I see now it's time for you to receive a lesson in history. If you'd like to compare brainpans: I hold a Masters in American History from Tulane with an emphasis on military history. I also heavily specialized in European history with emphasis on British history (both ancient and modern), Russian history, and the rise of the Prussian state leading to the First German Empire and the development of Nazi Germany. I'll be the first to admit I don't know dick about Frnech history except how it relates to the emergence of modern Europe and its interactions with England/Britain, Germany, and the United States. My two European history professors were not Americans. Their last names were Duffy and Baker, so I'll let you guess what
island nation once the seat of an empire they came from.
I will say that they opened my eyes to a lot of things.
I make my living by selling antiques, but I specialize in American military antiques...particularly those from the American Civil War.
So come to daddy for your lessons. :bigass:
SaintLucifer said:
Uh, I live in present-day 'YORK'. By the way, the attack on York was the equivalent of Japan's sneak-attack on Pearl Harbour. Yet you whine to the world about that cowardly sneak attack. It is alright for you to do it but not for the Japanese? Hypocrites.
The difference being, of course, that the Japanese attacked before Pearl Harbor even knew they were at war. The attack on York, on the other hand, was the culmination of a few military campaigns that admitted had not gone well for the American troops.
You people need to understand history.
See the beginning of this post.
The Colonies rebelled because they did not wish to pay taxes to Britain even though the motherland sent out its navy and ground forces to protect the USA from both the French and the Indians. The Colonies wanted this protection for free. All Britain wanted was for the Colonies to share in the costs of their own protection. You rebelled. You wanted your cake and eat it. You wanted the people of Great Britain to pay your way and when they refused you cried like the spoiled babies you were.
As usual, you're telling half-truths.
American colonists had no problem being British subjects. They had no problem paying taxes for protection from the French and the native population...such as it was. The problem was with
excessive taxes. See...mastery of the North American continent for the British during the Seven Years War came at a price: near bankruptcy. So, Parliament (yes, Parliament) undertook a measure of heavily taxing the entire empire as it stood in order to offset the cost of maintaining the largest and most professional standing army of its time. The problem in the eastern seaboard American colonies was: the British troops stationed there at the time (more in America than even in Britain itself!) could not provide an adequate and mobile defense for the entire region. Thus, colonists formed militias capable of defending outlying settlements from Indian attacks and whatnot.
Now, Parliament didn't take these militias seriously; "militia" in Britain meant "old men who got together once a year, got drunk, did some marching and went home." They simply didn't grasp that the American militia were not only well trained but well armed with hunting rifles which were the equivalent of the British "Brown Bess."
And they knew how to use them.
When militia and British troops began to clash in 1775, the general hope among the American population and the Continental Congress was that reconciliation could be reached. By '76, that hope had basically disappeared, and the general aim now was independence for the colonies. A shocking concept, and not one that was taken lightly.
So, bottom line: saying that Americans rebelled due to taxes is taking it only half-way. In truth, the payment of excessive taxes to cover the cost of something that a) Americans were basically providing for themselves with an effectiveness the British regulars could not or would not provide, and b) did not take into account the material contributions that the colonies were already making to the Empire in the way of foodstuffs, timber for ships, etc., is what drove the governments of the American colonies into rebellion. Compound that with the fact that the colonists had grown used to governing themselves due to the long time it took to receive communications from Parliament, it's all very easy to see.
Then you went over to France, kneeled down before Louis IV and sucked his cock every day for 2 years before he decided to send his best troops to fight a cause you were losing.
Actually, it was Louis XVI, Franklin really didn't get to see him that much until American troops started winning victories (more on that later), and I believe it was
Ben himself who was getting pleasured by the French ladies, but perhaps that was just a Freudian slip on your part. I dunno.
It was not until the arrival of these crack French troops you started to actually win some battles.
Ok, the Treaty of Alliance with France was signed in February of 1778. By then, the American force had:
- March 17, 1776: drove the British out of Boston
- December 25, 1776: the capture of 1500 British and Hessian troops at Trenton NJ.
- January 3, 1777: victory at the Battle of Princeton
- Benedict Arnold defeated the British at Ridgefield, CT (oh boy :roll
- August 17, 1777: American militia defeat and capture 800 Hessians from Burgoyne's little foray at Bennington VT.
- October 7, 1777: British are defeated at Saratoga.
- 10 days later, Burgoyne surrenders 5700 British troops to Gates. This is what convinced the French we had a chance of winning.
(And yes: Washington lost some crucial battles too: New York, Brandywine Creek, White Plains...several others.)
So you see, we had to convince the French that our cause was a winnable one. After the asswhipping they took from the British during the Seven Years War, Louis was not inclined to support anyone against the Empire without a reasonable chance of winning.
One must be reminded the British were introduced to guerilla warfare for the first time by the colonials.
Actually, one (meaning you) must be reminded that the American style of guerilla warfare arose during the American phase of the Seven Years War by a British subject named Robert Rogers...who formed Rogers' Rangers in 1756 to operate under royal orders against the French during the "French and Indian War" as we call it. The atrocities introduced by both sides during that conflict (and I believe it was the British who started paying Indians for scalps) far exceed any atrocities real or imagined during the American Revolution. Now that was a real war...none of this pussy "form ranks and deliver volleys" crap you see later.
Did I mention that I'm an ex-US Army Ranger? I didn't? Welllllll...now you know.
They were also introduced to barbarism. Captured British generals were hung or had their heads decapitated. This threw off the British who believe in the gentleman's art of war. Never had Britain in its 800 years of fighting wars ever experienced such barbarism. Even the European powers were disgusted and began to understand why the Empire decided to give the Colonies their independence. The British did not wish to have anything further to do with such a psychotic peoples. The Americans today talk about their 'brave' lads fighting the Empire. What was so brave about hit-and-run tactics where they used their own women and children as shields?
I'm unaware of anyone using women and children as shields in any fight, and I tend to dismiss this whole paragraph as simply smear tactics instead of real history. Use of such words as "barbarism" and "psychotic" tends to support this. Ho-hum.
Actually you LOST the War of 1812 MORON. You lost badly.
Hmmm...well, there were three initial campaigns in Canada, which all ended in failure, but what about:
- The Battle of York in April of 1813, which secured control of the Great Lakes for the US
- Sept. 1813: Captain Perry defeated a British naval force in the Battle of Lake Erie
- Oct. 1813: Battle of Thames...another American victory
- 1814: the Brits stage a three-prong attack of the US through Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, and the Mississippi River...all of which failed,
although some British troops landed in Washington DC in August and set government buildings on fire in retaliation for York.
- Battle of Plattsburgh on Lake Champlain. Brits were defeated there and this secured the northern border for us.
So, in December of 1814, the Treaty of Ghent set all borders back to pre-war standards. If we were beaten so badly, then why would the British government agree to pre-war boundaries? Probably because their only successes were capturing Detroit (and as far as I'm concerned, you can still have it) and burning some government buildings.
We had possession of the Great Lakes and all of the American cities around them. We returned them only as part of an agreement whereby pre-1812 borders were honoured. The only reason the British agreed to this was because of their problems with Napoleon's Grande Armee.
How would a threat by Napolean persuade the British to agree to pre-war boundaries?
On the side: you're leaving something out: the fact that the fledgling American navy
kicked the living shit out of the established British navy over and over again. Just thought I'd mention that.
Your military was a pathetic joke we were not too concerned about and wanted to deal with a REAL army. Never forget, you STARTED the War of 1812 and remain upset to this day that you lost it and you KNOW Napoleon saved your asses. It is a fact if not for Napoleon the USA would be today a CAnadian province.
More rhetoric and no substance.
Uh yes, Canadians did in fact fight in the War of 1812. Canadians were part of the Empire you dipshit. During 1812, it was Upper Canada and Lower Canada. The Canadian militia (a real organisation) fought alongside the British and many were actually integrated into the British military. So yes Canadians can and do say we kicked your asses in 1812. Never forget it. We remain the only territory to ever defeat the USA on your own native soil.
Canadian regiments do not equal British regiments. The deciding factor for American losses when invading Canadian territory was that we suffered the same fate any invader does when going into large amounts of enemy territory...the local population. Did Canada itself defend itself against American invasions? Except for that unpleasantness at York and the loss of the Great Lakes to American ships, yes. Canada did quite well.
But being part of the Empire doesn't mean Canadian militia were equal to or even considered equal to British regulars. Study the treatment of American militias by the British regulars during the Seven Years War for a good perspective of that situation.
Edit to add: as far as Canada being the only entity to defeat Americans on American soil, I believe the Japanese would take exception to that: Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines.