chon derry Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 we do owe them a little loyalty otherwise we might be part of "murica" War Of 1812 summary: The War of 1812 was an armed conflict between the United States and the British Empire. The British restricted the American trade since they feared it was harmful for their war with France and they also wanted to set up an Indian state in the Midwest in order to maintain their influence in the region. That’s why 10,000 Native Americans fought on the side of the British in this war. Since Canada was a British colony back then, Canadians were also British allies. The Americans objected to the British Empire restricting their trade and snatching their sailors to serve on British ships. They were also eager to prove their independence from the British Empire once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 12 minutes ago, nucklehead said: I don't know, I think the beliefs of the times were that they were gods anointed and pillaged under his power and blessing. it's not a lot different from the deluded thinking other radicals operate under. The divine right of kings doctrine pre-dates Christianity by millennia. European rulers just picked the ball up and ran with it when the European monarchies began. Keep a populace ignorant and they'll believe almost anything you tell them. Back then it was monarchs, these days it's political parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, chon derry said: we do owe them a little loyalty otherwise we might be part of "murica" War Of 1812 summary: The War of 1812 was an armed conflict between the United States and the British Empire. The British restricted the American trade since they feared it was harmful for their war with France and they also wanted to set up an Indian state in the Midwest in order to maintain their influence in the region. That’s why 10,000 Native Americans fought on the side of the British in this war. Since Canada was a British colony back then, Canadians were also British allies. The Americans objected to the British Empire restricting their trade and snatching their sailors to serve on British ships. They were also eager to prove their independence from the British Empire once and for all. There was no Canada back then. The only time that the local populace saw anything in that war was at Lundy's Lane when two inexperienced idiotic generals marched what was left of their troops that didn't drown in the Niagara River crossing straight into the very bottom of several hilly areas. Half of the States back then refused to even send the federal government any militia to fight. They didn't want to lose trading rights with Britain. It's a good thing the smaller US Navy kicked the bigger British Navy's butt all over the place or Britain could have made an attempt at a land grab and SINCE I live on the border I would be a maple syrup sucking, moose humping pacifist. THE HORROR!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: There was no Canada back then. The only time that the local populace saw anything in that war was at Lundy's Lane when two inexperienced idiotic generals marched what was left of their troops that didn't drown in the Niagara River crossing straight into the very bottom of several hilly areas. Half of the States back then refused to even send the federal government any militia to fight. They didn't want to lose trading rights with Britain. It's a good thing the smaller US Navy kicked the bigger British Navy's butt all over the place or Britain could have made an attempt at a land grab and SINCE I live on the border I would be a maple syrup sucking, moose humping pacifist. THE HORROR!!! wait wasn't the white house burned up in that scuffle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, chon derry said: wait wasn't the white house burned up in that scuffle? Yep, and wieners, tea, and marshmallows were toasted in the flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, chon derry said: wait wasn't the white house burned up in that scuffle? Back then Washington DC was basically a big swamp with an expensive house smack dab in the middle. The Brits basically charged right at it and reached it before any large force could catch up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny in Vancouver Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 1 hour ago, JV77 said: Ask yourselves, how did their family became "Royal" and rulers? They stole, murdered, raped their way there, way back when. My family immigrated here from a place that has no monarchy. But you wouldn't find me arguing against the British monarchy like the way you did because I can't guarantee that nobody in my family line ever stole somebody's land or killed during a war or ... As Jesus said, 'let him who has no sin throw the first stone'. I know I am going off-topic here, but I figure that instead of looking to the past, the best I can do is to love my neighbour as myself and hope that others do the same as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 7 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: Yep, and wieners, tea, and marshmallows were toasted in the flames. dang can't find a pic guess they didn't have camera's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 27 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: The divine right of kings doctrine pre-dates Christianity by millennia. European rulers just picked the ball up and ran with it when the European monarchies began. Keep a populace ignorant and they'll believe almost anything you tell them. Back then it was monarchs, these days it's political parties. We all know who loves the uneducated. Things don't change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Just now, chon derry said: dang can't find a pic guess they didn't have camera's It was this war that made the US Federal Government realize that it couldn't count on state militias to fight Washington's battles. When half of the states basically told the president to go eff himself after war was declared, it became obvious a larger standing federal army was needed. The War of 1812 was very unpopular in England. They had huge domestic problems at the time and were pretty war weary as it was. They also lost face in Europe by losing most of the naval battles to a smaller US navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: It was this war that made the US Federal Government realize that it couldn't count on state militias to fight Washington's battles. When half of the states basically told the president to go eff himself after war was declared, it became obvious a larger standing federal army was needed. The War of 1812 was very unpopular in England. They had huge domestic problems at the time and were pretty war weary as it was. They also lost face in Europe by losing most of the naval battles to a smaller US navy. the benedict arnold west point story is interesting ,why was he so resentful of the americans to have tried to hand over west point to the british? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 14 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said: It was this war that made the US Federal Government realize that it couldn't count on state militias to fight Washington's battles. When half of the states basically told the president to go eff himself after war was declared, it became obvious a larger standing federal army was needed. The War of 1812 was very unpopular in England. They had huge domestic problems at the time and were pretty war weary as it was. They also lost face in Europe by losing most of the naval battles to a smaller US navy. Wasn't the "Star Spangled Banner" written while watching their capital burn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JV77 Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Crabcakes said: Stole, murdered, raped, all that happened many hundreds of years ago but Royalty had it's power by then. ISIS, that's off side. You're either trying to stir up hate or ignorant beyond belief. It's not up to me to educate you. Ok offside maybe but I think you know I'm not wrong. I know it was a long ago in a different time, but a lot people use that sometimes as excuse "that was then"...That doesn't make it ok regardless. And sure if that was then, then why are they still treated as royals and above everyone else in 2016? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JV77 Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 http://globalnews.ca/news/2949300/will-and-kates-branding-power-how-will-royal-tour-2016-impact-b-c/ "Prince William and Kate Middleton’s 2011 tour cost $1.2 million, last year’s two-day visit by Princess Anne cost $128,000 and the Queen’s 2010 nine-day tour came in at $2.79 million, the Ottawa Citizen reports. " And there you go. Canadian taxpayers will be paying for their visit, because they are royal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, chon derry said: the benedict arnold west point story is interesting ,why was he so resentful of the americans to have tried to hand over west point to the british? 20,000 pounds was a lot of money back then. He had already sold Washington's troop movements before that as well. It's a pretty complicated story if you go into the minutia. There are some today that believe there's more to the story. Personally I just think that he wanted to get rich and didn't much care for the new country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chon derry Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 1 minute ago, SabreFan1 said: 20,000 pounds was a lot of money back then. He had already sold Washington's troop movements before that as well. It's a pretty complicated story if you go into the minutia. There are some today that believe there's more to the story. Personally I just think that he wanted to get rich and didn't much care for the new country. only read up a little on it ,lol the britts never lived up to all of the money ,because of the uncovered conspiracy so he was screwed either way lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Why are they royal? I made a smart remark that I think was taken literally so I edited it. I have no issue with the Royals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, JV77 said: http://globalnews.ca/news/2949300/will-and-kates-branding-power-how-will-royal-tour-2016-impact-b-c/ "Prince William and Kate Middleton’s 2011 tour cost $1.2 million, last year’s two-day visit by Princess Anne cost $128,000 and the Queen’s 2010 nine-day tour came in at $2.79 million, the Ottawa Citizen reports. " And there you go. Canadian taxpayers will be paying for their visit, because they are royal. Yes, so what? Royals a cool. Maybe 500 years from the Kardasian girls' descendants will be royals, all with their distinctive big butts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 9 minutes ago, JV77 said: http://globalnews.ca/news/2949300/will-and-kates-branding-power-how-will-royal-tour-2016-impact-b-c/ "Prince William and Kate Middleton’s 2011 tour cost $1.2 million, last year’s two-day visit by Princess Anne cost $128,000 and the Queen’s 2010 nine-day tour came in at $2.79 million, the Ottawa Citizen reports. " And there you go. Canadian taxpayers will be paying for their visit, because they are royal. Like I said earlier, visiting dignitaries always come with ancillary costs. BC residents are already excited and fawning over the visit and they aren't even there yet. Just relax and enjoy the visit from your overlords. One day their faces will be on your money and you'll want as many pictures of them as you can get then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.