302. Wombat - Feb. 5, 1999 - 7:18 AM PT
Dark Violet:
Napoleon acquired the Louisiana territory when he ejected the Bourbons from Spain and installed his brother Joseph as king. After the catastrophic attempt to defeat Toussant L'Overture's uprising in Haiti, and facing almost nonstop continental wars, Napoleon decided that selling the Louisiana territory made much more sense than attempting to sustain a colony in the face of British naval supremacy and US expansionism.
Spain was long past its economic and military prime. The Napoleonic wars would devastate it further. All of Spain's American colonies rebelled in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, and Spain was unable to keep them.
The British threat was greatly diminished after 1815, and with the occasional blip, British and US interests usually coincided after that.
303. darkviolet - Feb. 5, 1999 - 12:35 PM PT
Wombat -
"The British threat was greatly diminished after 1815..."
But the British threat was substantial before that, given the circumstances leading up to the War of 1812. The first decade of the 19th century seems to have been an incredibly volitile time in world history. The interdependent web of decisions and events isn't simple.
304. verdeazul - Feb. 5, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
Gutenberg:
("Read it and weep...").
v~
305. Wombat - Feb. 5, 1999 - 1:34 PM PT
Dark Violet:
Bear in mind that the British were also very heavily involved on the continent (Europe) during that time frame. Most of the War of 1812 was fought in Canada by the forces the British had on hand, with little hope of reinforcement.
Had Lewis and Clark failed to reach the Pacific, other expeditions would have. This is not to denigrate Sacagawea's role in the success of the expedition, which, as you point out, was central.
306. Mrtoner - Feb. 5, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
Hey, this is fun and all, and harmless, but ...is it just me, or is this the most totally useless, ridiculously pretentious discussion of the millennium?
307. darkviolet - Feb. 5, 1999 - 3:22 PM PT
Mrtoner -
Compared to what?
Do you know enough about history to declare with resonable confidence who the most significant figures in this millenium have been?
308. darkviolet - Feb. 5, 1999 - 3:24 PM PT
That much knowledge of history may be totally useless. I'm undecided.
309. jkuzmak - Feb. 5, 1999 - 4:44 PM PT
Re:292
I don't have a hard time imagining someone else coming off the steppe and doing what Gengis did if he had not done it. Although the mongols had no civilization they did have this special combination of military hardware (the compound bow), their horses, and their tactics. A pure war machine with nothing to protect. Was Gengis, alone responsible for the development of this war machine? The tactics? The compound bow? If not Gengis, why not someone else? I don't know? I'm asking.
310. jkuzmak - Feb. 5, 1999 - 5:19 PM PT
Have checked some books, and discovered that that rascal God was working for the Mongols. Gengis Khan, on the eve of his departure from the steppe on his first campaign, emerged from the tent where he had communed with heaven, to proclaim to his people, "Heaven has promised me victory."
311. jkuzmak - Feb. 5, 1999 - 5:30 PM PT
Anyway, I guess I'm wrong. Apparently, the "horse people" had been a bother for a long period of time, Attilla and others, but Genghis was something special.
312. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 5, 1999 - 6:20 PM PT
Kuzmak: Genghis Khan did what no other Turko-Mongol nomad had done before -- unite the warring tribes and galvanise them for conquest. Try René Grousset, _The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia_. It's about all the horse people, from the Scythians & the Huns all the way down to the Mongols and the Manchus.
313. jkuzmak - Feb. 6, 1999 - 6:35 AM PT
Thank you, Erasmus.
[You know what I find fascinating, Erasmus, is the exchange of myths and mythical terminology in [pre -{mytho concious history} HISTORY]].
Now there is a damn good shot of post modernism for you.
314. darkviolet - Feb. 6, 1999 - 7:09 PM PT
/*
The Golden Horde, descendants of Genghis Khan's great army, wreaked havoc across Eastern Europe from the 13th to the 15th centuries. The Horde was a mixture of Mongols and Turkic people who hooked up with the Mongol military machine. Collectively, they became known as Tartars.
Led by Batu Khan, grandson of Genghis, the Golden Horde crossed the Ural River in 1237 on a campaign of pillaging, killing and destruction. They razed several cities, including Moscow, and killed the inhabitants, the did the same in Poland and Hungary.
In camp, Batu pitched a yellow embroidered silken tent, which gave the Golden Horde its name.
The Golden Horde continued to extort tribute from the Russion princes into the 15th century. Then the gand duke of Moscow, Ivan III, known as Ivan the Great, defied the Horde and effectively put and end to its power.
*/
315. darkviolet - Feb. 6, 1999 - 8:12 PM PT
hhmmmm....
++++++++
The deciding motive for war of 1812 seems to have been a strong desire for more territory...
A group of young men known as "War Hawks" dominated Congress during this period. Henry Clay of Kentucky and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina were the outstanding leaders of the group...
Many historians believe that a leading motive of the War Hawks was a desire for expansion. The people of the Northwest were meeting armed resistance in their attempt to take more land from the Indians, and they believed that the Indians had considerable British support. An American army was attacked by Indians at the Battle of Tippecanoe in the Wabash Valley in November, 1811, and British guns were found on the battlefield...
++++++++
Would the published journals of Lewis and Clarks expedition have fueled the War Hawks confidence?
316. darkviolet - Feb. 6, 1999 - 8:28 PM PT
Also, something must have made the British believe they could get away with impressing American sailors before the war and burning Washingon D.C. during the war. They must not have believed that the competition for territory on the North American continent was futile.
/*
Great Britain, with a large contempt for the weakness of the United States, assumed, rather than claimed, the right to stop our merchant vessels on the high seas, to examine the crews, and to claim as her own any British sailors among them...
To such an extent was this insult to our flag carried that our Government had the record of about forty-five hundred cases of impressment from our ships between the years of 1803 and 1810; and when the War of 1812 broke out the number of American sailors serving against their will in British war vessels was variously computed to be from six to fourteen thousand...
(Footprints of Four Centuries, or, The Story of the American People, by Hamilton W. Mabie and Marshal H. Bright Publ. ca 1897)
*/
317. Ronski - Feb. 9, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
Before this thread's demise, I vote for a sentimental favorite: Tom Paine.
318. BTerry - Feb. 9, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
Ronski, Re Message #317:
Hmmmmmm.... Not bad. How about Adam Smith?
319. Mrtoner - Feb. 10, 1999 - 6:43 AM PT
I think this thread has done demised.
320. phillipdavid - Feb. 10, 1999 - 7:52 AM PT
darkviolet,
The "War Hawks" were more interested in taking British territory than taking land from the Indians. They were interested in taking Canada, and thus the rich fur trade, from Britian.
Interesting tidbit: The battle of Tippacanoe was where William Henry Harisson made a name for himself -- by defeating the great Indian leader Tecumseh (who organized the various tribes into the Red Stick Confederacy in an attempt to stop white expansion onto Indian lands).
Ever since Tecumseh's death, there has been a "curse" that has hurt American presidents. Twenty years after Tecumseh's death, Harrisson became president and promptly died in office. Every twenty years or so thereafter an American president has suffered from Tecumseh's curse.
321. Raskolnikov - Feb. 10, 1999 - 8:00 AM PT
except that curse seems to have lifted. Reagan was supposed to die in office from the curse, and didn't (although an argument could be made for brain death).
USA - successful Presidential assassination-free since 1963!
322. darkviolet - Feb. 10, 1999 - 5:31 PM PT
phillipdavid –
Re: Message #320
“The ‘War Hawks' were more interested in taking British territory than taking land from the Indians. They were interested in taking Canada, and thus the rich fur trade, from Britain.”
Historical notes I'm finding about the War Hawks do mention their strong expansionist motivations, however.
Events that seem widely considered to have been the origins of the war start in the Spring of 1803 when Napoleon renewed war on England, precisely when Lewis and Clark's expedition was funded.
By the time Lewis and Clark returned to St. Louis, the U.S. had already issued the Nonintercourse Act prohibiting trade with Britain and France and the war was practically underway.
I haven't found any explicit mention of the success of the Corp of Discovery in speeches made by the War Hawks promoting war with Britain, it does seem likely that the successful crossing of the continent emboldened the Americans to take on a potentially loosing battle. It does look like the British could have won the war of 1812 had a few things gone differently.
323. darkviolet - Feb. 10, 1999 - 5:34 PM PT
Campaigns of 1812-13 :
U.S. forces were not ready for war, and American hopes of conquering Canada collapsed in the campaigns of 1812 and 1813. The initial plan called for a three-pronged offensive: from Lake Champlain to Montreal; across the Niagara frontier; and into Upper Canada from Detroit. The attacks were uncoordinated, however, and all failed. In the West, Gen. William HULL surrendered Detroit to the British in August 1812; on the Niagara front, American troops lost the Battle of Queenston Heights in October; and along Lake Champlain the American forces withdrew in late November without seriously engaging the enemy.
American frigates won a series of single-ship engagements with British frigates, and American privateers continually harried British shipping. The captains and crew of the frigates CONSTITUTION and United States became renowned throughout America. Meanwhile, the British gradually tightened a blockade around America's coasts, ruining American trade, threatening American finances, and exposing the entire coastline to British attack.
American attempts to invade Canada in 1813 were again mostly unsuccessful. There was a standoff at Niagara, and an elaborate attempt to attack Montreal by a combined operation involving one force advancing along Lake Champlain and another sailing down the Saint Lawrence River from Lake Ontario failed at the end of the year. The only success was in the West. The Americans won control of the Detroit frontier region when Oliver Hazard PERRY's ships destroyed the British fleet on Lake Erie (Sept. 10, 1813). This victory forced the British to retreat eastward from the Detroit region, and on Oct. 5, 1813, they were overtaken and defeated at the battle of the Thames (Moraviantown) by an American army under the command of Gen. William Henry HARRISON. In this battle the great Shawnee chief TECUMSEH, who had harassed the northwestern frontier since 1811, was killed while fighting on the British side.
324. darkviolet - Feb. 10, 1999 - 5:35 PM PT
Campaigns of 1814
In 1814 the United States faced complete defeat, because the British, having defeated Napoleon, began to transfer large numbers of ships and experienced troops to America. The British planned to attack the United States in three main areas: in New York along Lake Champlain and the Hudson River in order to sever New England from the union; at New Orleans to block the Mississippi; and in Chesapeake Bay as a diversionary maneuver. The British then hoped to obtain major territorial concessions in a peace treaty. The situation was particularly serious for the United States because the country was insolvent by the fall of 1814, and in New England opponents of the war were discussing separation from the Union. The HARTFORD CONVENTION that met in Connecticut in December 1814 and January 1815 stopped short of such an extreme step but suggested a number of constitutional amendments to restrict federal power.
The British appeared near success in the late summer of 1814. American resistance to the diversionary attack in Chesapeake Bay was so weak that the British, after winning the Battle of Bladensburg (August 24), marched into Washington, D.C., and burned most of the public buildings. President Madison had to flee into the countryside. The British then turned to attack Baltimore but met stiffer resistance and were forced to retire after the American defense of FORT MCHENRY, which inspired Francis Scott KEY to write the words of the "Star-Spangled Banner."
In the north, about 10,000 British veterans advanced into the United States from Montreal. Only a weak American force stood between them and New York City, but on Sept. 11, 1814, American Capt. Thomas MACDONOUGH won the naval battle of Lake Champlain (Plattsburg Bay), destroying the British fleet. Fearing the possibility of a severed line of communications, the British army retreated into Canada.
325. darkviolet - Feb. 10, 1999 - 5:47 PM PT
Sacagawea coin
It's facsinating to think that a woman so obscure that her image on an American dollar spawned angry letters to newspaper editors all over the country by writers who had no idea who she was, may be one of the most important people of this millenium, possibly the only American woman who is arguably among the 100 most significant persons of the last 1000 years.
I'll bet there are people right here in the Fray who had never heard of her before I mentioned her name.
326. Jenerator - Feb. 10, 1999 - 5:58 PM PT
Speaking of names most people have not heard of before today, here's a few from the theology corner:
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Nicolas Ludwig von Zinzerdorf
Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples
Athenagoras of Athens
Basil of Caesarea
327. Jenerator - Feb. 10, 1999 - 6:00 PM PT
The last two are not from this millennium.
328. trouserpIlot - Feb. 10, 1999 - 8:12 PM PT
Noooo!
They can't RIP this thread!
I haven't had a chance to make my mark on the Millennium yet!
329. marjoribanks - Feb. 11, 1999 - 8:12 AM PT
Most people haven't heard of Wittgenstein? Maybe in Dallas.
BTW, the final votes are in for Official Fray Person of the Millennium held at my website and compiled by trouserpilot.
Mohandas Gandhi - 261
trouserpilot - 260
Indira Gandhi - 26
Nusrat F.A. Khan - 24
Imran Khan - 24 (tie)
Jemima Goldsmith-Khan 20
Genghis Khan - 18
Sonia Gandhi - Psocko
Congratulations to Gandhiji for pulling off that official Fray double. Better luck next millennium trouserpilot.
330. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 8:32 AM PT
God it was close!
331. trouserpIlot - Feb. 11, 1999 - 8:54 AM PT
Should Mohandas Gandhi be unable to perform his duties as Person of the Millennium for any reason, I am ready and willing to step in.
332. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 9:00 AM PT
Ghandi was also unable to perform his duties with the Mrs., or rather chose not to, after the death of his father, whom he did not attend to because he was preoccupied with his wife. I consider this renunciation of the flesh solely on the basis of guilt to be one of the man's very few flaws.
333. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 11, 1999 - 9:03 AM PT
Ronski! That's my #1 pet peeve. Get that "h" back where it belongs!
334. trouserpIlot - Feb. 11, 1999 - 9:13 AM PT
Ronksi, I may have to draw the line there.
335. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 9:35 AM PT
Oh, Irv, I am so ashamed.
As you might expect, I knew better, but was not thinking.
In all my travels I have tried to respect the proper spelling of people, places, and things, from Ganha to Genth.
336. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 11, 1999 - 9:40 AM PT
I know, Ronski. That's why I called you on it. And please spend more time in the Language thread... you add so much.
337. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 9:47 AM PT
Irv,
Thanks, and I will. I've enjoyed Language immensely, but some of the details have left my little head spinning, which is why I asked for a recap on analytic languages recently. I shall indeed return soon, when I have more time to concentrate on rereading many past posts there.
338. Jenerator - Feb. 11, 1999 - 12:12 PM PT
Marj,
I vote for no one on your list. Big surprise, I'm sure.
Btw, I didn't expect you to know who Wittgenstein was. Did PseudoErasmus suggest you read _Philosophical Investigations_ or something else related?
339. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT
Jenerator,
Wittgenstein is not an obscure figure.
340. Jenerator - Feb. 11, 1999 - 12:56 PM PT
True, but to Marj he should be.
341. marjoribanks - Feb. 11, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
Jenerator,
I was looking at Wittgenstein's books when you were making poo-poo into diapers. But then, you still are so what's the big news anyway.
342. Jenerator - Feb. 11, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
Where have you been Marj? I have been purposefully trying to pull you out of your cave.
343. marjoribanks - Feb. 11, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT
Jenerator,
Assuming Christ is included, why don't you make a list of the 20 or 50 or whatever Christians of the Millennium. Maybe that'd be vaguely interesting.
BTW, I vote for Gandhi in that list as well.
344. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 1:35 PM PT
marj,
I imagine that placing Gandhi among Christians is fitting because of Gandhi's saying, when asked what he thought of Christians, that he hadn't met any.
Or when asked about Western Civilization, saying, "That would be a good idea."
345. Jenerator - Feb. 11, 1999 - 1:48 PM PT
Hmmmmm,
Influential Christians from this Millennium....
A few that come to mind are (and no particular order)
Billy Graham
F.F. Bruce
John Macquarrie
Gregory Boyd
Metzger
Jaroslav Pelikan
Hans Urs Von Balthasar
Thomas Aquinas
Pope Pius IX
Mother Theresa
Martin Luther
John Calvin
Desiderius Erasmus
Charles Finney
Donald Mackay
Karl Barth
Emil Brunner
Charles Spurgeon
C.S. Lewis
John Wesley
William Penn
Charles Hodge
John Machen
Jonathan Edwards
John McLeod Campbell
346. DanDillon - Feb. 11, 1999 - 2:25 PM PT
Don't forget John Humphrey Noyes. He was nutty-cool!
347. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 2:30 PM PT
Jan Hus
Thomas a Kempis
John of the Cross
Teresa of Avila
Charles Wesley
Vincent de Paul
Teilhard de Chardin
John Wycliffe
Faustas Socinus
Ulrich Zwingli
348. Jenerator - Feb. 11, 1999 - 2:33 PM PT
How could I have left off Wycliffe!?
349. Jenerator - Feb. 11, 1999 - 2:35 PM PT
Ronski,
Are you a Reformation fan too? ( I am)
350. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 2:35 PM PT
He would forgive you.
351. Ronski - Feb. 11, 1999 - 2:37 PM PT
Jenerator,
Yes, but also a freethinker of sorts.
352. Jenerator - Feb. 11, 1999 - 2:38 PM PT
John Oecolampadius was pretty influential as well.
353. phillipdavid - Feb. 11, 1999 - 10:21 PM PT
I am feeling a little uneducated; I do not know who 9 of those people on jenerator's list are.
354. phillipdavid - Feb. 11, 1999 - 10:28 PM PT
Ronski,
Message #344
Gandhi said the reason he didn't become a Christian -- and he thought about it because he loved that "Lead, Kindly Light" -- was because most Christians took a little innoculation of religion as proof against the real thing. He didn't observe that Christians were truly Christlike -- they never had an internal revolution where God came out on top.
"I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself...Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless." (Louis Fisher's anthology on Gandhi)
355. garyhi - Feb. 11, 1999 - 11:10 PM PT
I think it's a stupid question. It's like asking who the most important ant was in the last thousand years. And do we really need all this fucking, does anyone want to comment on that?
356. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 11, 1999 - 11:17 PM PT
Welcome to the Fray, Gary!
357. darkviolet - Feb. 11, 1999 - 11:32 PM PT
garyhi -
I think it's an interesting question because trying to answer it forces me to understand the causes of everything that is important to me at the end of the millennium, so I better understand and appreciate what is important to me.
358. jkuzmak - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:21 PM PT
garyhi:
And who the fuck cares about them anyway. What are we gonna do.
359. RobertKier - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:25 PM PT
1. The person should have had a positive effect on today.
2. The person should have done what may never have been accomplished, or at least he should have accomplished it much sooner.
3. The industrial revolution is dramatically present everywhere and dramatically potent in its effects at the end of this millenium.
4. I think Isaac Newton's huge intellectual contribution to the understanding of universal gravitation, while inventing integral calculus, moved the enlightenment--a scientific humanistic political movement--substantially forward.
5. With the political liberalization of the enlightenment, the industrial revolution became possible.
6. Leibnez also is credited with the invention of calculus, but I don't believe he did the thorough work on gravitation that Isaac Newton did.
Issac Newton is my choice.
360. darkviolet - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:30 PM PT
RobertKier -
Re: point #1,
It's too difficult to agree on what historical effects on today are positive, it's easier to agree on what effects are significant.
I agree that Issac Newton is a highly significant person in this millennium.
361. bratmach1 - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:58 PM PT
To anwser such a weighty question, no one persons criteria for the most import person will work. Ergo, I suggest a "Composit" person made of the following:/Stalin,Mao,Martin Luther-makes up for all of the Popes together, the Islam scholar who has gleened the most of Allah's teaching such that Islam has been forwarded, a Rabbi on this order, Sir Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Mozart, Nelson Mandela-de Klerk, then back to Queen Elizabeth I, Lister(germ theory),Bismark. Politically, Gorbachev-the only politician who understood that by winning, he would lose his job, but helped his nation. Jonas Salk. Alfred Nobel. Marie Curie. And for the still alive American Presidents, Jimmy Carter-hands down favorite. President C. is not only one of the people who has taken on the Hecurlean task of runing the most powerful, and opinionated country on this planet, but never stopped helping out other people. Beyond all of this, he is simply a good guy. Has never stopped finding cool things to do in America. Good luck dear reader. Mike Kinsley-enjoy.
362. bottomfdr - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:36 PM PT
The most important person of the last thousand years? I don't know his or her name, but it's the person who invented duct tape.