I don't see it as peculiar. Why would I stick to your line? You're a communist! And as if I would do something seriously.
>How one can claim compensation in the form of the lands that you've just
invaded is logic only one of your warped imagination could come up with. OK,
I rephrase my initial statement. You declared war on Britain, and invaded
the Canadas. The British Empire didn't declare war or invade,
But only attacked first. So that's alright then?
>>From what I can gather, the U.S. got caught in the mill between the U.K.
and France.
There wasn't anything in between. Britain ships which weren't fighting Nappy attacked US citizens, rather like the US bombing of Cambodia while supposedly only fighting Vietnam.
>The U.K. had to have control of the seas,
Which it did, so?
or they were doomed, so they didn't give a damn about American neutrality.
Right. So attacking Sweden and Switzerland in WWII would have been just and normal, for either, or both, sides. Just because.
>Americans insisting on their right to trade with all and sundry were also,
I gather, bashing up against a bunch of British politicos who were damned if
they were about to let anyone else run a successful marine commercial
empire.
Ah, so Canadians find it perfectly normal to militarily attack rivals in trade. Tell Bush that. He could well find a use for such ideas.
>And there we were, next door.
Part of the British Empire, from whence attacks came.
>As for what was going on in the West, the only people who should really
have had a stake in that land were the natives, and they got screwed by both
sides.
And probably not just both sides, but by the French and Spanish too, and anyone else who could get a hand in it.
>Thomas Jefferson figured that grabbing Canada would be "a mere matter of
marching" since the Brits were seriously occupied smacking Napoleon.
There was some logic to that, but might have required sending sufficient troops. TJ was not a great military leader.
>Here's a more complete version of that quote: "the acquisition of Canada
this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of
marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the
next and final expulsion of England from the American continent." (Thomas
Jefferson, 1812)
Like I said. An idea, but not planned far enuf. Yeah, walk into Quebec, but it doesn't just get easier from there. Oh well, next time.
>What we had up here were the United Empire Loyalists (who still hugely
resented being evicted from their original homes and birthplaces),
Weren't all evicted. Could have stayed. Might have been no such war if they had.
>plus a whole bunch of British immigrants. Plus the French, who weren't
about to trust the Americans to respect their right to Catholicism.
Jee, and like the British then respected cathols.
>None of them were very likely to fall into place with American plans of
annexation for purposes of putting pressure on the U.K. Why various
Americans thought it would be a war of liberation for Canadians is therefore
beyond me.
Like I said, TJ wasn't that sort of great thinker. Should have stuck to other stuff, and better not have been pres at all. Then again, who would have? When Madison came in he was no better.
>Strangely, most of New England was far keener on trade with anybody around,
than being good little patriots.
Well, patriotism wasn't much involved as concerned such to the US. Citizens were of their home state. But why mention those Yankees? Better to throw them out anyway. Should have invaded them first, and then Commuda.
>Then there was the founding father of the Astor fortunes, who happily
ferried a secret message to his fellow fur traders to stay quiet about the
oncomiing Brits at Fort Michilimackinac. Some patriots they were!
To themselves certainly, but like I said.
>No doubt some Orlanthi are happily making a fortune trading with Lunars,
too.
As we've seen. But how many are communists?
Daniel
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail