Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 16 Aug '14 15:44
    1814-The British Empire burned the White House.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

    1859- USA fought with the British Empire side by side.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taku_Forts#Second_Opium_War

    Blood was not always thicker than water and 45 years does not seem that long to me. Why did the USA fight along with the British Empire to take the Taku Forts?
  2. 16 Aug '14 16:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    1814-The British Empire burned the White House.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

    1859- USA fought with the British Empire side by side.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taku_Forts#Second_Opium_War

    Blood was not always thicker than water and 45 years does not seem that long to me.
    Why did the USA fight along with the British Empire to take the Taku Forts?
    It may be of interest that at least some Catholic Irish people had more
    sympathy for the Chinese than for the British during the Opium Wars.

    In _The Fatal Shore_ Robert Hughes (an Australian) wrote that, when they
    heard of the Opium Wars, many Catholic Irishmen (including convicts) in
    Australia were sympathetic toward the Chinese, regarding them as another
    victim of British imperialist aggression. Indeed, a few Irishmen (convicts),
    who were ignorant of geography, even seriously attempted to run away
    from British custody to China! These Irishmen expected the Chinese to
    treat them kindly as soon as the Irishmen would disclose that they opposed
    the British and could be willing to help the Chinese fight against the British.
    None of these Irishmen ever succeeded in fleeing to a safe haven in China.
  3. 16 Aug '14 16:41
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    It may be of interest that at least some Catholic Irish people had more
    sympathy for the Chinese than for the British during the Opium Wars.

    In _The Fatal Shore_ Robert Hughes (an Australian) wrote that, when they
    heard of the Opium Wars, many Catholic Irishmen (including convicts) in
    Australia were sympathetic toward the Chinese, regarding them as a ...[text shortened]... against the British.
    None of these Irishmen ever succeeded in fleeing to a safe haven in China.
    That is interesting. I never did understand why religion matters so much to some people and why it is worth fighting and killing for.

    Do you have any idea why the USA would have an interest in helping the British Empire in 1859? The French helped too, but I don't know when they started helping the British Empire. Do you have any idea when the French first fought side by side with the British?
  4. 16 Aug '14 17:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    That is interesting. I never did understand why religion matters so
    much to some people and why it is worth fighting and killing for.

    Do you have any idea why the USA would have an interest in helping the British Empire in 1859? The French helped too, but I don't know when they started helping the British Empire. Do you have any idea when the French first fought side by side with the British?
    I don't believe that some Catholic Irish were sympathetic toward China in
    the Opium Wars because they assumed that the Chinese were fellow Catholics.
    I suspect that these Catholic Irish distrusted British propaganda justifying
    the British attacking China because they already had learned to distrust
    British propaganda justifying whatever the British did in Ireland.

    When the Xhosa, who were opposed to the British in South Africa, heard of
    the Crimean War, their sympathies immediately went toward the Russians.
    Indeed, many Xhosa jumped to the conclusion that the Russians were a
    black people who would come to help liberate them from British oppression.

    "Do you have any idea why the USA would have an interest in helping the
    British Empire in 1859?"
    --Metal Brain

    The USA was officially neutral in the war between the British and Chinese.
    Josiah Tattnall disobeyed his orders (violating US neutrality) by taking up
    arms alongside the British against the Chinese. He should have faced a
    court-martial, but there was much racist anti-Chinese sentiment in the USA.

    "Do you have any idea when the French first fought side by side with the British?"
    --Metal Brain

    First of all, I make a distinction between the 'British' and the 'English'.
    As I recall, the War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720) against Spain
    was the first time that the French and the British fought as allies.
    Earlier, the 1657 Treaty of Paris made France (led by King Louis XIV) and
    England (led by Oliver Cromwell) allies against Spain.
  5. 16 Aug '14 18:12
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I don't believe that some Catholic Irish were sympathetic toward China in
    the Opium Wars because they assumed that the Chinese were fellow Catholics.
    I suspect that these Catholic Irish distrusted British propaganda justifying
    the British attacking China because they already had learned to distrust
    British propaganda justifying whatever the British did ...[text shortened]... made France (led by King Louis XIV) and
    England (led by Oliver Cromwell) allies against Spain.
    "The USA was officially neutral in the war between the British and Chinese.
    Josiah Tattnall disobeyed his orders (violating US neutrality) by taking up
    arms alongside the British against the Chinese. He should have faced a
    court-martial, but there was much racist anti-Chinese sentiment in the USA."

    Okay. Let's assume Tattnall really did disobey orders. What was the second time that the USA fought side by side with the British Empire?

    "First of all, I make a distinction between the 'British' and the 'English'.
    As I recall, the War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720) against Spain
    was the first time that the French and the British fought as allies.
    Earlier, the 1657 Treaty of Paris made France (led by King Louis XIV) and
    England (led by Oliver Cromwell) allies against Spain."

    After I posted my last reply I had a feeling I should have been more specific because I did not specify the timeline. I should have asked when the first time France fought side by side with the British Empire since Napoleon's defeat after Waterloo.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    16 Aug '14 18:17 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "The USA was officially neutral in the war between the British and Chinese.
    Josiah Tattnall disobeyed his orders (violating US neutrality) by taking up
    arms alongside the British against the Chinese. He should have faced a
    court-martial, but there was much racist anti-Chinese sentiment in the USA."

    Okay. Let's assume Tattnall really did disobey ord ...[text shortened]... time France fought side by side with the British Empire since Napoleon's defeat after Waterloo.
    Crimean War vs the Russians

    Discussion of period swords vs Russian greatcoats:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P7GiZ08D5M&t=1m45s
  7. 16 Aug '14 18:22
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    I should have asked when the first time France fought side by side with the British Empire since Napoleon's defeat after Waterloo.
    Possibly the Crimean War (1853-1856).
  8. 16 Aug '14 18:24
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "The USA was officially neutral in the war between the British and Chinese.
    Josiah Tattnall disobeyed his orders (violating US neutrality) by taking up
    arms alongside the British against the Chinese. He should have faced a
    court-martial, but there was much racist anti-Chinese sentiment in the USA."

    Okay. Let's assume Tattnall really did disobey ord ...[text shortened]... time France fought side by side with the British Empire since Napoleon's defeat after Waterloo.
    By the late 19th to early 20th century, there were signs of improving relations
    between the United States and the British Empire. For examples, the British
    declined to support Spain during the Spanish-American War, and the USA
    declined to support the Boer republics during the Anglo-Boer War.
    As far as I can recall, American and British soldiers did not fight 'side by
    side' until after the USA entered (1917) the First World War.

    After the Battle of Waterloo (1815), the British and French became allies
    in the Crimean War (1853-1856) against Russia.
  9. 16 Aug '14 18:41
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    By the late 19th to early 20th century, there were signs of improving relations
    between the United States and the British Empire. For examples, the British
    declined to support Spain during the Spanish-American War, and the USA
    declined to support the Boer republics during the Anglo-Boer War.
    As far as I can recall, American and British soldiers did no ...[text shortened]... loo (1815), the British and French became allies
    in the Crimean War (1853-1856) against Russia.
    Have you seen the documentary called "The Money Masters- How International bankers gained control of America"?

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-money-masters/

    Why did France have an interest in fighting alongside the British Empire in the Crimean War against Russia?
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    16 Aug '14 18:45 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Have you seen the documentary called "The Money Masters- How International bankers gained control of America"?

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-money-masters/

    Why did France have an interest in fighting alongside the British Empire in the Crimean War against Russia?
    French Catholic vs Russian Orthodox religious conflict

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War#The_immediate_causes_of_the_war

    The immediate chain of events leading to France and Britain declaring war on Russia on 27 and 28 March 1854 came from the ambition of the French emperor Napoleon III to restore the grandeur of France. He wanted Catholic support that would come his way if he attacked Eastern Orthodoxy, as sponsored by Russia. The Marquis Charles de La Valette was a zealous Catholic and a leading member of the "clerical party" which demanded French protection of the Roman Catholic rights to the holy places in Palestine. Napoleon appointed La Valette in May 1851 as his ambassador to the Porte (the Ottoman Empire). The appointment was made with the intent to force the Ottomans to recognise France as the "sovereign authority" over the Christian population. Russia disputed this attempted change in authority. Pointing to two more treaties, one in 1757 and the 1774 Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, the Ottomans reversed their earlier decision, renouncing the French treaty and insisting that Russia was the protector of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    16 Aug '14 18:52 / 2 edits
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America

    The idea that a part of the Americas has a linguistic affinity with the Romance cultures as a whole can be traced back to the 1830s, in the writing of the French Saint-Simonian Michel Chevalier, who postulated that this part of the Americas was inhabited by people of a "Latin race", and that it could, therefore, ally itself with "Latin Europe" in a struggle with "Teutonic Europe", "Anglo-Saxon America" and "Slavic Europe"...

    The term Latin America was supported by the French Empire of Napoleon III during the French invasion of Mexico* as a way to include France among countries with influence in America and to exclude Anglophone countries and played a role in his campaign to imply cultural kinship of the region with France, transform France into a cultural and political leader of the area, and install Maximilian of Habsburg as emperor of the Second Mexican Empire. This term was also used in 1861 by French scholars in La revue des races Latines, a magazine dedicated to the Pan-Latinism movement.


    *This is what Cinco de Mayo is about, not independence from Spain
  12. 16 Aug '14 19:37
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    That is interesting. I never did understand why religion matters so much to some people and why it is worth fighting and killing for.

    Do you have any idea why the USA would have an interest in helping the British Empire in 1859? The French helped too, but I don't know when they started helping the British Empire. Do you have any idea when the French first fought side by side with the British?
    Almost all great wars have had a basis in religion. Complete control over people almost always involved the tribal chief and the priest or medicine man. Just a quick check of ongoing hostilities reveals a strong religious component in most.
  13. 16 Aug '14 19:45
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Have you seen the documentary called "The Money Masters- How International bankers gained control of America"?

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-money-masters/

    Why did France have an interest in fighting alongside the British Empire in the Crimean War against Russia?
    As early as the founding, the issue of a national bank became central, and with it the link monetarily to the British. Always control of an artificial currency leaves bankers as masters of the universe.
  14. 16 Aug '14 20:17
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    French Catholic vs Russian Orthodox religious conflict

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War#The_immediate_causes_of_the_war

    The immediate chain of events leading to France and Britain declaring war on Russia on 27 and 28 March 1854 came from the ambition of the French emperor Napoleon III to restore the grandeur of France. He wanted ...[text shortened]... nsisting that Russia was the protector of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire.
    Why did the USA fight in WW1? Why was it in the USA's interest?
  15. 16 Aug '14 20:21
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Why did the USA fight in WW1? Why was it in the USA's interest?
    Woodrow Wilson's vision was one world government, starting with the League of Nations. The US had to be in the war to be at the table in the end when huge patches of lands would be divided up, and new nations formed.