Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was the Civil War Actually About Slavery?
Salon.com ^ | 8/29/12 | James Oakes

Posted on 08/30/2012 2:40:56 PM PDT by PeaRidge

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-432 last
To: BroJoeK

1854 elections, US House of Reps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1854

Whig & Republicans gain 31 seats.
DEMS were down to 84.

Now look up ‘56 House election.


401 posted on 09/23/2012 8:34:28 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (and we are still campaigning for local conservatives in central CT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT
campaignPete R-CT: "Now look up ‘56 House election."

Check out the 35th US Congress which served from 1857 to 1859, you'll see that I was exactly correct -- Southern Democrats controlled both houses.

Now check out the 36th US Congress which served from 1859 to 1861, you'll see that I was exactly correct -- Southern Democrats still controlled the US Senate, until they seceded and walked out.

402 posted on 09/23/2012 12:11:36 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

DEMS in 1853, 158 seats or 67%, opposition was 32% Whigs, split on slavery

DEMS in 1859, 82 seats or ~35%, opposition was 55% Republican, united on slavery

Looks like their power was slipping away.


403 posted on 09/23/2012 12:44:57 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (and we are still campaigning for local conservatives in central CT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Thank you again for the reply - but do you honestly think acquisition of bases on North Africa and in Western Europe was a war aim indeceber 1941? We didn't elect to hang onto any in France, which we invaded at least twice......

And I have too much respect for your posting history to believe that you think we ever invaded the spanish mainland during the Second World War.

With respect to how many times we launched campaigns against the British in Canada during the War of 1812, so what? We invaded the Marianas and Marshals numerous times in 1943-44 because THAT'S WHERE THE ENEMY WAS. Were we supposed to march across the oceans to India, or Australia to fight the British ai 1813?

With respect to Thomas Jefferson's private letters, they expressed to no small degree his bitterness at how impotent he had been to resist British aggression during his administartion. They no more superceded the actual 1812 war aims than, say, do the writings of private citizens of the Confederacy negate the clearly stated aims of the Declarations of Succession of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, etc.

404 posted on 09/23/2012 1:04:31 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT
campaignPete R-CT: "DEMS in 1859, 82 seats or ~35%, opposition was 55% Republican, united on slavery.
Looks like their power was slipping away."

Of course, but even in 1859 Republicans in the House of Representatives were not the majority, and skillful Democrat diplomacy could still form coalitions to block their most "radical" efforts.

Further, in 1859 Southern Democrats still dominated the Senate, the Supreme Court, the President's cabinet and their Dough-faced Northern Democrat President Buchanan himself.

So the Slave Power's power was still vastly in excess of their population.
Remember, in rough round numbers:

Obviously, for such a small minority to be so dominant for so long required huge political skills -- crafts of negotiation, compromise and deal making -- proficiencies which Southerners developed and exercised to a high art form.

These skills served Southern Democrats well, even when, from time to time, Federalists or Whigs temporarily rose to the majority.
In the end the Slave Power got what it wanted, especially including historically low tariffs, the Compromise of 1850, in which the Federal Government took direct responsibility for enforcing Fugitive Slave laws, and the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scot decision which, in effect, made slavery legal in all states.

Yes, rising Republican popularity presented a significant challenge, but this was well contained in the presidential election of 1856, and could be again in 1860, if Democrats played their cards right.

But in early 1860, after 70+ years of dominating the Republic's poker match, the Slave Power threw in its cards, kicked over the table and began shooting up the joint.
Why?

The answer is Fire Eaters, and that's enough for this post.

:-)

405 posted on 09/23/2012 8:06:29 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Castlebar
Castlebar: "With respect to how many times we launched campaigns against the British in Canada during the War of 1812, so what?
We invaded the Marianas and Marshals numerous times in 1943-44 because THAT'S WHERE THE ENEMY WAS."

I don't understand why you'd work so hard to deny the obvious.

The US multiple invasion attempts, despite failure after failure, demonstrate the strength of our Founders' motivation to conquer Canada.
How can that be anything less than obvious?

Sure, you can say: it wasn't Canada they wanted, only to defeat the British army.
But do you not understand, without a British army there in 1812, there literally was no "Canada" -- it was all just empty territory with no government and very little population.

If the US had defeated the Brits in Canada in 1812 -- especially after our Founders had tried so hard during the Revolutionary War to conquer or negotiate ownership of Canada -- whatever can you imagine they would have done with Canada?

Seriously, what?

Castlebar: "do you honestly think acquisition of bases on North Africa and in Western Europe was a war aim indeceber 1941?"

Of course not, but Canada in 1812 was a vastly different situation.

And the point of mentioning US bases in North Africa and Europe -- since you brought up the subject -- was to demonstrate how victory in battle can produce numerous benefits, that is, if you consider the cost of constant military vigilance a "benefit".
And, by the way, the US did maintain bases in France for about 20 years after the war.

406 posted on 09/23/2012 8:32:03 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

North Carolina permitted free men of African slavery to vote until 1835. Slavery in the southern states was indeed getting more harsh. Not being a slave was getting more harsh too.


407 posted on 09/23/2012 11:02:40 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: central_va; admin

Shame on you. Cowardly and false posts never become the poster.


408 posted on 09/23/2012 11:09:26 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

One of the cruelest slave owners in New Orleans was black


409 posted on 09/23/2012 11:10:47 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Private corporations also kept slaves, and some corporations were owned by blacks, and bought slaves, often the women and family of the owners.

Many of the slaves were, like Fredrick Douglass, the offspring of their owners, and some owners had as their business model the sale of their children. It was indeed a peculiar institution.


410 posted on 09/23/2012 11:29:08 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

It was interesting to see that the Articles of Confederation explicitly had provisions to admit Canada to our union, but that was not true of the Constitution.

The war of 1812 was supported by a coalition, a substantial part of which hoped to annex Canada. From a naval perspective, operations across the Atlantic without a base would have been very different, and there was some concern that so long as Britain had a forward base, independence was at risk.


411 posted on 09/23/2012 11:33:37 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

It was a global institution as well, many Americans seem to have the impression this was the only country with slavery/ it was also not the last to have it. There were French or British possessions that had slavery right up to the end of the century.


412 posted on 09/23/2012 11:40:15 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
There were French or British possessions that had slavery right up to the end of the century.

Untrue. Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1834 and the French Empire in 1848.

The last two "European" territories to abolish slavery were Cuba in 1886 and Brazil in 1888.

413 posted on 09/24/2012 2:55:06 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

You are quite correct that southerners seceded primarily because they were in the process of losing control of the federal government.

The ironic part, of course, is that their loss of control was precipitated primarily by their desperate attempts to tighten it. The Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision were attempts to put slavery beyond political discussion. They led directly to the formation of a specifically anti-slavery party, which had not existed before. Up to this point, both parties had included both pro=slavery and anti-slavery groups. For instance, David Wilmost of the Wilmot proviso, was a Democrat. He eventually became a Republican.

In the latter case, southern justices suddenly discovered in the mid-1850s that there was a constitutional right to take slaves anywhere in the country, and reside indefinitely without it having any effect on the slave’s status. This was despite nobody having suspected any such right in the previous 75 years of the Constitution.

This was remarkably similar to pro-abortion justices suddenly discovering in the 1960s that the Constitution held a previously unsuspected right to abortion on demand.

In both cases the Court was attempting to put a political issue out of the realm of politics. Both backfired, making the issue mopre of a political hot button than it had been previously. With minor exceptions, Roe hasn’t led to shooting yet.


414 posted on 09/24/2012 3:12:04 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

i’m sorry I thought you could take a little joke.


415 posted on 09/24/2012 4:07:08 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Sherman Logan: "In the latter case, southern justices suddenly discovered in the mid-1850s that there was a constitutional right to take slaves anywhere in the country, and reside indefinitely without it having any effect on the slave’s status. "

This is why I say the Dred Scott decision, in effect made slavery legal in every state, regardless that's state's laws on the subject.

It's a key point that nobody -- nobody -- understands.
In the late 1850s, the Slave Power was on the march, it was victorious, within a hair's breadth, within one more Supreme Court decision of having slavery declared constitutionally legal in every state.

Already in 1857 the Supreme Court said a slave-owner could take his slaves anywhere and maintain ownership.
So what was to prevent a slave-owner who brought slaves to, let's say, New York from selling his slaves to someone else while there?

And that is what had Northerners so outraged and enraged by the time of 1860s election.
What the Slave Power needed to do then was play it cool, give emotions time to settle down, and then work quietly to nail down their successes with further court decisions.

But unfortunately -- or fortunately depending on your point of view -- instead they took a path guaranteed to split the Union and start a Civil War.

The reason is the work of Southern Fire Eaters.

416 posted on 09/24/2012 5:23:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

House Divided Speech

This point is made, not to be pressed immediately but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently endorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois or in any other free state.

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.


417 posted on 09/24/2012 5:52:02 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I was trying to figure out which one. It was France.

1863: In the United States, Abraham Lincoln signs the Emancipation Proclamation which declared slaves in Confederate-controlled areas to be freed. Most slaves in “border states” are freed by state action; separate law freed the slaves in Washington, D.C.
1865: December: U.S. abolishes slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; about 40,000 remaining slaves are affected.[45]
1866: Slavery abolished in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma).[46]
1869: Portugal abolishes slavery in the African colonies
1871: Brazil Rio Branco Law declares free the sons and daughters born to slave mothers after 28 September 1871.[47]
1873: Slavery abolished in Puerto Rico
1873: Treaty between Britain and Zanzibar and Madagascar to suppress slave trade [33]
1874: Britain abolishes slavery in the Gold Coast (now Ghana), following its annexation in 1874.[48]
1882: Ottoman firman abolishes all forms of slavery, white or black.[49]
1885: Brazil passes Sexagenarian Law freeing all slaves over the age of 60.
1886: Slavery abolished in Cuba[17]
1888: Brazil passes Golden Law, abolishing slavery without indemnities to slaveowners or aid to newly freed slaves.[50]
1890: Brussels Conference Act – a collection of anti-slavery measures to put an end to the slave trade on land and sea especially in the Congo Basin, the Ottoman Empire and the East African coast
1894: Korea officially abolishes slavery, but it survives in practice until 1930.[51]
——> 1896: France abolishes slavery in Madagascar
1897: Zanzibar abolishes slavery[52] following its becoming a British protectorate

1902: Ethiopian Empire abolishes slavery (though it was not legally and officially abolished by Emperor Haile Selassie in 1942)
1906: China formally abolishes slavery effective 31 January 1910, when all adult slaves were converted into hired labourers and the young were freed upon reaching age 25.[14]
1912: Siam (Thailand), formally abolishes all slavery. The act of selling a person into slavery was abolished in 1897 but slavery itself was not outlawed at that time.[53]
1921: Nepal abolishes slavery[54][55]
1922: Morocco abolishes slavery [56]
1923: Afghanistan abolishes slavery[57]
1924: Iraq abolishes slavery
1924: League of Nations Temporary Slavery Commission
1926, 25 September: Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slaverybound all signatories to end slavery.
1928: Iran abolishes slavery[58]
1928: Domestic slavery practised by local African elites abolished in Sierra Leone[59] Though established as a place for freed slaves, a study found practices of domestic slavery still widespread in rural areas in the 1970s.
1935: Italian General Emilio De Bono proclaims slavery to be abolished in the Ethiopian Empire[60]
1936: Britain abolishes slavery in Northern Nigeria[61]
1945: In the subsequent defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan, workcamps for slave labor (primarily Jewish encampments in Nazi Germany and colonists in Japanese-dominated lands) were gradually closed by the liberators.
1946: Fritz Sauckel, procurer of slave labor for Nazi Germany, convicted at the Nuremberg trials and executed as war criminal.
1948: UN Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights bans slavery globally[62]
1952: Qatar abolishes slavery
1959: Slavery in Tibet is abolished by China after the Dalai Lama flees.
1960: Niger abolishes slavery (though it was not made illegal until 2003)[63]
1962: Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962: Yemen abolishes slavery
1963: United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1970: Oman abolishes slavery
1981: Mauritania abolishes slavery

BTW- What the heck is Muscat?


418 posted on 09/24/2012 5:59:44 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
1896: France abolishes slavery in Madagascar.

True enough. However, Madagascar was not part of the French Empire till 1896, so you can't really blame slavery there on the French before then. :)

Muscat is the capital of Oman. In old books you'll often see "Muscat and Oman" referred to.

419 posted on 09/24/2012 6:28:02 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“Muscat Love”... here kitty...


420 posted on 09/24/2012 7:27:58 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Shoulda seen that one coming.

Good job!


421 posted on 09/24/2012 7:53:22 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

heh.

I’m a comedian this week. Just this week.


422 posted on 09/24/2012 8:05:40 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Thank you again for taking the time and effort for a thoughtful reply.

Pardon me for not copying, pasting, and italicizing your last post, but I think the majority of posters on this thread are here to debate slavery/Civil war vs our Second War of Independence.

First I do not agree that your point -which I take to be, that the War of 1812 was a war launched by the United States to conquer and annex Canada - is “obvious.” I do, however, agree with your point that Canada was not a real country, but simply the area occupied by 1) the British army 2) the remnant of New France and 3) those citizens of the United States who, in 1783, could not bear to live under a self-governing republic and followed whatever internal compass they had to a land where loyalty to a monarchy suited them.

Secondly, you err in stating that our invasions were all failures. Our invasions won the war for us; particularly the spectacularly successful invasion that at lead the British-Shawnee catastrophe at Moraviantown. That was the decisive land battle of the war.

Finally, your question was “what could possibly be the fate of any part of Canada, invaded and held by the United States, other than annexation?” Fortunately there is unambiguous historical answer to this. In 1748, Americans (NOT BRITISH MILITARY; AMERICANS) invaded the most brilliantly designed fortress in the hemisphere at Louisbourg. We took it; and to settle the War of the Austrian succession – the only on of the “French and Indian Wars" that France arguably “won”, it was returned to France in exchange for concessions on other war aims. That was how war was conducted in those days. We wanted to keep the Northwest Territories (and the last-held British war demand at the negotiating table, before our brilliant successes in the Autumn of 1814 forced theme to capitulate, was that we NOT keep the Northwest territories.)

423 posted on 09/24/2012 4:46:10 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Thank you again for taking the time and effort for a thoughtful reply.

Pardon me for not copying, pasting, and italicizing your last post, but I think the majority of posters on this thread are here to debate slavery/Civil war vs our Second War of Independence.

First I do not agree that your point -which I take to be, that the War of 1812 was a war launched by the United States to conquer and annex Canada - is “obvious.” I do, however, agree with your point that Canada was not a real country, but simply the area occupied by 1) the British army 2) the remnant of New France and 3) those citizens of the United States who, in 1783, could not bear to live under a self-governing republic and followed whatever internal compass they had to a land where loyalty to a monarchy suited them.

Secondly, you err in stating that our invasions were all failures. Our invasions won the war for us; particularly the spectacularly successful invasion that at lead the British-Shawnee catastrophe at Moraviantown. That was the decisive land battle of the war.

Finally, your question was “what could possibly be the fate of any part of Canada, invaded and held by the United States, other than annexation?” Fortunately there is unambiguous historical answer to this. In 1748, Americans (NOT BRITISH MILITARY; AMERICANS) invaded the most brilliantly designed fortress in the hemisphere at Louisbourg. We took it; and to settle the War of the Austrian succession – the only on of the “French and Indian Wars" that France arguably “won”, it was returned to France in exchange for concessions on other war aims. That was how war was conducted in those days. We wanted to keep the Northwest Territories (and the last-held British war demand at the negotiating table, before our brilliant successes in the Autumn of 1814 forced theme to capitulate, was that we NOT keep the Northwest territories.)

424 posted on 09/24/2012 4:46:18 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Castlebar

Apologies for double post.


425 posted on 09/24/2012 4:49:58 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Castlebar

Apologies for double post.


426 posted on 09/24/2012 4:49:58 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: central_va

You didn’t send it to me. You wrote it about me, and misspelled my name so it wouldn’t show up in a search.

Coward. Liar.


427 posted on 09/24/2012 4:58:48 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Castlebar
Castlebar: "First I do not agree that your point -which I take to be, that the War of 1812 was a war launched by the United States to conquer and annex Canada - is “obvious.” "

What's "obvious" and undeniable is that the US intended to drive the British out of Canada.
What's debatable is what might have been done with Canadian territory once the British were driven out.

So, you suggest that having fought a war to drive the British out, US negotiators would then negotiate them back in -- but in exchange for what, exactly?
And why?

You forget how much our Founders hated the British, having suffered under and fought them for a generation, they wanted the Brits out of North America.
So why, having conquered Canada would they negotiate the Brits back in?

Castlebar: "Secondly, you err in stating that our invasions were all failures."

I said no such thing.
Including the Revolutionary War, by my count the US invaded Canada eleven times.
Of those eleven, US forces were successful at the Battles of York and Fort George in spring 1813, before defeat at the battle of Beaver Dams.

In the fall of 1813 US was again successful at the Battle of the Thames -- aka Moraviantown.
But with his army's enlistments expiring, General Harrison soon withdrew from Canada, and so gained nothing there.

All other US invasions of Canada, including two more after Thames / Moraviantown, were defeated.

428 posted on 09/25/2012 4:46:36 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
This sense of regionalism (or sectionalism or provincialism or what have you) was played upon and exploited in the years before the Civil War. Lost was Franklin’s “We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately” in favor of “They’re not like you” and (my favorite growing up) “You’re not from around here”. Growing up I was taught an appreciation for the ideals that we hold in common more than a sensitivity to our differences.

It is my personal opinion that this bias played a more instrumental part in decisions to raise arms against their fellow countrymen than almost any other consideration. They did so because they had been encouraged to believe that “those people” weren’t really their true countrymen.

Great post. Most of the Navy men and Marines, and I believe most of the Army non-coms, stayed with the Union, even if they were Southerners. They'd found a home there that included people from all parts of the country. But there was a growing tide of regional identity that pulled officers and people back home along with it.

429 posted on 09/25/2012 5:59:00 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Thank you again for your reply and please pardon the relative tardiness of my reply.

What's "obvious" and undeniable is that the US intended to drive the British out of Canada.

It was not feasible, given the astronomical disparity of forces at that time, that the tiny United states Military could have "driven the British out of North America." What seemed at least in the realm of the possible was to take something the British didn't what to give up, and force them to pay a price to return it. This is the way wars were fought at that point in history; a look at the wars of the first, second, third fourth, and fifth coalitions will tend to confirm.

What's debatable is what might have been done with Canadian territory once the British were driven out. So, you suggest that having fought a war to drive the British out, US negotiators would then negotiate them back in -- but in exchange for what, exactly? And why?

The United States negotiators would have liked to have had de jure as well as de facto assurance as to the end of impressment. As it was, Impressment was prevented on a go-forward basis by the Royal Navy's memory of possible defeat at the hands of the United States. Certain historians (with contempt for history) will deny this, and claim that impressment ended because of the end of the Napoeonic Wars. The proof of the falsity of this claim lies in the facts that:

1- Impressment of U.S citizens continued during the 1802-03 Peace of Amiens;

2- The Royal navy did not impress a single US sailor during 'The 100 Days', and

3- While the Royal Navy stopped ships of ever other nation during the Africn slavery patrols, U.S. ships were never stopped.

Castlebar: "Secondly, you err in stating that our invasions were all failures." I said no such thing.

Your words were, "despite defeat after defeat." Thank you for your clarification.

I am afraid that this line of discussion may be distaracting from this thread. Would you care to continue on a private e-mail chain, or shall we save it for another thread?

430 posted on 09/26/2012 5:11:46 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Castlebar; BroJoeK

This thread has pretty much run its course so I doubt that anyone would object to a little “scope creep” ;-)

Both of you are way more knowledgeable about the current subject but I’ll continue to lurk if you continue to post.


431 posted on 09/26/2012 6:40:41 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Castlebar; rockrr
Castlebar: "I am afraid that this line of discussion may be distaracting from this thread."

;-)

Thanks for a most interesting and informed debate.
Doubtful if there are enough Americans who even remember the War of 1812 to pick sides, pro and con, on some issue about it.
And no Americans who think Canada should be invaded a twelfth time.

So the question here is our Founders' motivations in sending eleven -- count them, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven different invasions into Canada from 1775 through 1813.
Now you wish us to believe, oh, that was no big deal, they weren't really serious, they just wanted a "bargaining chip" to get the Brits to stop taking our seamen -- eleven invasions for a few seamen?

And you dismiss as irrelevant the opinion of President Jefferson, that taking Canada would be as simple as a walk in the park, and his obvious satisfaction anticipating British defeat and: "final expulsion of England from the American continent".
But I would suggest Jefferson's feelings are "unfinished business" left over from the Revolutionary War, and were therefore shared by most Founders, even as late as 1813.

Of course, it turned out that Jefferson and they were all wrong, that Canada was no push-over, and so we can only speculate what might have resulted had Jefferson been correct.

Seems to me the obvious answer is, our Founders would have done in 1813 just what they intended to do in 1775 when they first sent Montgomery and Arnold to conquer Canada -- annex it.

But since apparently there is no proof, the question cannot be resolved, and we'll just have to agree to disagree, agreeably, I trust.

;-)

432 posted on 09/27/2012 7:19:18 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-432 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson