I've gotten another jury summons

[rah]

You implied that living at the time, experiencing it first hand (marches in our town and hearing them speak) and watching the news on TV and reading papers couldn't possibly provide me with expertise on a subject that is only possible by studying it after the fact in text books is equally silly and laughable.

[Ben Kenobi]

You implied that living at the time, experiencing it first hand (marches in our town and hearing them speak) and watching the news on TV and reading papers couldn't possibly provide me with expertise on a subject that is only possible by studying it after the fact in text books is equally silly and laughable.

Not at all. You implied that you had knowledge of segregation in the South because you happened to be alive at the time. When pressed, you confessed that you had no actual first-hand experience.

[Ban Kenobi]

Interestingly enough, Canada is still the US' largest trading partner. As Britain and the Empire was through the 50s. I'd be hard pressed to find a time when the number one trading partner of the US wasn't Britain or part of the Empire.

The war of 1812, was just a skirmish - Britain was far more heavily involved in the Peninsular war at the time.

It's not "just a skirmish" from an American perspective- any war in which the capital is captured and burned is not "just a skirmish". How anyone could claim the US was "close" to Britian while British troops were destroying the White House is beyond my imagination.

Uh, yes it does, given as they sided with George during the Revolutionary war, and sided against Yankee republicanism both times. I thought your argument was that the South favored authoritarianism.

The South didn't side with George- all of the Southern states chose to declare independence. Major leaders like Washington were from the South. My argument from the beginning has been that Americans aren't monarchists. Where did I claim anything about the South supporting authoritarianism?

Flags have meaning. They Kept the White and the Blue cross of St. Patrick and St. Andrew. The largest demographic in the south was Scotch-Irish.

Being Scots-Irish doesn't automatically make you a monarchist so what exactly is your point?

My loyalty is to the Crown, less so to the present dynasty. The Crown predates the Hanoverians. Elizabeth derives her authority through the Crown and through the Act of Settlement, by which the Crown was vested by Parliament on the descendents of Electress Sophia. At present there are still 2 superior lines of descent. Both Catholic.

Eventually the Act of Settlement will be repealed and Catholics will be able to come to the throne again.

Sure it will.... and if a Catholic ever does take the throne the US will still be a republic.

Texas is one of two states where you'll see a substantial proportion of non-Yankee Catholics as a percentage of the population. It's unsurprising that when most Americans are Protestant that you'd see support for Republicanism here. You also don't have the animosity here towards the English Crown.

Mexican-Americans aren't monarchists either. Other than an insane history teacher from Canada, no monarchists living in Texas spring to mind.

[kentonio]

Not at all. You implied that you had knowledge of segregation in the South because you happened to be alive at the time. When pressed, you confessed that you had no actual first-hand experience.

How does..

The town I grew up in was an example case in textbooks about how blacks were denied housing, when I was younger.

..equate to 'no actual first-hand experience' you *****?

[rah]

I read about it almost daily in the newspapers and saw similar aspects of segregation in my own town. I say that counts a hell of a lot more than your relying on what you read in books.

I'd think a history major would appreciated that.

And I'm not even going to go into your knowledge of Jesus.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The South didn't side with George- all of the Southern states chose to declare independence. Major leaders like Washington were from the South. My argument from the beginning has been that Americans aren't monarchists. Where did I claim anything about the South supporting authoritarianism?

There is also the fact that in the War of 1812, it was the NorthEast who refused to fight against Britain, while the South and "West" (midwest now) were pro-war. The Federalists in the NorthEast were pro-Britain and the Democratic-Republicans in the South were pro-French.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not "just a skirmish" from an American perspective- any war in which the capital is captured and burned is not "just a skirmish".

What, you captured London? It was a colonial war, and Britain devoted more to the Peninsular war than they ever did to Canada.

How anyone could claim the US was "close" to Britian while British troops were destroying the White House is beyond my imagination.

Umm, the fact that in every year in the 19th century aside from those 4, Britain was the firmest ally of the US?

The South didn't side with George- all of the Southern states chose to declare independence. Major leaders like Washington were from the South.

They were from Virginia. Washington was from Alexandria in Fairfax County. Just on the other side of the Potomac. That's as 'Southern' as Missouri.

My argument from the beginning has been that Americans aren't monarchists. Where did I claim anything about the South supporting authoritarianism?

And my argument is that Texas has a unique relationship with the Monarchy not borne by any other states, save perhaps Louisiana.

Being Scots-Irish doesn't automatically make you a monarchist so what exactly is your point?

Just the opposite. It makes you less likely to be a monarch because the Scotch Irish are presbyterians and republicans.

Sure it will.... and if a Catholic ever does take the throne the US will still be a republic.

And then it will look less strange. As for a monarch, the US has had monarchs before - look at FDR.

Mexican-Americans aren't monarchists either. Other than an insane history teacher from Canada, no monarchists living in Texas spring to mind

Catholics, again, aren't big supporters of the Republic. Even in TX, the majority are still protestant.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is also the fact that in the War of 1812, it was the NorthEast who refused to fight against Britain, while the South and "West" (midwest now) were pro-war. The Federalists in the NorthEast were pro-Britain and the Democratic-Republicans in the South were pro-French.

The Northeast refused to fight because it was Jackson's war. They stood to lose a ton of money in trade with Britain. Tariffs again, were part of the issue - and the mercantile interests in the Northeast had no reason to go to war. The west and south wanted land in the Ohio valley.

[Ben Kenobi]

equate to 'no actual first-hand experience' you *****?

First hand experience would be things actually witnessed. This is a basic historical theory. Rah's first hand observations are more reliable than his recollections on reading second hand sources (which makes him a tertiary source).

[Ben Kenobi]

I read about it almost daily in the newspapers and saw similar aspects of segregation in my own town. I say that counts a hell of a lot more than your relying on what you read in books.

Sure, what you actually witnessed in Illinois is significant. But it still doesn't make you any more of an authority than me on southern segregation.

I'd think a history major would appreciated that.

It's important to draw distinctions between secondary and primary sources, rah.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Considering Andrew Jackson didn't become President until 1829 and only came into national prominence due to the Battle of New Orleans at the END of the War of 1812 (actually after the Treaty of Ghent was signed), I doubt they considered it "Jackson's War"

[rah]

First hand experience would be things actually witnessed. This is a basic historical theory. Rah's first hand observations are more reliable than his recollections on reading second hand sources (which makes him a tertiary source).

So you knowledge of god is not very reliable then?

[Ben Kenobi]

Considering Andrew Jackson didn't become President until 1829 and only came into national prominence due to the Battle of New Orleans at the END of the War of 1812 (actually after the Treaty of Ghent was signed), I doubt they considered it "Jackson's War"

Jackson was one of the loudest voices for War. Especially against Tecumseh and the Indian allies of the British for territorial expansion westward. The mercantile interests in New England, didn't want to jeopardize the largest trade relationship. If anything - the war was directed by the Americans more at the Indian allies than at the British.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you knowledge of god is not very reliable then?

I'm honest enough to refer people to historical sources of people who were there to witness Jesus Christ. I've never stated, as you have - that you should believe something because I was alive to see it, and especially not for things that I read and didn't witness.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jackson was one of the loudest voices for War. Especially against Tecumseh and the Indian allies of the British for territorial expansion westward. The mercantile interests in New England, didn't want to jeopardize the largest trade relationship. If anything - the war was directed by the Americans more at the Indian allies than at the British.

So "Mr. Madison's War" was actually Jackson's War and that's why the NE wanted out. Suuuuuure.