The War of 1812

robini123 · Mar 24, 2013

gabriel1 said: ↑

make it worth my while
Click to expand...

LOL, now that was predictable. You obviously are not here for debate so I am off to find someone who is.

gabriel1 · Mar 24, 2013

robini123 said: ↑

LOL, now that was predictable. You obviously are not here for debate so I am off to find someone who is.
Click to expand...

I wont debate with someone that has no knowledge of the subject. you take a night school course in constitutional monarchy systems of government and we'll see.

Doug_yvr · Mar 28, 2013

robini123 said: ↑

A very interesting difference in perspective that I have noticed has to do with the War of 1812. As an American I was taught that the war was a push to break the last remaining vestige of British rule in the region. Here in Canada the War of 1812 is seen as the war where Canada kicked Americas ass. Not sure why Canadians see it this way given the fact that Canada was not a country in 1812, Canada became a Nation in 1867.
Click to expand...

We see no distinction between those earlier settlers and ourselves as Canadians. They were our forefathers, not 'the British'.

In fact Canadians took up arms against the British years after the War of 1812 themselves.
Click to expand...

We did not. We remained loyal to the crown and even today Queen Elizabeth II is our Head of State.

gabriel1 · Mar 28, 2013

Doug_yvr said: ↑

We see no distinction between those earlier settlers and ourselves as Canadians. They were our forefathers, not 'the British'.

We did not. We remained loyal to the crown and even today Queen Elizabeth II is our Head of State.
Click to expand...

americans have little understanding of how a constitutional monarchy works

gabriel1 · Mar 28, 2013

gabriel1 said: ↑

americans have little understanding of how a constitutional monarchy works
Click to expand...

and they would certainly not understand the difference between rebelling against the family compact and rebelling against the crown!!

Diuretic · Mar 29, 2013

I bet the Queen isn't that popular in Quebec.

Doug_yvr · Mar 29, 2013

Diuretic said: ↑

I bet the Queen isn't that popular in Quebec.
Click to expand...

No, she is not.

JBG · Mar 31, 2013

robini123 said: ↑

A very interesting difference in perspective that I have noticed has to do with the War of 1812. As an American I was taught that the war was a push to break the last remaining vestige of British rule in the region. Here in Canada the War of 1812 is seen as the war where Canada kicked Americas ass. Not sure why Canadians see it this way given the fact that Canada was not a country in 1812, Canada became a Nation in 1867. In fact Canadians took up arms against the British years after the War of 1812 themselves.

Why do many Canadians think America had a gripe with Canada when it seems obvious to me that our beef was with Great Britain.
Click to expand...

Without reading the rest of the thread (and yes I am American) I would conclude that the bravery of the (soon to be) Canadians started the ball rolling towards nationhood. They certainly proved that they had the makings of nationhood.

They fought the encroaching Americans fiercely and bravely. While the war was itself a draw, the only places the Americans really did well for themselves was where they were fighting actual British forces (such as the Battle of New Orleans). The Americans did not acquit themselves so well against the Canadians near Detroit or around York (now known as Toronto). In fact their performance was pathetic.

Moi621 · Jun 16, 2024

Wow!
And none of the above remember
Louis Riel and his legitimate contributions

Jolly Penguin · Jun 18, 2024

Moi621 said: ↑

Wow!
And none of the above remember
Louis Riel and his legitimate contributions

View attachment 249667
Click to expand...

Odd thread necromancy.

Jolly Penguin · Jun 18, 2024

The main, and probably the only reason that Canadians remember the war of 1812 is because "we" (while being British and before Canada was it's own country) burned the whitehouse down, making us I think the only ones who ever did that to what many years later is now the world's greatest superpower.

No, it makes no sense. But it is funny and kind of a twisted point of pride. It isn't taken seriously, and more something to poke fun at our American friends with. Kind of like a mouse taking down an elephant.

Canadians and Americans have long had a big brother / little brother energy going. Teasing each other, but ultimately such close allies that it is more like family.

"They ran so fast they forgot to take their culture"

DennisTate · Aug 3, 2024

robini123 said: ↑

A very interesting difference in perspective that I have noticed has to do with the War of 1812. As an American I was taught that the war was a push to break the last remaining vestige of British rule in the region. Here in Canada the War of 1812 is seen as the war where Canada kicked Americas ass. Not sure why Canadians see it this way given the fact that Canada was not a country in 1812, Canada became a Nation in 1867. In fact Canadians took up arms against the British years after the War of 1812 themselves.

Why do many Canadians think America had a gripe with Canada when it seems obvious to me that our beef was with Great Britain.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent question......

back in 1812 the memories of how elitists in London were scheming against Americans were much more clear and fresh than they are now in 2024.

Do we Canadians owe America an apology for 1750 - 1783?

?
Do Canadians and Brits owe America an apology for our ignorance in 1750 -1783?

No.... Canada did not even exist until 1867.
8 vote(s)
16.0%

*
Yes..... if we had been more well informed we would have supported USA independence.
7 vote(s)
14.0%

No..... America should still be a part of the British Empire.
3 vote(s)
6.0%

No.... we are not responsible for what our ancestors do.
32 vote(s)
64.0%

Change Your Vote

Alain Pilote, The History of Banking Control in The United States.....
..."
Click to expand...

The happiest population

Benjamin Franklin

We are in 1750. The United States of America does not yet exist; it is the 13 Colonies of the American continent, forming “New England”, a possession of the motherland, England. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the population of that time: “Impossible to find a happier and more prosperous population on all the surface of the globe.” Going over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, Franklin was asked how he accounted for the prosperous conditions prevailing in the Colonies, while poverty was rife in the motherland:

“That is simple,” Franklin replied. “In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

The English bankers, being informed of that, had a law passed by the British Parliament prohibiting the Colonies from issuing their own money, and ordering them to use only the gold or silver debt-money that was provided in insufficient quantity by the English bankers. The circulating medium of exchange was thus reduced by half.

“In one year,” Franklin stated, “the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”

Then the Revolutionary War was launched against England, and was followed by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. History textbooks erroneously teach that it was the tax on tea that triggered the American Revolution. But Franklin clearly stated:

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament: which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England, and the Revolutionary War.”

The Founding Fathers of the United States, bearing all these facts in mind, and to protect themselves against the exploitation of the International Bankers, took good care to expressly declare, in the American Constitution, signed at Philadelphia, in 1787, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 5:

“Congress shall have the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof.”

The bank of the bankers

Alexander Hamilton

But the bankers did not give up. Their agent, Alexander Hamilton, was named Secretary of Treasury in George Washington's cabinet, and advocated the establishment of a federal bank to be owned by private interests, and the creation of debt-money with false arguments like: “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing... The wisdom of the Government will be shown in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and dangerous an expedient as issuing its own money.” Hamilton also made them believe that only the debt-money issued by private banks would be accepted in dealing abroad.

Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, was strongly opposed to that project, but President Washington was finally won over by Hamilton's arguments. A federal bank was thus created in 1791, the “Bank of the United States”, with a 20 years' charter. Although it was termed “Bank of the United States”, it was actually the “bank of the bankers”, since it was not owned by the nation, but by individuals holding the bank's stocks, the private bankers. This name of “Bank of the United States” was purposely chosen to deceive the American population and to make them believe that they were the owners of the bank, which was not the case. The charter for the Bank of the United States ran out in 1811, and Congress voted against its renewal, thanks to the influence of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson:

Andrew Jackson

“If Congress,” Jackson said, “has a right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”

Thus ended the history of the first Bank of the United States. But the bankers did not play their last card.

The bankers launch the war
Nathan Rothschild, of the Bank of England, issued an ultimatum: “Either the application for the renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.” Jackson and the American patriots did not believe the power of the international moneylenders could extend so far. “You are a den of thieves-vipers,” Jackson told them. “I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out!” Nathan Rothschild issued orders: “Teach these impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to Colonial status.”

The British Government launched the War of 1812 against the United States. Rothschild's plan was to impoverish the United States through this war to such an extent that the legislators would have to seek financial aid... which, of course, would be forthcoming only in return for the renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States. Thousands were killed, but what does that matter to Rothschild? He had achieved his objective; the U.S. Congress granted the renewal of the Charter in 1816.

Abraham Lincoln is assassinated

Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, under the promise of abolishing the slavery of the blacks. Eleven southern States, favourable to the human slavery of the black race, then decided to secede from the Union, to withdraw from the United States of America: that was the beginning of the Civil War (1861–1865). Lincoln, being short of money to finance the North's war effort, went to the bankers of New York, who agreed to lend him money at interest rates varying from 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln refused, knowing perfectly well that this was usury and that it would lead the United States to ruin. But his money problem was still not settled!

His friend in Chicago, Colonel Dick Taylor, came to his rescue and put the solution to him:

“Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes, and pay your soldiers with them, and go ahead and win your war with them also.”

This is what Lincoln did, and he won the war: between 1862 and 1863, in full conformity with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln caused $450 million of debt-free Greenbacks to be issued, to conduct the Civil War. (These Treasury notes were called “Greenbacks” by the people because they were printed with green ink on the back.)

Lincoln called these Greenbacks “the greatest blessing the American people have ever had.”A blessing for all, except for the bankers, since it was putting an end to their racket, to the stealing of the nation's credit and issuing interest-bearing money. So they did everything possible to destroy these Greenbacks and sabotage Lincoln's work. Lord Goschen, spokesman of the Financiers, wrote in the London Times (Quote taken from Who Rules America by C. K. Howe, and reproduced in Lincoln Money Martyred by Dr. R. E. Search):

“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. That Government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” (The monarchy of the money lenders.)

First, in order to cast discredit on the Greenbacks, the bankers persuaded Congress to vote, in February of 1862, the “Exception Clause”, which said that the Greenbacks could not be used to pay the interest on the national debt, nor to pay taxes, excises, or import duties. Then, in 1863, having financed the election of enough Senators and Representatives, the bankers got the Congress to revoke the Greenback Law in 1863, and enact in its place the National Banking Act. (Money was then to be issued interest-bearing by privately-owned banks.)

This Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes. Lincoln heatedly protested, but his most urgent objective was to win the war and save the Union, which obliged him to put off till after the war the veto he was planning against this Act and the action he was to take against the bankers. Lincoln nevertheless declared:

“I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. And of the two, the bankers are my greatest foe.”

Lincoln was re-elected President in 1864, and he made it quite clear that he would attack the power of the bankers, once the war was over. The war ended on April 9, 1865, but Lincoln was assassinated five days later, on April 14. A tremendous restriction of credit followed, organized by the banks: the currency in circulation in the country, which was, in 1866, $1,907 million, representing $50.46 for each American citizen, had been reduced to $605 million in 1876, representing $14.60 per capita. The result: in ten years, 56,446 business failures, representing a loss of $2 billion. And as if this was not enough, the bankers reduced the per capita currency in circulation to $6.67 in 1887!

William Jennings Bryan: “The banks ought to get out”
Click to expand...

Are Elitist in London still promoting Neo-Malthusian Economic Philosophy?

Yes.....

.. and they love the Al Gore Carbon Tax Theory......

it is the perfect excuse to reduce the population of this earth down from eight billion to two or three billion people!

Did you know that one of Mr. Al Gore's favourite professors was a part of a group who wanted to link the supply and price of oil to the fiat currencies of the world?

Did you know that a Carbon Tax accomplishes exactly that.... even while APPEARING to go against BigOil?????!!!!!

Why Big Oil conquered the world

DennisTate said: ↑

I am listening to this and agree with the major points so far.

This is well done.......
and interesting.....

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why...syqxWxFYvIDcHQgFoumZur0HUD9EtzQa0lU0yXFGEa4P4

Why Big Oil Conquered the World
Click to expand...

DennisTate · Aug 3, 2024

Jolly Penguin said: ↑

The main, and probably the only reason that Canadians remember the war of 1812 is because "we" (while being British and before Canada was it's own country) burned the whitehouse down, making us I think the only ones who ever did that to what many years later is now the world's greatest superpower.

No, it makes no sense. But it is funny and kind of a twisted point of pride. It isn't taken seriously, and more something to poke fun at our American friends with. Kind of like a mouse taking down an elephant.

Canadians and Americans have long had a big brother / little brother energy going. Teasing each other, but ultimately such close allies that it is more like family.

"They ran so fast they forgot to take their culture"
Click to expand...

Wow.... I had pretty much forgotten about that intriguing detail?????!!!!!

Now I could be wrong......

but a Ms. Betty Krawczyk has me convinced that extremely intelligent Neo-Malthusian philosophers in Europe......

used then Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau to keep all Canadians........... in what could well be termed Debt Slavery.......

largely in order to be able to pull off the same rather dark magic trick on ninety nine point nine percent of Americans........

Yes... what P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau did dampened and slowed down the economy of Canada by causing the national debt to APPEAR to spiral out of control......

but I believe that the real targets were the citizens of the United States???!!!

