History questions not worth their own thread IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
it's like American historiography is getting almost as bad as Canadian historiography :(

I would be very interested in a trash talking session over Canadian historiography. If only because, despite being Canadian, I know next to no details of our history, and nobody ever really talks about it*.



*Except for that whole "burned down the White House" episode, which wasn't us at all.
 
Well, I'm viewing the Gordon Wood book I have on my shelf a little more suspiciously now. Michael Holt doesn't seem to be a fan of the Jacksonian Democrats, but that's after the D-Rs split.
 
Well, this'll trigger an interesting rant, but I'll bite: What's wrong with the Democratic-Republicans and Canadian historiography?
more like, what's right with the Republicans

seriously.

ideologically, the party was one of the most hypocritical in American history. it takes real obliviousness to rail against the tyranny of a law that resulted in the imprisonment of a few dozen newspaper editors during a time of national crisis, while then implementing a law that forced Americans at gunpoint to commit economic suicide for no good reason, allowed a massive expansion of the bureaucracy, and made the whole warrantless search thing fashionable for the first time in American history; one need only look at the Republicans if one has any doubt that loose constructionism is only ever deployed as a cynical political tactic to forestall policies one disagrees with, not as a principled stand in favor of small government

look at Jefferson's so-called principled stands, like his vaunted egalitarian treatment of foreign emissaries, which when you got down to it mostly consisted of looking like a slob and insulting an ambassador's wife at a dinner party, ruining the poor woman's evening because he supposedly wanted to make a point about egalitarianism (read: because she was British)? yeah, these are real marks of the new democratic man, we can definitely ignore freaking slavery for this stuff

in terms of foreign policy, the Republicans were incapable of not defecating in the bed. the whole Citizen Genet affair was about a foreign power that was, at that point, violating American neutrality and attacking American sailors on the high seas, openly backing a party in an American general election. when they actually did seize the Presidency - and "seize" is the most apt description of the so-called Revolution of 1800, a non-democratic affair that changed virtually nothing except the ruling party and that resulted purely from the party machine machinations (har) of Aaron Burr - they continued to blatantly support France, from backing Napoleon's invasion of Haiti to giving Napoleon cash essentially for free to help him in his renewed war with Britain (that the Americans got Louisiana out of it has nothing to do with the Republicans and the benefits of same had little to do with them either) to instituting an American Continental System in line with Napoleon's own in 1807 to freaking participating in Napoleon's general offensive in 1812

it is utterly unconscionable that what was at that point supposedly the freest polity on Earth backed Europe's most despicable tyrant in his war on civilization. if the Americans had somehow managed to take Canada, they would have still 'lost' the war because Napoleon would have gained by their participation, and when Napoleon gained, everybody else lost
What. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions are da Bob-omb! And on a serious note its not like the Federalist were any better, they practically invented the smear campaign... (in the U.S.)
the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves were so radical in the eyes of most of even the Republican state legislatures that no other state endorsed them; even of the ideologues who supported them, only Jefferson's position came remotely close to the doctrine of nullification (Madison explicitly rejected it)

so: Southerner predisposed to view anything even sort of vaguely in line with Southern secessionist stuff as a Good Thing views something very vaguely in line with same as a Good Thing...in other news, erstwhile pope took dumps in woods
There's only so many books you can fill about being America's hat.
EXACTLY.

the weirdest thing about Canadian historiography is that it's mostly fine on domestic affairs, it's just that Canadian historians suffer from Tiny Country Syndrome whenever they talk about Canada in comparison with the rest of the world, which is funny because, you know, Canada actually is reasonably large and prosperous, unlike, say, Poland
 
the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves were so radical in the eyes of most of even the Republican state legislatures that no other state endorsed them; even of the ideologues who supported them, only Jefferson's position came remotely close to the doctrine of nullification (Madison explicitly rejected it)

so: Southerner predisposed to view anything even sort of vaguely in line with Southern secessionist stuff as a Good Thing views something very vaguely in line with same as a Good Thing...in other news, erstwhile pope took dumps in woods

Well Excuuuuuse me Princess, I guess I'll take my John C. Calhoun and sit in the corner :lol:. And just because I like to fight for my idealized notion of secession doesn't mean you should group me with the other CSA loons on cfc.
 
Dachs forgot to mention that the Jeffersonian Republicans (and particularly Jefferson) supported General Wilkinson as the head of the US Army despite the whole bribery thing and effectively imposing martial law in New Orleans to cover up his involvement in Aaron Burr's schemes. Seriously, this guy was a paid agent of the Spanish crown for years (with instructions to weaken American fortifications in Louisiana and pass military information to the Spanish with the intent of recovering the territory for Spain), and the evidence was pretty damn obvious (obvious enough to warrant some investigation) except to those who averted their eyes because it was politically convenient.

Fun fact: I started searching for some books that might have a more critical look at the Jeffersonian Republican party, and this thread is the second thing to come up under "Jefferson-worshipping historians"--the first is a book by Linda Kerber from the 1980s which seems to levy the same criticism Dachs has.
 
the weirdest thing about Canadian historiography is that it's mostly fine on domestic affairs, it's just that Canadian historians suffer from Tiny Country Syndrome whenever they talk about Canada in comparison with the rest of the world, which is funny because, you know, Canada actually is reasonably large and prosperous, unlike, say, Poland

The thing abou Canada is that while it is reasonably prosperous on global standards, the ineveitable comparison is always with the US. Due to geographical proximity and historical and cultural similarities, it pretty much always ends in a comparison with the US. It is like the 6 foot tall person in a family where everyone is 7 feet tall complaining he is short.

Toss in the importance that not being American has always had in Candian culture, and therefore finding ways Canada is better than the US, and you can get quite the mess.
 
What. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions are da Bob-omb! And on a serious note its not like the Federalist were any better, they practically invented the smear campaign... (in the U.S.)

It's worth distinguishing between the Virginia Resolution (Madison) and the Kentucky Resolution (Jefferson). Jefferson pretty much argued nullification. Madison argued for Interposition, which is essentially a state passing a law saying "Hey, buy the way, this is unconstitutional. We should petition Congress to repeal the law, have an election, or pass a Constitutional amendment." It's also worth noting their objections to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Madison hated it because he thought it violated the First Amendment. Jefferson focused on the 10th Amendment. He just didn't want the Federal government suppressing rival political speech. As President, he encouraged state governments to prosecute their own seditious libel cases.

As for why the Democratic-Republicans are popular. First, the Federalists, while right in some areas, were clearly wrong in others, which made them contrary to popular sentiment in our country. This meant they lost quickly and didn't do much that could be praised. Second, the Republicans mitigated the harshness of their stances. By the late Madison administration and, certainly by the Monroe administration, they brought prosperity to the country and adopted the better policies of the Federalists without the harshness and while carefully preserving a balance between state and federal that was acceptable to the electorate at the time. If the complaint about the administration is confined to the Jefferson and Madison administrations, you at least have the Louisiana Purchase.
 
There's only so many books you can fill about being America's hat.

America is Canada's pants. :cool:

the weirdest thing about Canadian historiography is that it's mostly fine on domestic affairs, it's just that Canadian historians suffer from Tiny Country Syndrome whenever they talk about Canada in comparison with the rest of the world, which is funny because, you know, Canada actually is reasonably large and prosperous, unlike, say, Poland

You should read Pierre Berton's Marching as to War. A fine narrative on how Canadian involvement was absolutely critical during the Boer War, First and Second World Wars, and Korean War. Hell, we were even called "the peaceable kingdom" by the outside world until the Boer War, according to Berton. :mischief:
 
I've noticed that the Canadian contribution in the Dieppe Raid is also glorified for some reason despite how it turned out.
 
I've noticed that the Canadian contribution in the Dieppe Raid is also glorified for some reason despite how it turned out.

Well, most often it is either brought up saying how horrible the British planners were throwing away colonials (and conveniently ignoring that the Canadian government and high command pressured the British to use Canadian troops, so that they could get into action against Germany before the Americans, of course) or sometimes as a heroic defeat narrative with the Canadians going on what was effectively a suicide mission. You don't see people calling it a success. It is also pretty hard to blame the troops when the whole plan.
 
I've noticed that the Canadian contribution in the Dieppe Raid is also glorified for some reason despite how it turned out.

I wouldn't say glorified. It tends to come up a lot, but that's because it holds a pretty big place among the national conscience as The Time A Lot Of Us Died, Also It Was Britain's Fault*. Though somewhat surprisingly Hong Kong doesn't come up much at all, despite being your classic last stand sort of situation.

*That said, I'm curious as to whether there's any current revisionism around the raid these days. I've heard some theories that, despite it being a general cock up, the raid was in fact targeting important crypto stuff. I've never heard much more than that, but it seems plausible now that the documents might finally be nearing declassification.

If you want a battle Canadians love to glorify (pretty justifiably as far as I know), look no further than Vimy Ridge.
 
I suppose the Australians and New Zealanders have Gallipoli. It's weird, though I think. It's not like the Indians are falling over themselves to celebrate the Siege of Kut. And the South Africans never really seemed quite gung-ho about the stuff they got up to in Tanzania and Namibia.

It's interesting though, aisde from the Alamo, which is more of a Texan thing I'm not sure the US really glorifies many battles it lost. Maybe some of the civil war battles....
 
In Catalonia we glorify the Fall of Barcelona in the 11th September 1714, which marked the full incorporation to Spain under the laws of Castille. Hell, its our national holiday. Like 4th July to Muricahns.
 
I don't know about you, but I don't celebrate the fall of Barcelona. I celebrate the resistance of Barcelona. Black flag forever!
 
It's interesting though, aisde from the Alamo, which is more of a Texan thing I'm not sure the US really glorifies many battles it lost. Maybe some of the civil war battles....
Bataan and, to a certain extent, Bastogne.
 
I don't celebrate any national holidays or saints' days and living in Britain, there's more than enough of them! I don't even know on which days James VI succeeded to the English throne, the Act of Union was passed or so on.
 
In Catalonia we glorify the Fall of Barcelona in the 11th September 1714, which marked the full incorporation to Spain under the laws of Castille. Hell, its our national holiday. Like 4th July to Muricahns.

A strange thing to celebrate... it's a bit like what the Serbs have with Kosovo Polje, I guess.
 
Do Andalucians celebrate the capture of Granada? I really have no idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom