4th of July- time for reflection

Yeah. We should have colonized that little island, of course, I don't know what use it could be, really.

Thoughts......


They would have played football, instead of soccer.

They would have retaiined a fine Cuisine.

Chips, instead of fries.

Ross, Rachel, Joey, Chandler, Monica and Phoebe would have been "Chums", or "Mates".

Guys would be Blokes.

Driving on the PROPER side of the road.

Free medical treatment for all.

Sunday cricket being played on the village greens around New York.

...........and pronouncing Tomato properly.

Speaking as a resident of the nation that Britain started because they had no-where else convenient to dump their... superfluous... population, I can't really say. If the Brits HAD of hung on and kept the colonies in the family, they still would have had to drum up support to battle the French, the Spanish, the Portugeuse and Native Americans too.

Think of it as a sort of proto-Iraq. Do we stay here and spend our resources holding on to an ungrateful, insurgent population or do we pull out to better kill Frenchmen?



I would also offer the view that the only reason your present govt and the British Govt get on so well is that they BOTH want to put the slipper into the Natione Francais.

Stilly, you've opened my eyes!

Ungrateful insurgents? That'll please 'em. I've never thought of an American in this way before. I wonder if King George III's surname was Bush......it's all beginning to make sense!

Yes, the fine people of the USA have cottoned on to the fine sport of clobbering the French. We tried to keep it secret for a few hundred years, but they have discovered just how enjoyable it is.

Let's hope it is just a passing phase, as I feel that Brtain has certainly earned the right to be sole provocateur of the froggies.

Living proof. "Battle of Trafalgar Reenactment".

Two hundred years ago Nelson whipped their 'derriers' and you mob still celebrate!! You could focus on the great work you did beating the Germans and helping stick it up the Russians, but no - got to whack in the slipper to the Froggies!!


That must make folks like Rumsfeld just green with envy....

Re: 4th of July- time for reflection

I don't think so. But there is reason to believe that the benefit of independence was greatly overhyped by American patriots. As some evidence for that, I submit the example of Canada, an otherwise comparable country that chose not to declare independence when the USA did. Canadians remain subjects of the English crown, and they don't appear to suffer too terribly for it. So if you count Canada as a placebo test for American independence, that independence certainly looks much less impressive in reality than it sounds in July 4th speeches.

Canada, such as it was in 1775, was largely French, and no more trusted the Anglais of the colonies to the south than they did those who had moved in after 1759. After the war, much of Canada in the maratimes and west of Québec was settled by American Tories who were unceremoniously dumped in the wildernesses of New Brunswick and Upper Canada (Ontario), ill-prepared to be pioneers. The result was a legacy of exaggerated pride in mere survival, and fanatical loyalism to the Crown which had shown them such short shrift for their faith--and in particular a dominance of government and society in their new home. Drive around Kingston, Ontario, today, on the Loyalist Parkway, and see all the Loyalist historical markers, and all the little shops and businesses with a picture of a man and woman in 18th century dress and some Loyalist name or connection proudly displayed.

Thereafter, for one hundred years and more, the largest single immigrant group were Americans. Many were accused of treason and hanged after the War of 1812, but they kept coming anyway. Many more were rounded up and hanged during the insurrections in Upper and Lower Canada (the latter being Québec) in 1837 and 1838. The "Loyalists," the former American Tories, had a death-grip on power, and weren't about to let go. Without a significant presence in Québec, they tended to cluster in Montréal, and eventually took over what is now easter Ontario from the sparsely settled French community. In 1837, they joined le vieux Brûlot--the Old Firebrand--Sir John Colborne, as he roared through lower Canada in December 1837, burning down farm steads and shooting and hanging any québecois who showed defiance.

Still the Americans came, and efforts to interest English and Scots settlers in "the old country" were generally a miserable failure, until the Great Depression in Europe from 1875-1893. Even then, it was not until German, Russian and Ukrainian immigrants began to fill up the prairies at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century that the tide of immigration began to set against the Americans.

When making such statements, it helps to be informed somewhat on the history of the nation to which one refers. There are several other instances of the Anglo-ascendancy imposing their will upon the population of Canada which i have not mentioned, but will be happy to go over for any who are interested.

The Battle of Quebec 1775
American Revolution
31st December 1775

American troops attacked a force comprised of British recruits and Canadian volunteers.

The Governor of Canada, Guy Carleton and Colonel Allen Maclean commanded the British forces and Major General Benedict Arnold and Brigadier Richard Montgomery commanded the American troops. Montgomery was a half pay British officer.

Size of the armies: Around 1,200 on each side. Uniforms, arms and equipment: Each side wore whatever clothing was available to them, other than the small party of British recruits who may have been in uniform. Weapons were muskets and a few bayonets. The British had the benefit of the heavy guns on the city's fortifications.

The British and Canadian garrison drove off the American attack and ended the threat to the British control of Canada.

While General Washington with the Continental Army was blockading Boston, Montgomery led an attack up the Lake Champlain route into Canada while Arnold took his force across country through Maine. The purpose of the invasion of Canada was in part to bring the Canadian population into the war on the American side. Fort St John and Montreal were captured by the Americans. In late October 1775 Arnold arrived on Point Levis across the St Lawrence from Quebec , having lost a substantial part of his force on the punishing journey from New England. Maclean, hearing of Arnold's arrival, force marched his recruits from Sorel to Quebec , being joined later by Carleton.

On 13th November 1775 Arnold took his force across the St Lawrence, climbed onto the Plains of Abraham and summoned the garrison to surrender or come out and fight. The garrison did neither. Arnold launched a night attack that was beaten back.

On 31st December 1775, with the addition of Montgomery's troops, Arnold launched night attacks at either end of the city in a snowstorm. The garrison alerted by premature feint attacks on other parts of the city perimeter. Montgomery's assault was repelled with heavy grapeshot and Montgomery was killed. Arnold's attack penetrated the city wall but he was wounded. Maclean arrived from dealing with Montgomery's assault and led the counter attack. The American troops who had penetrated the walls were captured and the assault was driven off.

British and Canadian losses were 20. The American losses were around 500.

Following the battle the Americans withdrew from Canada and no further serious attempt to bring the Canadian population into the war on the American side was made.

It is also worth mentioning that Arnold and Washington cherished a fantasy of getting the support of the habitants when Arnold's expedition arrived in Canada. By the time Arnold's men pass Lake Megantic and descended the Chaudière toward Québec, they were near starvation, and the best efforts of Arnold and Morgan to prevent looting were not entirely successful.

As noted before, the habitants no more trusted the Anglais from the south than they did the ones who had taken over after Montcalm's death in 1759.

A few years ago, my Sweetiepie and i drove back from Maine through Québec on the way to Kingston. We passed up the valley of the Dead River, over the Height of Land, and to the west of Lake Megantic, avoiding the valley of the Chaudière, as we were headed west. I would not want to break down there in this day and age, and i was suitably impressed with just how difficult Arnold's march must have been in that god-forsaken wilderness--which it largely remains to this day, except during ski season.

EDIT: Your account is disingenuous, Intrepid. The 500 American casualties to which you refer includes all of the combined losses of Arnold's force and that of Montgomery which he took over after Montgomery's death--which is to say, there were not 500 American casualties in the attempt to take the city. Most of them died of disease, and the greater part at Ile aux Noix during the retreat into New York. Your hyper-patriotism is showing, you're padding the numbers to make the defense look more heroic.

A quick web search reveals that you have used "British Battles dot com" for your account. Other sources i have found on line list 100 American casualties, with 300 men captured when left behind due to wounds and illness as Arnold retreated months later. Arnold also only arrived with at most 600 men, and Montgomery brought 350 from Montréal, meaning there were not "about 1200 on each side" as British Battles dot com alleges. This is to be found in several web sources i have just checked.

I understood it was all the German's fault anyway.

If George 3 wasn't mad and his Hessian mercenaries had stayed awake at some battle somewhere, things could easily have turned out quite differently.

but I claim no expertise in this matter...

"Treason never prospers for if it does, none dare call it treason"

No, Setanta, I am not padding the numbers. The numbers change depending on where one sources them. Actually, the only reason I brought it up was because you did and I was just giving more information.

I knew that you would look up my source. That is why I chose the one I did. Just to point out that fact and fiction are sometimes intertwined when it comes to historic events.

Canada's role in the American Revolution was very minor and did not, IMO, affect the outcome. Today is an American celebration of independence which you gained by the will of the people. I will not post further items on Canada's involvement/ or lack thereof in this.

Today is your celebration and a time to put politics, person opinions and the like aside. Today, we join you in your celebration.

You are very kind . . . i mentioned that you had used British Battles dot com to point out that the numbers were theirs and nor yours, i ought to have been more specific about that.

I believe you are correct that Canada had little effect on our revolution, although Carleton and Burgoyne used it as a base. Our revolution, however, had far more impact on Canada, both because of the attitudes of the English thereafter, and the flood of Loyalists who arrived afterward. English-speakers were very few in number, and not concentrated in large numbers outside of Montréal and Halifax until the revolution.

Again, thank you for the kind remarks . . . here, have a hot dog . . .

Yes, those pesky Germans . . . most were from Hesse-Cassel or one of the other Hesses--and so were generically known as Hessians. But a significant number came from Brunswick, especially those who served in Burgoyne's invasion from Canada. The German commander, Baron Riedesel, was accompanied by his wife and daughters, and the Baroness kept a diary, which became an important historical document.

Many of the Germans found their situation dismaying, and as they learned English, slipped away from their dull garrison posts, and melted into the population. Some estimates put the figure at 10,000.

If only they had not played you boys so false, none of this need have happended . . .


heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

I just knew you were gonna fill me in on the details

sent you a pm, but not sure the electrical bit did its job ?

I inadvertantly turned off my (external) modem, and was off-line while i sat here and looked dumb until i figured it all out, i'll go check now.

Yes. As I have stated before, it was a fine and noble victory, stout and determined British colonialists against a German king and his mercenary army. A foregone conclusion, you might say. :wink:

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


You're a thoroughly bad man, McT . . . and highly entertaining . . .

... and don't forget Mr. von Steuben, who turned George Washingon's bunch of bear-hunters into an army. On reflection, it seems that Tories and the Yankees were barely involved in this whole fourth of July affair -- it was essentially a German plot.