[ Ms. Betty Krawczyk "

https://bettysearlyedition.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-pierre-trudeau-turned-us-into-debt.html

HOW PIERRE TRUDEAU TURNED US INTO DEBT SLAVES
Click on the link above to watch Part 3 of my video series on the Canadian Banking System. Please also read accompanying text below.
Trudeaumania was just gearing up when I immigrated to Canada in late 1966. I, too, was impressed with Trudeau. He was intelligent, articulate, with liberal ideas. And as Prime Minister, Trudeau repatriated the Canadian Constitution and told the morals’ police to stay out of people’s bedrooms. But then…but then. As Anthony’s famous speech in Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar reminds us… “the evil that men do live after them while the good is often interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.”

But somehow this worked backward for Trudeau. Many Canadians still think highly of Pierre Trudeau, but in 1974 he did one terrible thing that changed the lives, for present and future, of all Canadians, for the worse. Trudeau gave the leading operations of the Bank of Canada over to the private banks operating in Canada.

The Bank of Canada was first established by Prime Minister Richard Bennet in 1935 as a private central bank, but was then nationalized by William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1938. By nationalizing the bank, Mackenzie King meant for it to belong to the people so the Canadian government could borrow funds with little or no interest for capital expenditures. The mandate of the newly nationalized Bank of Canada was to act as the banker to the government and to manage the public debt. As Mackenzie King famously said: “Once a nation parts with the control of their currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked. The Canadian government built freeways, public transportation systems, subway line, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway and funded a national health care system and the Canada Pension Plan. But then Trudeau, under the influence of the international financial group called Basel’s
Committee’s Recommendations (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision) made the decision to halt the borrowing of money from the Bank of Canada, and instead, chose to borrow from the private banks who instead of lending to the government at no interest, or low interest, introduced higher interest rates along with compound interest.

All banks know very well the magic of compound interest. And Pierre Trudeau must have known that the mounting compounded national debt would lead to Canadians eventually owing a dollar fifty for every dollar of their disposable incomes. After all, he studied economics at the London School of Economics. Surely the professors there knew about compound interest.

So Pierre Trudeau, instead of feeling blessed that Canada, unlike the US, had a nationalized central bank, signed our bank away to the private banks. Couldn’t Trudeau, such an educated man, surmise that citizens in a few years would be struggling to make car payments and meet rent and mortgages and student loans and to buy healthy food while last year’s profits for the big five (that’s Royal Bank, TD Bank, Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal and CIBC amounted to $31.7 billion?) If he did, he didn’t care. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It really doesn’t. Our Bank of
Canada is still there. Next time." (Ms. Betty Krawczyk)
Click to expand...

The graphs of how both the Canadian as well as the USA national debt spiralled seeming out of control since 1974 hints that what

would seem to be one of the most colossal errors ever made by a sitting Canadian Prime Minister.....

may have been something of an Opening Gambit in a much larger plan?????

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ion-dollars-per-month.618227/#post-1074763215

My plan to pay off the deficit at the rate of twenty billion dollars per month?

DennisTate said: ↑

After P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau's colossal error here is how the national debt of
Canada spiralled out of control:

My guess is that he was pressured into doing this so that the same thing could be
arranged in the USA:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ashington-swamp-from-the-ottawa-swamp.551407/

Can we learn about the Washington Swamp from the Ottawa Swamp?

?
Does the Ottawa Swamp and the Washington Swamp have the common denominator of ELITISM?

NO
2 vote(s)
22.2%

*
YES
6 vote(s)
66.7%

I am not sure but this is an intriguing theory that I may research further?????
1 vote(s)
11.1%

Change Your Vote

And both images can be seen here:

https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/the-public-debt-problem?/plenty34.htm
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

The War of 1812

robini123 Well-Known Member

gabriel1 New Member

Doug_yvr Well-Known Member Past Donor

gabriel1 New Member

gabriel1 New Member

Diuretic Well-Known Member

Doug_yvr Well-Known Member Past Donor

JBG Well-Known Member

Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The War of 1812

robini123 Well-Known Member

gabriel1 New Member

Doug_yvr Well-Known Member Past Donor

gabriel1 New Member

gabriel1 New Member

Diuretic Well-Known Member

Doug_yvr Well-Known Member Past Donor

JBG Well-Known Member

Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches