(July 31, 2012 at 11:55 am)Shell B Wrote: Lots of people had slaves back then. It does not make Andrew Jackson less of a good leader. George Washington had slaves.No. I never said that the Battle of New Orleans changed the tide of the war. I said that the four day naval battle at Fort Meigs changed the tide of the war. Yes. I knew that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after a treaty had already been signed but neither General Packenham or Andrew Jackson knew that since news hadn't reached them yet. The Battle of New Orleans was still significant since it thwarted British hopes of stopping America's expansion westward beyond the Mississippi River.
A Theist, I wonder if you knew that the Battle of New Orleans, which you seem to think changed the tides of the war, was fought after both sides had agreed to a treaty. Yeah, war was already over. The message just hadn't got to Jackson yet.
(July 31, 2012 at 11:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: I have to give a nod to the British in this as well, in the end, their troubles with the colonies just weren't worth as much as it cost them. If the British wanted to legitimately crush the States at any point in the first hundred years or so of their existence, if they were committed to doing so completely, they could have easily done so. I guess it just wasn't topping any lists of priorities.
That is not true at all. They were struggling financially because they had themselves stretched so thin with France. It was a priority, particularly during the American Revolution. Letters between governors here and members of Parliament/the King there, make that pointedly clear. They just didn't have the resources. The same went for the War of 1812. They relied on the resources (people) of Canada to even get a "who knows who won?" on that one.
"Inside every Liberal there's a Totalitarian screaming to get out"
Quote: JohnDG...
Quote: JohnDG...
Quote:It was an awful mistake to characterize based upon religion. I should not judge any theist that way, I must remember what I said in order to change.