Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The British defeat in America -
Herc the Merc    5/29/2007 8:27:07 PM
Perhaps one of the few major wars lost by Britain and that too in its own territory with vast ties by blood. How is the American war potrayed in English history books-- a civil war, liberation war, anarchy???? Its perhaps odd that Britain lost America, one of its few territories that it had connections with in bloodline. Even Britain and India parted ways with a handshake and cup of tea. The Yanks broke the tea crates in Boston Harbor and had bloody good fight.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39   NEXT
paul1970       10/3/2007 3:55:45 AM


I still fail to see what you bringing up religion has to do with AWI or W1812... neither was fought because of religion. they were political and any mention of religion was an aside.



 



and I don't see why you keep going on about current royalty... that is not really relevent to the point of the thread either.



 



open a new topic for a new subject.





 




Paul, i did not want to answer, but since you dont see, i will. And it will be just one item.

   1} US DOLLAR BILL

 

  And i apologize for opening the worm can,but Paul broke it 1st!.

 

                                                                           tigertony


 
ahh Money is your God....    :-)
 
in God we trust.....    which God?????

 
Quote    Reply

rb_martin    The opposite is true   10/3/2007 2:41:16 PM

Oh yeah I forgot to mention that the northeners really weren't as concerned about freeing the slaves as they were about the spread of slavery through Federal Law. ( A fight I might add the northeners were losing.)

If, in fact, the north was losing this battle, the Civil War would not have occurred. ;-)

Go read up on Dred Scott among others.

There are thousands of pages of history waiting for you to finally discover them.

Like I said, why was Henry Clay called "The Great Compromiser"?  Because his compromises between Slave and Free States were so useless?  They didn't call him that for nothing.

Slavery was THE issue of the American Civil War.

The slavery issue was a by-product of the Civil War. THE issue, was states rights vs. federal rights. It is a common misconception that slavery was the catalyst for the Civil War. Your first sentence states "northeners really weren't as concerned about freeing the slaves as they were about the spread of slavery through Federal Law ." While it is true that northern states were trying to prohibit the spread of slavery, the Missouri Compromise effectively cut the South off from the western states in a disproportionate way. THIS was the original and base reason that South Carolina and the rest of the Confederacy split from the federal government. The northern states had effectively blocked the south from any further expansion of slavery (ie, the northern states won the fight as opposed to your earlier statement), and this prompted the South to attempt a break from the Union. Slavery per say, did not become an issue until Lincoln made it so. And even at that time, Lincoln was amiable to the notion that if the South would put down its arms and re-join the Union, he would nullify freeing the slaves in order to preserve the Union, which to him, was more important.

Ending Slavery BECAME the issue, but Slavery itself was the issue the ENTIRE time.

The whole war was about slavery and how it was going to affect the United States.

False. ;-) The war was about whether or not states had the right to secede from the Union as stated above. Slavery eventually became the issue; slavery was an underlying catalyst; but the main issue of the war was whether states rights were more important than federal rights.


 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       10/13/2007 9:26:27 PM










Are you equating religious belief with low intelligence? 




Absolutely not! Some of the brightest minds (Einstein for example), professed a belief in religion. It has been my own personal experience though that using religion in place of logic signals the end of any further debate on the topic at hand.



to answer top one..... not necessarily... depends on which religions.....  :-)

but some religions do rely on limited/poor/false education for their benefit though.

science tends to oppose the traditional religions because it doesn't take for granted and always seeks to prove rather than rely on faith. religions tend to oppose science as more understanding can contradict what a religion holds as dogma.

not really gone into Einstein on religion but from what I have read he was not exactly a supporter of Abrahamic faiths version of God as displayed in the relevent books?


 



Paul






I liked your answer.  Interestingly I was reading about a month ago that religious affiliation and high intelligence are positively corrolated which I would have thought on intuition to be false. 

Although not widely reported, it might be worth noting that the last Pope declared that he believed that evolution may be theoretically correct and said something along the lines of "God cannot contradict God."  In other words science, which the Christian faith believes to be a language of God, cannot be contradicted by the Church's teachings and if it does then those teachings are likely to be tainted by man's false interpretation.

 

Einstein stated that the religion that he felt most closely followed his own beliefs was that of Buddhism, not any of the Abrahamic faiths.  Although Einstein was particularly intelligent, that intelligence was focussed and unusual owing to an abnormality in his brain.  The man couldn't tie his own shoelaces apparently. He's not the best sample for testing the hypothesis of religious belief and intelligence.



Let's see...I believe your information is incomplete.  While Einstein was certainly heterodox (which could be said of others - Newton, Galileo, Oppenheimer spring to mind) as a Jew, he was certainly a believer in a Deity (whom, he said, "does not play dice with the Universe").  As for Judaism vs. Buddhism, I believe many people adopt Buddhism culturally or philosophically without considering themselves apostate.  For instance, Albert Einstein was offered the Presidency (or PM-ship?) of Israel.  And while he was certainly in favor pf peace and so on I am not aware that he was, say, vegetarian.

As for being hapless, this may be a charming thought, but it cannot be said to be true.  Einstein was a creature of the flesh, both in terms of athleticism (a sportsman, he once overpowered an armed attacker) and of appetite (I'm afraid he was a notorious adulterer).

It can certainly be said that he was an independent thinker in terms of not hewing strictly to prescribed doctrine, but I'm sure his Hebrew was much better than mine, and a sense of eternity infused his thoughts and actions.  Newton likewise was a man of great piety which ran in channels not always dictated by the hierarchy of the Church.  (Perhaps it would not be too much to say his heterodoxy, his Buddhism if you like, was alchemy?)  Galileo was in the bosom of the Catholic Church even as he uttered "Eppur si muove!" under his breath.

The aspect of religion which I think many modern people correlate with low intelligence is dogmaticism.  Curiously, however, this property is never ascribed to devout followers of such modern creeds as communism.  So normal people with a patina of religion are okay, but people who take it seriously always seem to arouse suspicion.

My perhaps unjustified suspicion is that a believer is marginally more likely than an atheist to stop and help you change a roadside flat.  And more generally, as recorded history essentially correlates with monotheism (ok, and some poly here and there), religion would seem to correlate entirely with modern civilization.  Perhaps without a concept of divinity, humans would never have been able to organize t
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       10/13/2007 10:31:59 PM



I myself will be gone for a week, looking after my sick grandma.  You could pray for her swift recovery (she's off the ventilator, but still weak) if you want, but I wouldn't waste my time on this topic anymore. 


(Well, I did zap Ehran with Elba, now I can die happy.  OK then...PS  Ehran, manful to admit.  Kudos ;>)



hope your grandma does well nichevo.

glad to bring a bit of joy to your life nichevo.  i'd thought elba was st helena with more staff and better climate.  still no day is a waste if you learn something new even if it tastes a bit avian going down .  i am still boggling over elba actually. 


Thanks for the kind words.  I fear that at 87, a 15mm slit in the esophagus does not heal like it would for you or me.  Things are taking too long...but we'll work on it.  I am to go back any day now...it has crept from Sat to Sun to Mon or Tue as Aunt Susan has chosen to stay and watch.  I think it is much a battle of will now. 

As for Elba, this is the sort of thing that makes Americans, in the main, kinda chuckle when Europeans tell us how better to order things.  Maybe we should have given Saddam his own Elba, I believe, was some of the Euro-thinking that earned from us a broad stare in 2002-03.  Then again our own Mario Cuomo in '90 thought, if he wants a little oil, give him a little oil; he wants a little land, give him a little land...So nobody has a monopoly on stupes...any more than a monopoly on wisdom.


gf0012-aust       9/29/2007 2:20:57 AM
 the hawaiians were talking about an alliance with the british but i've only seen that in one place so who knows.

on a contemp level, they must be the only US state with the Union Jack as part of their state flag.....

Now what was that about colonial meddling again? ;>
 
Quote    Reply

kensohaski       10/16/2007 11:09:36 AM




The US won the War of 1812 by realizing its two main war aims. 1. the US stopped Britain's interfering with US merchant shipping and the impressment of its seamen. 2. British support for Amerindian forces in the Northwest territories was ended when the combined Anglo-Amerindian Army under General Proctor and Tecumseh was defeated at the Battle of the Thames in Ontario. Despite its dramatic and complete victory, the US with drew to the pre-war border with no claim to conquered territory.





hah.

 

seems like revisionism again.. guess you are one of those who think the US won the Vietnam war as well....   :-)


The United States did win the Vietnam War.
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       10/16/2007 5:28:12 PM
While Einstein himself claimed he was no atheist, and that he believed in an impersonal deity, this can in no way be tied to religion. Both religious fundamentalists and hardcore atheists try to get Einstein on their team. Richard Dawkins for example believed that Einstein used the word "God" as a facon de parler, while there are many quotes that contradict this. Likewise, religious fundes try to make it sound like he believed in a personal "God", yet there were many quotes that gave evidence to the contrary. However, unlike Dawkins, Einstein respected religious traditions, because he knew that modern morals and values, and that the hard sciences themselves derived from religion, and in particular, the group that everyone loves to hate, the Catholic Church.
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       10/16/2007 5:58:25 PM
Nichevo, you stated that people equate low intelligence with dogmatic religious beliefs. Though that seems to be the case, it really isn't. I wish it were true that the smartest people in the world were moderates in the field of religion, neither funde nor atheist, but it seems to me that the most intelligent people tend to be on one of these extremes. Though, the moderates don't have nearly as many oxygen thieves as organized religion and evangelical atheism, most of the smartest people in the world right now are either very religious or staunchly atheistic. This may not have been true for Einstein, and it may not be true for Hawking today, but it is true for Collins, the leader of the mapping of the human genome and staunch Christian. Most of my college professors in the hard sciences tended to be very religious. Considering Christianity is a religion of almsot 2 billion people, there are bound to be many very well educated, very intelligent believers. It's not something that is easily understandable. Perhaps the best thing that can be said is this: you cannot tell who is intelligent or unintelligent, believer or unbeliever by looking at either their profession, be it biology or philosophy.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       10/19/2007 7:15:26 AM








The US won the War of 1812 by realizing its two main war aims. 1. the US stopped Britain's interfering with US merchant shipping and the impressment of its seamen. 2. British support for Amerindian forces in the Northwest territories was ended when the combined Anglo-Amerindian Army under General Proctor and Tecumseh was defeated at the Battle of the Thames in Ontario. Despite its dramatic and complete victory, the US with drew to the pre-war border with no claim to conquered territory.








hah.



 



seems like revisionism again.. guess you are one of those who think the US won the Vietnam war as well....   :-)




The United States did win the Vietnam War.


was that the one that ended in 1975 when the north won or some other Vietnam War that somehow escaped the rest of the worlds attention....

 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious       10/19/2007 12:56:53 PM
"was that the one that ended in 1975 when the north won or some other Vietnam War that somehow escaped the rest of the worlds attention...."

The important question is, WHO is now sewing Nike sneakers for WHOM, and getting paid 10 cents an hour for it?
 
Sometimes, you win by losing, and lose by winning. 
 
 
SGTObvious
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       10/19/2007 2:22:57 PM

"was that the one that ended in 1975 when the north won or some other Vietnam War that somehow escaped the rest of the worlds attention...."

The important question is, WHO is now sewing Nike sneakers for WHOM, and getting paid 10 cents an hour for it?

 

Sometimes, you win by losing, and lose by winning. 

 

 

SGTObvious


wow....   what insight... if the US had actually kept the south in control then you could have payed them 5 cents an hour and won even more   :-)

 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics