Harleyman Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 They weren't foreign if born before 1776 though The stopping of American merchant ships by the Royal Navy and press ganging American sailors into service of the RN was taking place during the Napoleonic wars almost 20 years after American Independence which Britain had duly recognized. Claiming that Americans born before 1776 were still British would not have held up in any court as a valid argument of any kind and America and Britain were not in a state of war with each other in the 1800s even if there were some territorial disputes on the border with Canada. A further violation of a nation's sovereign rights was the British policy of restricting trade between the US and France by stopping or forcing American merchants ships destined for French ports to turn back when America was a neutral country in the Napoleonic wars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 ...Claiming that Americans born before 1776 were still British would not have held up in any court as a valid argument of any kind and America and Britain were not in a state of war with each other in the 1800s even if there were some territorial disputes on the border with Canada. In any court? - I doubt that a case against the Press would've succeeded in a British court. 'Pot and Kettle' really, Harleyman. 'The Press' was the term used when the Royal Navy did it, when American merchant ships kidnapped people to crew them - which they did up until about 1915 - the term was 'Shanghaiing'. A further violation of a nation's sovereign rights was the British policy of restricting trade between the US and France by stopping or forcing American merchants ships destined for French ports to turn back when America was a neutral country in the Napoleonic wars It gets worse. There have even been cases, in wartime, where the Navy of one side sank neutral vessels which were supplying the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Oliver Hardy of the comedy duo Laurel and Hardy claimed direct descent from Lieutenant Hardy who was at Nelson's side as he lay dying That's interesting, I never new that Oliver Hardy was related to Thomas "kiss me" Hardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 In any court? - I doubt that a case against the Press would've succeeded in a British court. 'Pot and Kettle' really, Harleyman. 'The Press' was the term used when the Royal Navy did it, when American merchant ships kidnapped people to crew them - which they did up until about 1915 - the term was 'Shanghaiing'. It gets worse. There have even been cases, in wartime, where the Navy of one side sank neutral vessels which were supplying the other. Valid points but we are talking about the period in history around the time of the war with Napoleon. Had there been an International Court in existence at that time then the policies of the British government would have been condemned as acting in a hostile manner against a nation it was not at war with. That was my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Valid points but we are talking about the period in history around the time of the war with Napoleon. Had there been an International Court in existence at that time then the policies of the British government would have been condemned as acting in a hostile manner against a nation it was not at war with. That was my point Nuking people is regarded as a bit beyond the pale these days. That doesn't make for a cogent argument against America nuking Japan. You always seem to present America as both hero and victim for your entire existence, which with the best will in the world gets a bit tedious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 There was a pagan celebration called Samhain at about that time. A celebration which did involve bonfires. The Brits seem to have been remarkably reluctant to abandon their pagan religion, but if the government (the Church of England) could substitute an alternative to Samhain (as had been done in the past, with Christmas for Yule and Easter for Beltaine) then it might drag a few more away from the 'old ways'. We haven't been "reluctant" to abandon our pagan roots, they've been appropriated by invading religions for their own means. We still, pretty much, celebrate our pagan festivals, just with other names. I agree it's odd that Samhain wasn't appropriated by the invading middle eastern religion of Christianity like most of the ancient feasts were, however, you're wrong about Beltane. Ostara was the one appropriated as Easter; Beltane is later in the year, around early May. We still see it now as May poles and well dressings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Nuking people is regarded as a bit beyond the pale these days. That doesn't make for a cogent argument against America nuking Japan. You always seem to present America as both hero and victim for your entire existence, which with the best will in the world gets a bit tedious. Why? Were you around at the time? Do you know something that the Allied leaders in 1945 didnt know or should have known? I get my information from things called "books" Those strange looking things with hard covers and pages in the middle written by internationally recognized historians such Max Hastings, Anthony Beevor (Both British by the way) and others who have researched their works in depth instead of basing my opinions on those posted on YouTube by some revisionist with an axe to grind. Too bad you find it tedious. I only post facts gleaned from studying the writings of scholars of history and not made up from my own imagination. If you find it disageeable that's your problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S10mainly Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Samhain was appropriated by the Incomers, as All Saints Day.........Its just that been a Protestant country "we" don't tend to do Saints Days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Why? Were you around at the time? Do you know something that the Allied leaders in 1945 didnt know or should have known? I get my information from things called "books" Those strange looking things with hard covers and pages in the middle written by internationally recognized historians such Max Hastings, Anthony Beevor (Both British by the way) and others who have researched their works in depth instead of basing my opinions on those posted on YouTube by some revisionist with an axe to grind. Too bad you find it tedious. I only post facts gleaned from studying the writings of scholars of history and not made up from my own imagination. If you find it disageeable that's your problem Do go back and read my post, especially the emboldened bit chosen by you, and then try replying again old chap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Religiously divisive? Guy Fawkes wasn't burned at the stake in November - he was hanged, drawn and quartered the following February. What have bonfires got to do with the 'Gunpowder Plot'? About - almost exactly -Nothing. There was a pagan celebration called Samhain at about that time. A celebration which did involve bonfires. The Brits seem to have been remarkably reluctant to abandon their pagan religion, but if the government (the Church of England) could substitute an alternative to Samhain (as had been done in the past, with Christmas for Yule and Easter for Beltaine) then it might drag a few more away from the 'old ways'. I don't see why making Samhain a public holiday would be divisive. Pagans are no longer prosecuted in the UK. It's called trick or treat time and no five year old kid dressed up in a Halloween outfit gives a toss if it came from a pagan festival or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.