Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 5th, 2012, 03:53 AM   #791

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 7,085

Quote:
Originally Posted by monsieurdl View Post
Canada would be a lot better off, and I'd be a Canadian citizen
Why 'a lot' better off? different perhaps but I don't see how British rule would have been so much worse than French.

Since Britain would still rule the waves, if Canada stayed French the USA would found reason to 'liberate' it and become another couple or so of US states and France would have been poorly positioned to do anything about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
True. The American shipping in the region had always had the protection of
either the British or French, but once we gained independence, it was totally our game then.
Jefferson had always hated paying ransom and while under
Washington, then Adams, he could do nothing about it. When he became
president, he finally had the power to do something about it. Overall about
eight ships of the US Navy saw action in the region where they put a stop
to the serious problem of paying ransom and tribute. I'm thinking all tribute
was stopped just after the War of 1812.
Read an interesting book (below)

http://books.google.ie/books/about/S...IC&redir_esc=y
The American Captain of the shipwrecked early 19th century crew claims to be 'English' the main reason being, the British had a greater presence and so he was far more likely to be liberated.

When he eventually -- after a terrible journey--- reaches the British consul, the official is furious with him. Not because he is American he knows he will be repaid for the ransom (he's not happy about it because he also knows the US government will pay only very slowly) but because the brave Captain had promised his captors that he pay more for sick crewmen, he wanted to get all his men back.

The British consul explains that he will not pay good money for anyone who will die soon after liberation or not survive the journey home. As soon as this is explained to their captors better food and medical attention are supplied.

The Consul explains how hard the Captain has made the journey for the rest of his crew who will be worked to the point of death and then brought in for ransom.
Kevinmeath is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 5th, 2012, 04:33 AM   #792

monsieurdl's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: United States
Posts: 1,494

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Why 'a lot' better off? different perhaps but I don't see how British rule would have been so much worse than French.

Since Britain would still rule the waves, if Canada stayed French the USA would found reason to 'liberate' it and become another couple or so of US states and France would have been poorly positioned to do anything about it.
The native populations would have thrived, Acadie would have been free of the deportation stigma, and America would have had a friendly neighbor to the north that would have completed a dominant bulwark of defense, even after Napoleon came into power. Certainly something for the Speculative History area, but it would have completely removed the need for the War of 1812!
monsieurdl is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 04:53 AM   #793

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 7,085

Quote:
Originally Posted by monsieurdl View Post
The native populations would have thrived, Acadie would have been free of the deportation stigma, and America would have had a friendly neighbor to the north that would have completed a dominant bulwark of defense, even after Napoleon came into power. Certainly something for the Speculative History area, but it would have completely removed the need for the War of 1812!
Not so sure the 'native' population would have thrived, European expansion would have continued, whatever the ploicy of the 18th century doesn't mean it wouldn't change in the 19th.

Why would the the USA want to take a 'British Canada' but not want to take a 'French Canada'? especially as France would be poorly placed to defend it.
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 04:55 AM   #794

monsieurdl's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: United States
Posts: 1,494

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Not so sure the 'native' population would have thrived, European expansion would have continued, whatever the ploicy of the 18th century doesn't mean it wouldn't change in the 19th.

Why would the the USA want to take a 'British Canada' but not want to take a 'French Canada'? especially as France would be poorly placed to defend it.
France would have not expanded by antagonizing the United States- it would have been silly.

Because the United States and France were on friendly terms- awkward, but friendly, and Canada would have offered an immense economic opportunity as well as an area of settlement without the stigma of being labeled as a Tory.
monsieurdl is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 06:20 AM   #795

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,394
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post

The American Captain of the shipwrecked early 19th century crew claims to be 'English' the main reason being, the British had a greater presence and so he was far more likely to be liberated.

When he eventually -- after a terrible journey--- reaches the British consul, the official is furious with him. Not because he is American he knows he will be repaid for the ransom (he's not happy about it because he also knows the US government will pay only very slowly) but because the brave Captain had promised his captors that he pay more for sick crewmen, he wanted to get all his men back.

The British consul explains that he will not pay good money for anyone who will die soon after liberation or not survive the journey home. As soon as this is explained to their captors better food and medical attention are supplied.

The Consul explains how hard the Captain has made the journey for the rest of his crew who will be worked to the point of death and then brought in for ransom.
It is an insight to read the words of one who was taken captive. In this book:

Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror 1801-1805: Joseph Wheelan: 9780786714049: Amazon.com: Books
Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror 1801-1805: Joseph Wheelan: 9780786714049: Amazon.com: Books


There are accounts of the crew(s) of American ships and what they did
to survive, working, living conditions and even the religious conversion
by some.
tjadams is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 11:30 AM   #796

Paragonrex's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by monsieurdl View Post
France would have not expanded by antagonizing the United States- it would have been silly.

Because the United States and France were on friendly terms- awkward, but friendly, and Canada would have offered an immense economic opportunity as well as an area of settlement without the stigma of being labeled as a Tory.
Most certainly patently false and misinformed.

Your assumption is that the so called "friendliness" between the USA and France would have kept America from marching on France at the first available opportunity? Allow me to point out Jingoistic mandate of "Manifest Destiny" that gripped many in the USA. The animus between the French and Americans in regards to the American's failed and blatant refusal to repay their debt to France and the American's failed show of support for the French crown in it's hour of peril.

Your so called silly reason is just the kind thing that has sparked wars of centuries, regardless of who was in Canada, the USA would have marched on it sooner or later as history has indeed proven.
Paragonrex is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 11:39 AM   #797

monsieurdl's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: United States
Posts: 1,494

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Most certainly patently false and misinformed.

Your assumption is that the so called "friendliness" between the USA and France would have kept America from marching on France at the first available opportunity? Allow me to point out Jingoistic mandate of "Manifest Destiny" that gripped many in the USA. The animus between the French and Americans in regards to the American's failed and blatant refusal to repay their debt to France and the American's failed show of support for the French crown in it's hour of peril.

Your so called silly reason is just the kind thing that has sparked wars of centuries, regardless of who was in Canada, the USA would have marched on it sooner or later as history has indeed proven.
In the charged atmosphere of post-Revolutionary America, we did not march on Louisiana with Manifest Destiny-like fervor, and we would not have into Canada either. Our relations with France were excellent save our treaty negotiations with Britain and the Jay Treaty that resulted. This did not drag us into conflict with France (Quasi-War being just a blip on the radar), and to suggest that we would have readily encroached upon Canada if French is not supported by the events of the period. In fact, Napoleon precipitated excellent relations with the United States, and we would have never been the ones to shatter that.
monsieurdl is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 01:14 PM   #798

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 7,085

Quote:
Originally Posted by monsieurdl View Post
In the charged atmosphere of post-Revolutionary America, we did not march on Louisiana with Manifest Destiny-like fervor, and we would not have into Canada either.
That would have been foolish but Louisana is part of the USA now, perhaps Canada would have been purchased, if willing to sell or perhaps by invasion.

How did Florida become part of the USA?

Were the French Canadians well disposed towards the USA? don't think they were.

You can in noway say the USA would not have invaded Canada if it was still French.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monsieurdl View Post
Our relations with France were excellent save our treaty negotiations with Britain and the Jay Treaty that resulted. This did not drag us into conflict with France (Quasi-War being just a blip on the radar), and to suggest that we would have readily encroached upon Canada if French is not supported by the events of the period. In fact, Napoleon precipitated excellent relations with the United States, and we would have never been the ones to shatter that.
Well relations were actually pretty good with Britain, many in the USA traded with Britain (they continued even during the war of 1812) and 1812-14 aside despite rivalrys the USA and British North America did not fight since it was in the interests of both to avoid it.

The effect of the Royal Navy on American trade was a unpleasant lesson, a lesson France would be unable to give.
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 02:08 PM   #799
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 113

There is a speculative history section on this forum and far too much that is being posted here belongs there.
Harry is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 02:30 PM   #800
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 619

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Most certainly patently false and misinformed.

Your assumption is that the so called "friendliness" between the USA and France would have kept America from marching on France at the first available opportunity? Allow me to point out Jingoistic mandate of "Manifest Destiny" that gripped many in the USA. The animus between the French and Americans in regards to the American's failed and blatant refusal to repay their debt to France and the American's failed show of support for the French crown in it's hour of peril.

Your so called silly reason is just the kind thing that has sparked wars of centuries, regardless of who was in Canada, the USA would have marched on it sooner or later as history has indeed proven.
Manifest Destiny, as a term, was coined in the 1830's, IIRC, and did not become a serious national political ideology until the 1840's, long after France had lost all her North American holdings.
MAlexMatt is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
1812, war


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Could the War of 1812 have been avoided? HistoryFreak1912 American History 54 April 27th, 2010 04:35 AM
USA wins the War of 1812 Nick Speculative History 7 March 23rd, 2010 10:45 AM
Who won the War of 1812? ceyaborg History Help 11 January 28th, 2010 02:23 PM
1812 - pro-war.... ? onetwothree History Help 11 November 20th, 2009 09:26 AM
The War of 1812 old_abe American History 32 June 30th, 2009 01:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.