"Step away from the candy and come with me, kid"

@izzythepush,

It is quite shocking that u 'd think that America
wanted to inflict the horrors of the French Revolution on the English.

We were innocent of that.

David

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Then again you all seem to be more concerned with patting yourselves on the back than anything else.

That's pretty damned hilarious coming from a Brit.

Quote:

America is not under threat of invasion from Iran. That does not mean that the US Navy would not stop a North Korean cargo ship en route to Iran. Is that hubris as well?

Apples and oranges, Bubba--just as with that silly reference to the Cuban missile crisis. Americans between 1793 and 1815 were not attempting to ship weapons of mass destuction, or the components of weapons of mass destruction, or even weapons of any kind to France.

I note that you have never once addressed the issue of American sailors being pressed by the Royal Navy from unarmed merchant ships stopped illegally at sea; nor have you addressed the unprovoked and murderous attack of HMS Leopard on USS Chesapeake in peace time. Now there's some arrogant hubris for you.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It is quite shocking that u 'd think that America
wanted to inflict the horrors of the French Revolution on the English.

We were innocent of that.

David

Alright David perhaps I am being a bit too extreme. It's all a question of where you're sitting. I don't honestly believe that the ordinary American in 1812 wanted to do such a thing. France and England have been enemies since 1066. During the Napoleonic Wars Britain, (not just England, it was after the Act of Union) faced one of the biggest threats of invasion ever. We had witnessed what the revolutionaries had done to their own people. What would they have done to the old enemy?

I get a bit fed up with all the Brit bashing whenever the Revolution is mentioned. You seem to hold the founding fathers as some sort of group of Saints, which is fine. You then expect everyone else to blindly accept that. We also have to take the part of the black hearted villain with good grace. George III is vilified as some sort of Geogian Nero, but in terms of monarchs he wasn't that bad. He was very interested in modern agriculture, was concerned about the common man and lived a rather modest lifestyle, for a monarch. Compare him with his son to see a figure more befitting of the title Nero.

Your founding fathers were not wholly altruistic Saints. A lot of them did very well out of the Revolution. George Washington became the first American millionaire. I'm not saying the American Revolution wasn't a bad thing. America is by and large a wonderful country, but it was founded by men with their own vices, not saints.

I also don't think that I should get down on my knees and thank every American for their wartime contribution. Britain and Russia could not have won the war alone, but to hear some Americans talk you'd think America did it all single handed. Not only that but we get Hollywood blockbusters telling blatant lies. Band of Brothers, and more recently the Pacific were two wonderful wartime series which acurately showed the wartime experience and contribution of American troops. Not to mention the outstanding bravery.

Other films are not nearly so truthful. I'm not talking about films like Inglorious Basturds, which everyone knows is a load of nonsense, but films like U-571 which portrays itself as being historically accurate, but is a complete lie.
1) U boat crew are presented as evil murdering Nazis, whereas most of them were quite decent. I don't think any U boat crew were prosecuted for war crimes.
2) An American ship captures the enigma machine. The Enigma machine was captured by HMS Bulldog before America entered the war. Not only that the enigma codebreaking operation was an almost entirely British affair, run from Bletchley Park. Most analysts say it shortened the war by about 2 years, but we don't go on about that. (I know I did go on about it then but it's just once).

Having said that, I'm sorry if I've offended you and Setanta. I do think America is a wonderful country with lots of lovely people. Nuff said.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

We were stopping the invasion of the UK by France.

In 1066??

izzythepush wrote:

That may not be that important to you, but it was very important to us.
America tried to break the blockade, in the same way
the Russians tried to prevent the blockade of Cuba.

Explain your reasoning??
HOW did the Russians try that????

izzythepush wrote:

If you want an example of hubris, look at the way John Bolton spoke to the UN.

He 's my favorite guy!!!

1 Reply

I think you're creating an image of Americans based upon your resentments. Ignorant people might well adopt the attitudes you describe, although i doubt it. The problems of the 1760s and -70s in North America arose from ministerial incompetence and arrogance. Bute did more damage in his few months in office than all the PMs who succeded him. Lord North was a hopeless bobby. I highly recommend The March of Folly, by Barbara Tuchman for a thorough review of just how badly the North ministry screwed things up. It also details how Johnson's administration screwed up in Vietnam, so you don't have to feel as though you were being picked on.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
John Bolton

He 's my favorite guy!!!

one of mine too, his work with writer Ann Nocenti on the graphic novel Someplace Strange is classic

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091002204117/marveldatabase/images/c/c3/Someplace_Strange_Vol_1_1.jpg

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Alright, Chesapeake Bay incident happened during the Napoleonic wars. America wasn't really neutral, it was a major ally of the enemy. Things happen in wartime. Pressganging was something else that happened during war. It ended in 1814.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You forget that, except for Virginia and Georgia, all of the colonists came here to escape religious and political intolerance in England.

That's a gross overstatement. New York and New Jersey were first settled by the Dutch, who simply wanted to make a buck. Then Britain annexed them because she wanted in on their business. But she never touched the Dutch Reformed Church there. Religious freedom was never an important story in the settlement of New York or New Jersey. Then there's Lutheran"New Sweden" in today's New Jersey and Delaware, and the mixed-denomination "Pennsylvania-Dutch" German settlements. Neither of those communities suffered any religious prosecution under their colonial masters.

The religious-persecution story is overhyped by pious schoolbook editors.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It is quite shocking that u 'd think that America
wanted to inflict the horrors of the French Revolution on the English.

We were innocent of that.

David

izzythepush wrote:

Alright David perhaps I am being a bit too extreme.

Being extreme is OK if u r ACCURATE, in bearing close fidelity
to what actually HAPPENED.
Your accusation against us is purely imaginary,
with no trace of a basis in fact.

izzythepush wrote:

It's all a question of where you're sitting.

Its NOT; its a question of being factually ACCURATE in your assertions.

izzythepush wrote:

I don't honestly believe that the ordinary American in 1812 wanted to do such a thing.

I never heard of extraordinary Americans desiring that the French Apocalypse fall on England.
We were at peace since 1783.

izzythepush wrote:

France and England have been enemies since 1066.

U know that William had good and logical claims on the throne, by heredity.

izzythepush wrote:

During the Napoleonic Wars Britain, (not just England, it was after the Act of Union) faced one of the biggest threats of invasion ever.
We had witnessed what the revolutionaries had done to their own people. What would they have done to the old enemy?

I see; u had Napoleon in mind.

izzythepush wrote:

I get a bit fed up with all the Brit bashing whenever the Revolution is mentioned.
You seem to hold the founding fathers as some sort of group of Saints, which is fine.

AGREED!

izzythepush wrote:

You then expect everyone else to blindly accept that.

NO; thay were good for US, not for u.

izzythepush wrote:

We also have to take the part of the black hearted villain with good grace.
George III is vilified as some sort of Geogian Nero, but in terms of monarchs he wasn't that bad.

He was a big admirer of George Washington.

izzythepush wrote:

He was very interested in modern agriculture, was concerned about the common man and lived a rather modest lifestyle, for a monarch.
Compare him with his son to see a figure more befitting of the title Nero.

Your founding fathers were not wholly altruistic Saints.

America stands for personal freedom & Individualism, not for altruism.

izzythepush wrote:

A lot of them did very well out of the Revolution.

GOOD THING!!!

izzythepush wrote:

George Washington became the first American millionaire. I'm not saying the American Revolution wasn't a bad thing.
America is by and large a wonderful country, but it was founded by men with their own vices, not saints.

I also don't think that I should get down on my knees and thank every American for their wartime contribution.

Will u not be kneeling qua the First World War, or the Second World War??

izzythepush wrote:

Britain and Russia could not have won the war alone, but to hear some Americans talk you'd think America did it all single handed. Not only that but we get Hollywood blockbusters telling blatant lies. Band of Brothers, and more recently the Pacific were two wonderful wartime series which acurately showed the wartime experience and contribution of American troops. Not to mention the outstanding bravery.

It grieves me that Ike acquiesced so much to Monty.
Bad news.

Ike was too much of a diplomat and not enuf of a soldier.

izzythepush wrote:

Other films are not nearly so truthful.
I'm not talking about films like Inglorious Basturds, which everyone knows is a load of nonsense, but films like U-571 which portrays itself as being historically accurate, but is a complete lie.
1) U boat crew are presented as evil murdering Nazis, whereas most of them were quite decent. I don't think any U boat crew were prosecuted for war crimes.
2) An American ship captures the enigma machine. The Enigma machine was captured by HMS Bulldog before America entered the war. Not only that the enigma codebreaking operation was an almost entirely British affair, run from Bletchley Park. Most analysts say it shortened the war by about 2 years, but we don't go on about that. (I know I did go on about it then but it's just once).

Having said that, I'm sorry if I've offended you and Setanta. I do think America is a wonderful country with lots of lovely people. Nuff said.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

And not to forget the Scottish-Irish colonists.
Leaving out Spanish and French colonists in what is now the USA seems to be quite common ...

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Alright, Chesapeake Bay incident happened during the Napoleonic wars.
America wasn't really neutral, it was a major ally of the enemy. Things happen in wartime.

Pressganging was something else that happened during war.
It ended in 1814.

That 's a good thing! U better not try it NOW.

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Our troops were fighting Napoleon in Spain and Portugal. Maybe our interpretation of history does not reflect the American view. Then again you all seem to be more concerned with patting yourselves on the back than anything else.

Izzie gets the A2k award for projection for this one !!

izzythepush wrote:

America is not under threat of invasion from Iran. That does not mean that the US Navy would not stop a North Korean cargo ship en route to Iran. Is that hubris as well?

America in 1812 was not a threat to the British Empire, while nuclear armed North Korea is today a threat to both the USA and the UK.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

The religious-persecution story is overhyped by pious schoolbook editors.

This can't be emphasized too much. It's also a part of the "New England-centric" American mythic history.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

What the hell qualifies as a "major ally" for you? There were no American ships supporting the Franco-Spanish fleets, there were no American troops fighting with Napoleon, American merchants weren't shipping war materials to France. Your paranoia is truly amazing--and completely unjustified.

0 Replies

By the way, it's complete bullshit that Washington was a millionaire, and even if he had been, he didn't "earn" it out of the revolution. He was articled as a surveyor at the age of 15, and as was the custom then, he was entitle to make land claims when he surveyed land which had not been settled. But he made no money out of that until much later--and after the revolution, squatters took more than half of his land claims, and he never attempted to enforce his claims.

He was the younger son of Augustus Washington, and of the elder Washington's second wife. He really had no expectations. However, when his half-brother Lawrence died (about 1753?), he inherited Mount Vernon from him. (Mount Vernon was named for Admiral Vernon, who had lead an expedition against Cartegena in the War of Jenkins' Ear, in which Lawrence and many Virginians participated. Far from England protecting the North American colonies, they relied upon Americans to supply and support their imperial expansion, providing supplies, ships and men--which we loyally did until screwing us was raised to the level of an art.)

When Washington married Martha Dandridge Custis, his land holdings (and slaves) more than doubled. But Martha held that property in trust for her two children by Daniel Parke Custis, and Washington scrupulously preserved their property for them. Far from being a millionaire, Washington spent a good deal of his own money to support a lifestyle which Mount Vernon would barely support. Because he was so scrupulous about preserving the inheritance of Jack and Patsy, their only survivor, Jack's son George Washington Parke Custis, was quite a wealthy man--though even he was no millionaire. Washington just barely made ends meet from year to year.

Where do you get **** like that? Do they publish that in comic books in England?

0 Replies

In his memoirs, Ulysses Grant wrote of the Mexican War:

Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.

All nations which have had the means have been the villian from time to time. In their arrogant abuses against the American republic, the English were the villians in the era of French revolution and of Napoleon. Why can't you just accept that and stop whining about it?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Manifest Destiny?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

When people want to slaughter cattle they drive them along until they get them to a corral, and then they slaughter them. So it was with us... My children have been exterminated; my brother has been killed.

Standing Bear of the Poncas.

0 Replies

I don't know what the point of all of that is, i've not defended manifest destiny. My point, which you seem determined to avoid, is that all "great" nations behave this way, and that's how England was behaving between 1793 and 1815. Flinging out tu quoque statements about how bad the United States may have been in its history won't change that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

My point was that America isn't perfect, and Britain under George III was not completely evil.

1 Reply

"Step away from the candy and come with me, kid"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know