 4/3/04 10:32:49 AM, ebclemson@... writes:


      >
      > Can't help you on the "what if", but did want to address your comment
      > of "claimed intent" of Free trade and Sailors rights.  I think it is
      > a documented fact that British War ships stopped US ships and removed
      > sailors.  "Claimed" sounds like "spin".  As far as "Free trade" goes,
      > the Republican policies of "Self" embargos hurt the US economy as
      > much as the seizing of US ships by French and British Ships.
      >

      Dear Dave,

      I think the expression 'claimed' is not meant to indicate that US ships were
      not stoped, nor that aproximatly 1 in 4 of the seamen removed were not British
      subjects, but rather that after the orders in council were recinded and
      before active warfare had started the US could have justly claimed a complete moral
      victory. Instead an army of invasion was sent to Canada, at this point to
      still be talking of 'free tade and sauilors rights' rang somewhat hollow in the
      ears of people having their property burned by foreign troops! :-)

      Cheers,

      Tim



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • usmarine1814
      ... I stated claimed intent because my feeling is that though many screamed for free trade and sailors rights , which I do beelieve a slight argument could
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 5 7:23 PM
        --- Dave
        I stated "claimed intent" because my feeling is that though many
        screamed for "free trade and sailors rights", which I do beelieve a
        slight argument could be made for, the true intent was the expulsion
        of England from North America and conquest of Canada while removing
        the Native American threat. As for Sacketts Harbor the event went
        great. The 10th Mountain Division sent a representative and color
        guard, Gov. Pataki sent a representative along with local mayor,
        local "Battlefield Alliance" representative. Head of the park gave a
        speach and also Mr. Peter Monanhan of the Royal Neufs. Our message
        got out. Lots of TV and newspaper coverage about the importance of
        the sight and the need to preserve it and the graves it holds. The
        outcome seems favorable. If the land is saved and purchased the park
        will add 200 Acres!!! As for the maels. Those we ate in camp were
        raw materials cooked over the fire while freezing our arses off. The
        sack lunch was given to us as we were driving off to hold us over for
        the car ride. The people who run that park are reenactors best
        friends. They will bend over backwards for us and can not wait to do
        so. As the park and their events mature I am sure the entire 1812
        community will be extremely impressed with what hey are willing to do
        for and offer to those who attend their events.
        Best Regards
        Colin Murphy
        USS C 1812MG
      • ebclemson
        Good point, However, I don t think we can make a blanket statement that the Northeast voted against the war. Obed Hall and John Harper from New hampshire
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 5 9:05 PM
          Good point,

          However, I don't think we can make a blanket statement that
          the "Northeast" voted against the war.

          Obed Hall and John Harper from New hampshire voted "Yes", so did
          James Morgan and Lewis Condict from New Jersey. Also, James Fisk,
          Samuel Shaw, William Strong and Jonathan Robinson from Vermont. From
          Massachuesetts, Francis Carr, Isiah Green, William Richardson, and
          about three more voted for War, and several others from the
          Northeast.

          Yes, all of the legislators from Rhode Island, Deleware and
          Connecticut voted "no".

          But not all of the Northeastern states voted agaist it.

          I agree that everyone perhaps had their "pet" reason for war. War
          did not come over night, it built up over the years, when British
          troops did not yield their positions on American soil after the Rev.
          War had ended; when settlers were attacked in the old Northwest by
          Indians supplied with British powder, shot and food; when US ships
          were boarded; when US War ships were boarded; etc. etc.

          And as far as the "theory" that the US should had "backed down" once
          they found out after War had already been declared, that the orders
          in council had been revoked....

          Think of two kids on the play ground. One is new in school, the other
          is an old hand, and a bully. After getting knocked to the ground,
          made fun of, mocked, and kicked in the stomach....the new kid finally
          has enough, throws off his coat, rolls up his sleeve and steps toward
          the bully and says "enough is enough" "you may be stronger than me
          but I'm going to make you bleed".

          The bully then says (in front of the entire class, and with a
          smirk) "Oh,
          I'm sorry little buddy, didn't really mean it"

          Well, any new kid with any pride will not run chicken again, they
          have to stand up and show the bully they meant what they said. That
          their word means something.

          Regards, Dave Bennett.

          --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, <spikeyj@c...> wrote:
          > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, ebclemson wrote:
          >
          > > Can't help you on the "what if", but did want to address your
          comment
          > > of "claimed intent" of Free trade and Sailors rights. I think it
          is
          > > a documented fact that British War ships stopped US ships and
          removed
          > > sailors. "Claimed" sounds like "spin".
          >
          > And to a certain extent it was spin.
          >
          > Sailors' rights may have been the official administration-provided
          > reason for why a war was necessary, but it was more like the straw
          > that broke the camel's back. If you'd polled the various U.S.
          senators
          > and congressmen who voted for the war as to the motives, you'd have
          > found that not all of them cared all that much for sailors'
          > rights: some wanted to do something about the Indian problems
          > in the old Northwest, some wanted to expand into Canada, some wanted
          > to expand into Florida, some wanted to reassert the U.S.'s national
          > independence ("vindicate the national character" was the phrase used
          > in the House Foreign Affairs Committee), some hoped to hurt
          > British trade, etc. etc.
          >
          > It should be noted that New England (where the biggest shipping
          > concerns were) voted against the war, while the western states and
          > representatives from western districts in other states tended to
          vote
          > for the war despite shipping not being a major concern there.
          >
          > Spike Y Jones
        • BritcomHMP@aol.com
          ... Ah but remember Dave, sometimes its the new kid who is the bully, even if he doesn t think of himself as such. :-) Cheers Tim [Non-text portions of this
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 6 6:00 AM
            In a message dated 4/6/04 2:25:45 AM, ebclemson@... writes:


            >
            > Well, any new kid with any pride will not run chicken again, they
            > have to stand up and show the bully they meant what they said. That
            > their word means something.
            >

            Ah but remember Dave, sometimes its the new kid who is the bully, even if he
            doesn't think of himself as such. :-)

            Cheers

            Tim




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • ebclemson
            Tim, True, somtimes the new kid is the bully, but we all know it was the big kid who was the bully in this case. Now I didn t say that the new kid can t grow
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 6 2:46 PM
              Tim, True, somtimes the new kid is the bully, but we all know it was
              the big kid who was the bully in this case. Now I didn't say that
              the new kid can't grow up into a Bully later. Some say Bully, others
              say protector. Did you like my Missoura folksy analogy?

              The Best,

              Dave B.

              --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, BritcomHMP@a... wrote:
              >
              > In a message dated 4/6/04 2:25:45 AM, ebclemson@w... writes:
              >
              >
              > >
              > > Well, any new kid with any pride will not run chicken again, they
              > > have to stand up and show the bully they meant what they said.
              That
              > > their word means something.
              > >
              >
              > Ah but remember Dave, sometimes its the new kid who is the bully,
              even if he
              > doesn't think of himself as such. :-)
              >
              > Cheers
              >
              > Tim
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • BritcomHMP@aol.com
              ... All of us Dave? :-) Actualy I think the analogy would be like a precoutious if not obnoxious youngster kicking the shins of someone far bigger and shouting
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 6 10:31 PM
                In a message dated 4/6/04 5:00:41 PM, ebclemson@... writes:


                >
                > Tim, True, somtimes the new kid is the bully, but we all know it was
                > the big kid who was the bully in this case. 
                >
                All of us Dave? :-) Actualy I think the analogy would be like a precoutious
                if not obnoxious youngster kicking the shins of someone far bigger and shouting
                'What'cha goin to do about it' and then shouting about how unfair it all is
                when the big kid smacks him round the ear, at which point the little kid
                forgets how obnoxious he has been and starts shouting about being bullied!


                >   Now I didn't say that
                > the new kid can't grow up into a Bully later. Some say Bully, others
                > say protector.     
                >

                Just like they did at the time! In fact most of the rest of the world saw
                Britain as their protector (against the little Corsican). Or the American
                loyalists just accross the border who were having their homes burned, again! Twice in
                30 years is a bit much you know.

                > Did you like my Missoura folksy analogy? 
                >
                >

                Love it Dave, just love it!!!!

                Cheers

                Tim



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.