Steve 41oo wrote:dyslexia wrote:georgeob1 wrote:dyslexia wrote:aside from shiksa and his small dick problem, this thread has been an interesting read.
Well it usually gets interesting when Setanta is around and he gets challenged - even on a secondary point.
You too george. i just read and usually learn something i didn't know.
surely this is against the TOS
you have to argue pointlessly and without end. Thats a2k.
I an, innately, a contrarian as well as cranky.
georgeob1 wrote:However in the early (and most desperate) years of the War Britain was clearly supporting the Confederacy, if for no other reason than to discipline the unruly (in their perception) government of this country.
It is a statement such as this to which i object. In the first place, your use of the word "support" is clearly unwarranted. Even with the eagerness of Palmerston to undermine the United States and Lincoln, those southern agents who purchased Enfield short-barrel rifles, and contracted for the construction of
SS Oreta and
SS Enrica were obliged to do so through false fronts, and
sub rosa. Support is an overt activity, and you have no historical justification for describing the covert activities to which Palmerston turned a blind eye for as long as he could as support.
The second problem you have is in identifying Palmerston and his obsessional hatred of the United States with the policies of the British government. Palmerston was on the verge of entering the political wilderness when he was rescued by the disaster of Aberdeen's decision to join France in the Russo-Turkish war of 1853. That was how he became Prime Minister in 1855 at the age of 71. (See Jasper Ridley's excellent biography for the argument that had Palmerston still been foreign minister, England would not have joined the French.) But he only held his position on sufferance. He had switched to the Whigs in 1828, because he opposed parliamentary reform, and he had long been considered anathema by the Peelit and Canningite Tories, who were, despite being members of the conservative party, representative of the "liberal" wing of the Tories. Palmerston had reconciled with the men of those Tory factions (he was, after all, old enough that he had already outlived most of his bitter political enemies) and his popularity was such that the Peelite and Canningite Tories dared not oppose him, so long as he did not grossly offend public opinion.
So, you have the ludicrous picture of a Whig (or "Liberal" in modern parlance), who is more conservative than the Tories (or "Conservatives" in modern parlance), who opposed the parliamentary reform which Peel and Canning had approved, and whose strongest ideological appeal was to the truly conservative wing of the Tories. The Whigs certainly knew they had an electoral winner in the person of Palmerston, but they also knew that any overt support for the Confederate States would not only likely bring down the government, but would alienate their own working class constituencies. Palmerston only held office so long as he publicly supported the populist policies of the Whigs--to which he only made the exception of parliamentary reform, saying there would only be a new reform bill over his dead body. That was almost literally true in that the next reform bill only came in 1866 after his death in October, 1865.
I don't think much of Palmerston, and i am gratified to think that the last months of his life were embittered, at least to some extent, by the survival of the United States.
"What were the main ideological causes of World War II?"
i always assumed it was just us against them, same as any conflict really
Yeah, but you Canuckians just got sucked in on England's coattails in 1939.
There's an old guy in the neighborhood who is in his late 80s who went over in 1939. I've talked to him before, and he was just a kid when he signed up--apparently he was young enough that he needed his parents' consent, but they gave it. It was a long war for him, six years, and most of his buddies killed.
georgeob1 wrote:Finally, with respect to German immigration -- I think there was relatively little of it after 1918. Most of the German immigration here was associated with domestic political issues in the 1840s and others that emerged to create a second, smaller wave soon after the turn of the 20th century. Nearly all of our German immigrants were here by the time our participation in WWI became an issue in 1915 & 1916. On this point you are simply wrong.
If you will consult this page, you will see that almost 2,000,000 Germans, representing 25% of all German immigration to this country came after 1919. My point has not been that German immigration has not been significant, but only that it is not until the latter half of the 20th century that Americans "self-identifying" as ethnically German surpass the Irish as the largest single immigrant group--this only occurred with the 1990 census. Although almost a million Germans immigrated in the decade after 1848, it was in the 1880s (which corresponds to Europe's "Great Depression") that the largest number arrived--over 2,000,000 from 1880 to 1900, with nearly 1.5 million in the decade 1880-89.
Steve 41oo wrote:dyslexia wrote:georgeob1 wrote:dyslexia wrote:aside from shiksa and his small dick problem, this thread has been an interesting read.
Well it usually gets interesting when Setanta is around and he gets challenged - even on a secondary point.
You too george. i just read and usually learn something i didn't know.
surely this is against the TOS
you have to argue pointlessly and without end. Thats a2k.
Dagnabbit, Steve . . . i do the best i can.
when i lived in toronto, in the 80's i used to see these two older gentlemen walking german shepards, they walked side by side in even step and spoke quietly to each other in a definite european dialect, i always wondered what their story was
When i was diggin' around for the immigration figures, i came across information that 400,000 Germans came to Canada in the period 1945-70. That's quite few, when you consider the total population of Canada in 1945.
Set, I don't dispute at all your point about the ultimate demise of the policies Palmerston advocated with respect to the Confederacy, or even the correctness in formal terms of the British government's actions with respect to the construction of the commerce raider ships, the supply of arms, and other like actions. Instead, I characterize their effects as they were interpreted both by the Confederacy and the Union governments, and very likely by important pro-Confederacy elements within the British political scene..
The British declared their absolute neutrality at a very early stage of the war, but contrary to the clearly stated position of our government that this was purely a domestic dispute within the United States, they did so in a way that granted, and, because of their far-reaching maritime power, firmly established, the rights of the Confederacy as a co-belligerent (effectively, a nation), explicitly conferring on them the right to use British ports anywhere and to conduct trade independently of the policy and wishes of the Union government. This was clearly interpreted by Lincoln, Seward and others in our government as a hostile act, clearly intended to benefit the Confederacy, which at the time appeared to be strong enough to succeed in its endeavor. It was also interpreted that way in the popular press here and by northerners generally. In those terms it contributed to an American belief in British support for the Confederacy - an impression that lasted.
This and the other actions of the British government were taken with all the formalities needed to preserve - in those formal terms - their strict neutrality, just as you noted. While it is true that they fell short of constituting "support" in the legal terms of the day (a correction that I accept) their effect was to support the wishes and hopes of the Confederacy in a way that the Union vociferously opposed in most instances. Moreover there was nothing in international law as it was then that compelled Britain to grant co-belligerent status to the Confederacy; to sell arms to them and to permit the construction of ships for them (with the thinnest veneer of a third party in the transaction); or to transport diplomats from the Confederacy through a Union blockade and across the Atlantic. They had a good deal of discretion in each of these matters under law as it existed, and they could just as well have accepted the Union assertion that this was a domestic dispute; that the Union government had a right to close its southern ports and prohibit the sale of arms to parties in rebellion against it, and so on. That they didn't was perceived here as "support" for the Confederacy - even though, the rules of diplomacy of the day permitted them to assert their neutrality in the conflict.
To some extent we returned the favor during the Irish uprising in 1914 and subsequent. However, even there almost all of the action was direct and popular as opposed to the actions of the government itself.
I agree with your observations about the twists and turns of political parties, here and in Europe, with respect to external issues - the left supporting right external issues and vice versa. We have our own with our initial enthusiastic support of Israel coming (over the objection of Republicans) from a Democrat President anxious about his chances in a forthcoming election (Truman 1948), only later to be replaced by (strange in my view) enthusiastic Republican support, supposedly on a strategic basis, for Israeli security.
georgeob1 wrote:The British declared their absolute neutrality at a very early stage of the war, but contrary to the clearly stated position of our government that this was purely a domestic dispute within the United States, they did so in a way that granted, and, because of their far-reaching maritime power, firmly established, the rights of the Confederacy as a co-belligerent (effectively, a nation), explicitly conferring on them the right to use British ports anywhere and to conduct trade independently of the policy and wishes of the Union government.
This is so wrong . . . cf. my observation of the actions of the Governor at Bermuda refusing
CSS Florida the right to enter the port to rendezvous with the ship intended to be its tender. Palmerston could take no such overt action in support of the Confederate government, and he did not.
In NYC public schools in 1910 there was bi-lingual education in the "readers." One page was English; one page was German. As I've read, the anti-German hysteria of WWI made the German community decide to give up on the desire for maintaining their language. In addition, in the decades that followed, Lutheran Germans married Lutherans of Scandanavian descent (for example), and Catholic Germans married other Catholic groups. Today, I believe, someone with a German last name considers him or herself an American, even though they know the German side of the family are hard workers and as a sociological text mentioned about Germans, are "achievement oriented," as opposed to "affiliation oriented" (members of the "right" clubs, etc.).
