This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
Dunserving wrote:I read your post and I also read the rules.
You claim that I have implied cowardice on the part of the US Navy and that I have implied that you are a liar.
I have done nothing of the kind and reject your comments abut me utterly. I do not imply anything - if I thought it then I would state it, unequivocally. And as I have not formally accused your navy of cowardice, nor you of lying, you may take it as read that I have made no allegation of any kind of that sort. My comments were written in English as it is learnt and understood by an Englishman born in London, and if your similar but different language leads you to have a different understanding to mine it's your problem not mine. Presumably your understanding of my words led you to make the troll allegation. I reject that utterly. I don't have any Scandinavian ancestry either. Almost certainly do have some French ancestry though.
For those reasons if you are waiting for an apology you will have a very long wait indeed. Marcus and the the other moderators have had over five weeks to react by either locking the thread or banning me, or both. They have done neither.
The "little ship" comment was entirely appropriate - surely the 18 gun Hornet could not be thought of as equal to the much bigger and more heavily armed Cornwallis? No need to cut any slack is there?
You wrote "But neither the British government nor the Honourable East India Company ever submitted a claim for damages with regard to HEICS Nautilus. That seems to indicate that they supported the Peacock's action in the sense that it was legitimate--which is was."
Surely the fact that neither our government nor the ships owners submitted a claim does not necessarily indicate that they supported the Peacock's actions? A legitimate action? Depends whose side you are on.
There are other possibillities, not the least of which is that it was really a very minor incident and perhaps hardly worth starting fighting or other financial/diplomatic conflict over? Did anyone important get hurt of killed? Was there any great financial cost or loss? Worth also remembering how many cargo ships never arrived at their destination in those days even in times of peace. The incident happened some 60 years before the Plimsoll Line, and I'm sure we all know why that got invented. A bit of damage to a fairly insignificant cargo vessel was hardly worth caring about compared to the losses in a typical peacetime year.
I'm not sure how your government would have felt about it had the situation been reversed, but it is pretty typical of British government to just let it go when it suited, regardess of right. The incident was worthy of a diplomatic spat, but hardly worthy of starting another conflict.
South wrote:Good morning Galahad,
I missed your above excellent post - until now.
A couple of comments;
Re: "never again did Britain seriously contemplate war on the US,..";
During the US Civil War, the USN captured 2 British diplomats aboard a Confererate vessel on the high seas. To abbreviate: HM Government sent 10,000 troops to Canada in preparation to protect British diplomats and et cetra. President Lincoln told his Admirals and Generals to hold off because = One war at a time is enough. = or something reported like this. I forgot the specifics of this incident but the Civil War people here should be readily familiar with this incident.
Re: "Thirty years later that led to the War with Mexico,..";
"Manifest Destiny" was planned much earlier. The expulsion of a Spanish presence was coupled to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. What the Hades were Captains Lewis and Clark doing with their flaura and fauna survey party on the Pacific Coast in 1805?! "Oh, the sea, the joy".
Re the US War of 1812,;
The Brits were involved in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. London's main concern was protecting their West Indies markets by American raiders. This was the main reason the Brits blockaded US ports. This did damage US commerce but it was a secondary matter with the West Indies protection being of primary importance.
Again, great post.
David Thompson wrote:Gentlemen -- Our rules prohibit personal remarks about other posters, so avoid them in discussions of historical events. Our readers come here for sourced information about the topic, not extraneous flame-bait or personal notions about unrelated matters. Consider this a thread warning.
Ken McCanliss wrote:By the way, that the Red River Valley was ceded to the United States and the 49th Parallel
agreed upon as the boundary was accomplished by the Treaty of 1818 (also known as the
London Convention), and not by the Treaty of Ghent.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests