All right, i can live with your first paragraph [borderline though it may be -g-]
'A lot less "for sure" than impressment or fireing on warships' [in re casus belli]
Chesapeake had been boarded years before the invasion of Canada was cooked up, and by then impressment had largely ceased ... and again, Chesapeake did have RN deserters on board
'it wasn't an act of war for the US to trade with France'
So that legislation has been passed since, eh, lemme guess, as part of the neocon package under Bush? -g-
This is so far back i've forgotten my point ... likely one of the following -
1. that was very much a civil war ... 1812 was a resumption of the '75-'81 rebellion years ... most involved were more related than is commonly realised now, for instance most spoke english with a british accent [anyone with a few decades under their belt, or who watches old movies, has seen strong shades of british accent fade from New England] .... in fact, both these struggles and more could be seen as continuation of the english civil war, mid-1600s .... same sides involved, whigs and tories, though they weren't called that early in the period ... wasn't it James I who executed Raleigh? ... that's back to early 1600s ... but he also authorised the King James version of the bible, which the puritans did like, presumably
2. the reasons for war differ radically from talking points used in marketing campaigns to start them up
There is in some of my posts an element of reply to rabid supremacist drivel, of which you produce little to none, as i recall, for what it's worth .... but i don't wanna talk to those people, so you're it man -g- ...... cheers |
