Butthurt guy whines about Canada's warship names

[jimmy olsen]

Is it possibly Madison and others would have decided to keep Canada if the invasion had gone well? Sure. It's also possible the New England states in a fit of anger at the Mid-Atlantic and Southern warmongering and animosity with Britain broke away and formed their own country. It's possible Texas becomes a dependency of Britain or that William the Conqueror falls off his horse and dies on the way to Hastings. But that's just speculative, and cannot be derived from facts. The facts we do have only point to using Canada as a bargaining chip. Everything else is "well, I think this would have happened if this had happened."

Fixed

[crazy canuck]

I pat myself on the back for this thread.

You did well.  I have been entertained.

[Tonitrus]

The Pig War was a far more vital American/Canadian conflict.

[crazy canuck]

The Pig War was a far more vital American/Canadian conflict.

Your just saying that because the Americans won that round - in litigation.... 

[Jacob]

Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century?

It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?

[Berkut]

Repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century?

It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?

Of course it is, since they were not wars, and there weren't any foreign nations to conquer in "repeated wars of conquest for the entire 19th century".

[Eddie Teach]

I wouldn't classify protecting squatters from being killed by absentee landlords as a "war of conquest" 

[Admiral Yi]

It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?

About half of it was won through purchase and the other half was won through the Mexican American War. 

[PDH]

It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?

About half of it was won through purchase and the other half was won through the Mexican American War.

That does conveniently forget that there were numerous brush wars with the people already there who refused to accept that Mexico, another tribe, or whomever could sell their lands.  Whole Great Plains business, along with the Snake/Columbia River stuff at least gives some strength to the war of conquest narrative - at least in part.

[Berkut]

It's how the West was won, wasn't it? Ethnic cleansing backed up by military force? Is it a mischaracterization to describe it as a war of conquest?

About half of it was won through purchase and the other half was won through the Mexican American War.

That does conveniently forget that there were numerous brush wars with the people already there who refused to accept that Mexico, another tribe, or whomever could sell their lands.  Whole Great Plains business, along with the Snake/Columbia River stuff at least gives some strength to the war of conquest narrative - at least in part.

It's one of those things where there is just enough of a shred of similarity to allow someone to pretend like it was basically the same thing as Napoleon marching into Austria.

Of course, it is utter rubbish in any honest discussion. But then, people who make such claims are not generally much interested in that.

[Admiral Yi]

That does conveniently forget that there were numerous brush wars with the people already there who refused to accept that Mexico, another tribe, or whomever could sell their lands.  Whole Great Plains business, along with the Snake/Columbia River stuff at least gives some strength to the war of conquest narrative - at least in part.

The Great Plains Business doesn't fit the war of conquest template at all.  You should know that better than most folks.

[PDH]

That does conveniently forget that there were numerous brush wars with the people already there who refused to accept that Mexico, another tribe, or whomever could sell their lands.  Whole Great Plains business, along with the Snake/Columbia River stuff at least gives some strength to the war of conquest narrative - at least in part.

The Great Plains Business doesn't fit the war of conquest template at all.  You should know that better than most folks.

A series of campaigns by the military to stake out various strategic terrain in several decades, though really 1850s-1870s for the main work, followed by movement of peoples away from traditional lands after the military actions were dying down strikes me as (in part, I noted) wars of conquest.

As Berk notes, it is not Napoleon marching through Austria, it is rather more like the conquests of ancient period.

[PDH]

That does conveniently forget that there were numerous brush wars with the people already there who refused to accept that Mexico, another tribe, or whomever could sell their lands.  Whole Great Plains business, along with the Snake/Columbia River stuff at least gives some strength to the war of conquest narrative - at least in part.

It's one of those things where there is just enough of a shred of similarity to allow someone to pretend like it was basically the same thing as Napoleon marching into Austria.

Of course, it is utter rubbish in any honest discussion. But then, people who make such claims are not generally much interested in that.

It is more like the conquests of the Ancient World, to be honest.  Though set in the 19th century, it was conquest in the mold of Dacia rather than Austria.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm puzzled as to which ancient wars of conquest were fought to ensure unmolested transit.

[PDH]

I'm puzzled as to which ancient wars of conquest were fought to ensure unmolested transit.

If you believe that was what the struggles on the Great Plains (and the Columbia River drainage) was about you have read some slanted works.  The actions concerning the Oregon Trail and later railroads in regions like future Wyoming were not the driving force of the military actions (and trail protection was indeed part of the this region's actions).  Instead, it was the military presence due in part to settlement and economic concerns that drove the conquest.

The military presence in mining regions, settlement areas (often not according to treaties), and along the West Coast in the period from 1850-1865 bears the hallmark of military campaigns of subjugation followed by garrison and reprisals to ensure control of the region.  Utley, no hysterical claimant of genocide or the like acknowledges that they were military campaigns of conquest - conquest because of the settlement and movement of Europeans, not some fanatical military or government policy to put the Indian away.

The plains was more than the Oregon Trail, though that narrative of Whites just moving through and being attacked is as useful now as it was then.