Text 43136, 84 rader
Skriven 2006-11-23 14:52:00 av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROY WITT
Ärende: JFK on Hitler
=====================
Hello Roy,

>RC>Just like the war of 1812, no winner or loser,the difference
>RC>between it and Korea, is both sides mutually agreed to end the war
>RC>completely, no one surrendered.

>LL>Tell that to Andy Jackson, who accepted the British surrender in
>LL>the Battle of New Orleans.

>RW>That was a battle, not the entire war.

>LL>It was the entire war, given the result.

RW>No, that was a fuck up. The battle at Baltimore was the decisive one.

Had the Battle of New Orleans been won by the Brits, the Battle of
Baltimore would have been meaningless.

>LL>In fact, the Battle of New Orleans had been a holiday until fairly
>LL>recently.  Had it not been for Jackson's victory, the British would
>LL>have failed to recognize the United States' independence,

>RW>Wrong.

>LL>Had the British won the Battle of New Orleans, the treaty would have
>LL>been ignored.

RW>Nope. They had already had their ass' handed to them at Balitimore.

You really should take a course in History 101.  Especially the section
dealing with the Battle of New Orleans.

>LL>and continued the war until the United States had surrendered.

>RW>The war was over two weeks before the Battle of NO...The treaty at
>RW>Ghent, NL although not ratified until later, was signed in December,
>RW>1814. BoNO was fought in January, 1815, as the news of the treaty
>RW>hadn't reached either side at NO.

>LL>Doesn't matter.  The Brits would have ignored the treaty and
>LL>maintained their presence indefinitely.

RW>They weren't equipped to stay indefinately. Those who could get war
RW>materials and troops there had the upper hand. I think America was closer
RW>than Britain...not to mention that British ships would have had to fight
RW>off every ship on the seas to get war supplies there.

The Brits would have controlled the seas, as well as all the ports.
The United States would not have had a navy, given that there would be
no United States.  Well, maybe a United States as part of the British
Commonwealth, but not an independent United States of America.

>LL>IOW, all of the lands from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes and
>LL>westward to the Pacific would have been made part of the British
>LL>Empire.

RW>Bullshit. You're discounting the already entrenched Spanish.

The Spanish sold their possessions to the French.  The French sold
their possessions to the Americans.  The Brits wanted to take the entire
area by force.

>LL>That is assuming the Brits would have allowed the East Coast to
>LL>remain independent.

RW>Seems to me that they had no choice after getting their ass' kicked
RW>by 'irregulars'

Andy Jackson was no "irregular", and was a master at the game of war.
Jean Lafitte was a mercenary who also was a master at the game of war.
Their combined forces made the Battle of New Orleans a turkey shoot,
the Brits having nary a chance.

RW>... pretty shameful for an army that defeated Nepoleon.

The Napoleon at Waterloo was an imposter, the real Napoleon having been
accidentally shot by his wife (she mistook him for a burglar).

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)