What's my point? German-Americans are just Americans of German descent. Everyone in the U.S. is American of some "descent." Let's put the emphasis on the correct sy-llab-le. We are Americans!
Setanta wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Finally, with respect to German immigration -- I think there was relatively little of it after 1918. Most of the German immigration here was associated with domestic political issues in the 1840s and others that emerged to create a second, smaller wave soon after the turn of the 20th century. Nearly all of our German immigrants were here by the time our participation in WWI became an issue in 1915 & 1916. On this point you are simply wrong.
If you will consult this page, you will see that almost 2,000,000 Germans, representing 25% of all German immigration to this country came after 1919. My point has not been that German immigration has not been significant, but only that it is not until the latter half of the 20th century that Americans "self-identifying" as ethnically German surpass the Irish as the largest single immigrant group--this only occurred with the 1990 census. Although almost a million Germans immigrated in the decade after 1848, it was in the 1880s (which corresponds to Europe's "Great Depression") that the largest number arrived--over 2,000,000 from 1880 to 1900, with nearly 1.5 million in the decade 1880-89.
Very interesting. I get 22% after 1919 interpolating for the decade in question. There is also an odd disparity in the tabulated number for total immigration (The actual total of the data listed for the years listed is 4.3 million greater than the total shown. Still, you have proven your point, and I was wrong. Interestingly, I was also wrong about the supposed turn of the century peak - the max German immigration took place over an almost continuous basis from 1840-1900. In would be interesting to do the same for the Irish and also to consider the progeny of those who came earlier in an appropriate statistical way (sort of like a present value calculation). This just might alter the conclusion - but I haven't the energy to do it. (My wife's ancestors came here from Germany in the early 1900s and mine from Ireland in the 1920s. - perhaps that influenced my thinking.)
I still think that the original description I offered for American attitudes with respect to our entry in WWI is correct, though.
A nice comment by Dys - followed by my cordial reply; - and Steve gets to impugn us both, while Set goes along with it !! However, it is true - we are addicted to endless dispute.
Foofie wrote:...
What's my point? German-Americans are just Americans of German descent. Everyone in the U.S. is American of some "descent." Let's put the emphasis on the correct sy-llab-le. We are Americans!
I dunno Foofie. Where I grew up, if you answered the question, "What are you?" with "American" you had to be tough. (Nobody liked WASPS.) This is, of course, all gone now with all the PC platitudes that have replaced real words for nationality and just about everything else. However I rather liked the old way.
My parents were of irish decent, born between 1901 and 1906.
They met in California.
They were not me, nor I them.
My father gave me a clue, to look around.
I wish more fathers taught this.
Ah, I assume that was off topic. Carry on...
Setanta wrote:georgeob1 wrote:The British declared their absolute neutrality at a very early stage of the war, but contrary to the clearly stated position of our government that this was purely a domestic dispute within the United States, they did so in a way that granted, and, because of their far-reaching maritime power, firmly established, the rights of the Confederacy as a co-belligerent (effectively, a nation), explicitly conferring on them the right to use British ports anywhere and to conduct trade independently of the policy and wishes of the Union government.
This is so wrong . . . cf. my observation of the actions of the Governor at Bermuda refusing
CSS Florida the right to enter the port to rendezvous with the ship intended to be its tender. Palmerston could take no such overt action in support of the Confederate government, and he did not.
You are distorting my meaning and the facts concerning the rights of co-belligerents. These rights included access to British ports for trade and replenishment, but not coordinated operations with other warships or their support vessels. The same rules apply today. Confederate ships (as they were able) conducted a lively trade with the British in Bermuda and in St Thomas (and other ports) throughout the war. This was a direct result of the British neutrality declaration, and the Union objected strongly to it. Moreover there was no requirement under international law to so recognize the Confederacy under the circumstances that then existed. They could have simply accepted the domestic nature of the conflict as our government strongly requested and asserted. Even in 1914 the United States didn't grant cobelligerent status to the Irish nationalists.
georgeob1 wrote:A nice comment by Dys - followed by my cordial reply; - and Steve gets to impugn us both, while Set goes along with it !! However, it is true - we are addicted to endless dispute.
I dont recall impugning anyone recently. Sounds good though...remind me to try it.
All I said, several pages back, was that if the British had not defeated the French in N America, specifically Gen. Wolf at Quebec, the whole of N America would have been a French colony and you would be speaking French. And a jolly good language it is as my friend Francis will attest. Au revoir.
You mean they would be having English fries with their burgers, er, citoyens?
I bet O'George and O'Set disagree. I do, too.
O'George has seemed to have forgotten how United States authorities looked the other way as members of the Fenian Brotherhood planned invasions of Canada, and only took desultory action when actual invasions took place. They did interfere, in a lazy sort of way, during the largest invasion in 1866--and yet Col. O'Neil and several hundred Fenians, styling themselves the Irish Republican Army, successfully invaded the Niagara Peninsula, and humiliated the Queen's Own Rifles (Toronto) when the Canadians attempted to round them up. That was in 1866, and the Fenians were still attempting invasions as late as 1870. The one thing above all others that saved the Canadians further humiliation was the ineptitude and infighting in the Fenian leadership.
He also ignores the millions upon millions of dollars in aid to the IRA and PIRA by Americans, including gun running, which was going on right up to the Good Friday Agreement. I will just remind him of a conversation we once had about Noraid.
************************************************
The allegation that the failure of Wolfe at Québec would have resulted in the French taking over the English-speaking colonies is ludicrous. In the spring of 1758, Governor Shirley in New England was replaced, and his replacement, Thomas Pownall, wrote to the Lords of Trade (responsible for the colonies) to outline exactly what the contribution of Massachusetts had been to that point in the war. He wrote that before the war, the Massachusetts Bay colony had operated on a budget of 45,000 pounds sterling per annum, but that at that writing, the colony had contracted debts well in excess of 300,000 pounds, and the legislature had passed a plan to sink the debt within two years. He also said that one in seven of the adult males of the colony were serving the King by land or by sea.
The frontiers of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia were protected from the depredations of Indians abetted by the French by the militia regiment of Virginia, acting alone without Crown aid. When, after the debacle of Braddock in attempting to take Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh) the English finally got around to actually taking the place, they sent Forbes with a handful of British regulars, and the huge Virginia regiment of militia and the militia regiments of Maryland and Pennsylvania.
In 1757, the French under the Marquis de Saint-Veran, known by his family name as the Marquis de Montcalm, lead an attack on Fort William Henry, which the British Indian agent, Sir William Johnson, had been using as a base for attacks against the French (the Iroquois were the inveterate enemies of the French, and had been fighting them since 1608, and had twice invaded New France, once occupying "la belle province" for two years). The fort was then in the command of Lt. Col. Monro, and when he surrendered at discretion to the French, it was followed by a horrible and notorious massacre. The following year, Johnson lead Indians of the Six Nations and English militia in an attack which drove the Canadians and the Canadian militia (there was a regular army establishment in Canada under the French) and their Indian allies away from the fort, and completely cleared the Lake George area prior to Abercrombie's expedition against Fort Carillon on Lake Champlain.
When Abercrombie marched on Carillon (present day Fort Ticonderoga), he lead an army of more than 16,000 men. Even subtracting William Johnson's Indians of the Six Nations, that meant the colonial militia far outnumbered the fewer than 6,000 regulars--it was the largest army which had ever been assembled on the North American continent, and could never have conducted the campaign without the essential logistical support of the colonists, never mind their contribution of almost 10,000 troops. Abercrombie kept a stiff upper lip, however, and was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by launching a frontal assault against Montcalm's French regulars dug in behind breastworks, and hundreds of yards of felled trees. You gotta love that never say die attitude on the part of militarily incompetent English generals.
When, in the same year, Jeffrey Amherst took the great French fortress at Louisbourg, for once, the army was mostly comprised of English regulars. It was there that James Wolfe first made a name for himself as one of Amherst's brigadiers. However, Amherst himself acknowledged in his dispatches that it would not have been possible without the support of the New Englanders, who provided the logistical support, up to and including the supply ships which delivered the troops to Cape Breton Island, and kept them supplied.
In 1759, when Wolfe lead his expedition against Québec, the English colonies had been fighting the French and their Indian allies for almost a century and half. Had Wolfe's expedition failed (and it very nearly did), it would not have changed the status quo ante, it would simply have denied the English the immediate conquest of Canada.
To suggest that the English somehow protected a supine and suffering band of American "Milquetoasts" from the evil, perfidious French is nothing short of hilarious. We fought them for a century and half, and were prepared to continue to fight them, had it proven necessary.
