Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

In 1815 We Took A Little Trip

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    Throwing off oppression by an evil empire.
    a.k.a. seceding.

    I know this may be hard for some to believe but there were a number of people who preferred to stay with the evil empire. They wanted to remain subjects of the crown i.e. British. A fair number of their descendants wanted it that way way right up until at least the 1940's.

    Nope. I was just pointing out the fallacy of the question.
    OK since this obviously is just going to go into a loop, I'll state the obvious...

    Both the United Empire Loyalists and the person in my hypothetical question cannot be considered traitors because they do not fall under the definition of one.

    "one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" - Marriam-Webster

    Since the UEL's always consider themselves British subjects and never became Americans or vowed to support their cause then who did they betray?

    And yes we know Arnold fits the definition.

    Comment


    • #77
      my maternal grandmothers side were loyalists..........they fled to Nova scotia during the revolution. They filtered back to new York right around 1900.......guess they figured things had cooled down by then.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Canuckster View Post
        a.k.a. seceding.

        I know this may be hard for some to believe but there were a number of people who preferred to stay with the evil empire. They wanted to remain subjects of the crown i.e. British. A fair number of their descendants wanted it that way way right up until at least the 1940's.
        Nonsense. Unless you can show that the populations of occupied countries were given a change to vote on the subject...

        We have but to look to the annuals of the British Army to see the truth: the Indian Mutiny, the various wars by Afghanis to throw out their oppressors, the American Revolution, the Zulus' bloody efforts to keep their freedom, the Boers' struggle to avoid being taken, the Irish's centuries-long quest for freedom, all just to name a few.

        All across your former occupied territories monuments stand hailing those people who fought against you as heroes.

        The Empire was carved out by the sword, held together with bayonets, and finally collapsed when the locals would tolerate no more.

        Don't try to sell the 'white man's burden' to a native.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post
          my maternal grandmothers side were loyalists..........they fled to Nova scotia during the revolution. They filtered back to new York right around 1900.......guess they figured things had cooled down by then.
          That's neat-a well-traveled family. Do you know when they came to North America?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
            Nonsense. Unless you can show that the populations of occupied countries were given a change to vote on the subject...
            Apparently, those loyalists who left the USA and moved to British territory voted with their own feet.

            Don't try to sell the 'white man's burden' to a native.
            Both the loyalists' skin and the first citizens' of the USA skin was white, all of them were colonists and squatters to the real natives of North America. And no, the British did not allow the natives to vote on whether they wanted to remain independent from them - the USA didn't, either.

            All across your former occupied territories monuments stand hailing those people who fought against you as heroes.
            Sure. There are a couple of monuments in Samar and Ho Chi Minh City, too, commemorating local heroes. So? What's the relevance? While the heroes wanted independence, some of the locals in those places, at the time, believed they were better off under the current rule. So did the loyalists in North America.
            Michele

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Michele View Post
              Apparently, those loyalists who left the USA and moved to British territory voted with their own feet.

              Both the loyalists' skin and the first citizens' of the USA skin was white, all of them were colonists and squatters to the real natives of North America. And no, the British did not allow the natives to vote on whether they wanted to remain independent from them - the USA didn't, either.

              Sure. There are a couple of monuments in Samar and Ho Chi Minh City, too, commemorating local heroes. So? What's the relevance? While the heroes wanted independence, some of the locals in those places, at the time, believed they were better off under the current rule. So did the loyalists in North America.
              What he said.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Michele View Post
                Apparently, those loyalists who left the USA and moved to British territory voted with their own feet.
                Definitely not a majority.


                Originally posted by Michele View Post
                Both the loyalists' skin and the first citizens' of the USA skin was white, all of them were colonists and squatters to the real natives of North America. And no, the British did not allow the natives to vote on whether they wanted to remain independent from them - the USA didn't, either.
                Do you have a point?


                Originally posted by Michele View Post
                Sure. There are a couple of monuments in Samar and Ho Chi Minh City, too, commemorating local heroes. So? What's the relevance? While the heroes wanted independence, some of the locals in those places, at the time, believed they were better off under the current rule. So did the loyalists in North America.
                It goes to establish how the majority of the locals viewed the occupiers.

                We are seeing the same thing in post-USSR Eastern Europe; there are several threads on that topic. The locals destroyed or dragged off the monuments to the Red Army, and put up new ones devoted to their own heroes.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Canuckster View Post
                  What he said.
                  Good. I just demolished his efforts, so you saved me a post.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Canuckster View Post
                    What he said.
                    It's hard to think of a revolution that didn't have refugees. All political stripes were traitors at some point during the French Revolution. The White Russians fought on for years. Dissenting from an ideology or a form of government if they leave that country can hardly be termed traitorous.

                    BTW, the Loyalist and the local population around Halifax didn't get along very well, hence the creation of New Brunswick out of Nova Scotia in 1789. Nova Scotia wanted rid of them. So New Brunswick is made up of French people who refused to give their allegiance to the king, and English people who refused to relinquish their allegiance to the king. Same king. Both groups traitors.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      Definitely not a majority.
                      Nobody claimed that.


                      Do you have a point?
                      Sure, that your reference to natives is irrelevant at best, a strawman at worst. Sorry to have to spell it out so bluntly.


                      It goes to establish how the majority of the locals viewed the occupiers.
                      The point is not who was in the majority or minority - obviously. The point was who couldn't be called a traitor. People who decide not to rise up in arms against their own government are traitors if they are in the minority?

                      You pointed out that the USA do not allow states to secede, and there was a war about that.
                      If majority is important, then what would happen if 27 states of the USA decided to secede? Or enough states to account for 51% of the total population of the USA? Who could be called loyal and who could not? The ones who remain loyal to the rightful federal government, though they are a minority? Or the others?
                      Michele

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                        You can take a running jump with that idea.
                        To be fair, my views make me a traitor to the UK, rather than a Scottish patriot. I can live with either definition.

                        While your point about Washington is well-founded, sometimes circumstances require a different approach, and I'd say that the US certainly gained the right to say who were traitors and who were patriots. Agreeing with them is another matter entirely.
                        Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by the ace View Post
                          To be fair, my views make me a traitor to the UK, rather than a Scottish patriot. I can live with either definition..
                          Chill mate, the UK is not a single country but an abstract grouping of 4 separate nations (England/Scotland/Wales/N.Ireland), so nobody can be a traitor to an abstract grouping..
                          Real traitors are traitors to their own born-and-bred country, and as you're a Scottish patriot you're not a traitor.
                          Same with the wretched EU which is a grouping of Euro countries, me and millions more Brits voted to leave it but that doesn't make us traitors..

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            That's neat-a well-traveled family. Do you know when they came to North America?
                            It gets real fuzzy.........various relatives have done lots of digging......one of my cousins recently died and my mother gave me all her research. One paper she had claims the maternal side had a land grant given by the king of England sometime in the mid 1650's...........who knows.....you put all of our ancestors together. we are mostly mutts. Got some pictures looks to be from new York city in the teens or twenties no captions or even if they are relatives......one of a big dude on a horse {mounted cop}supposedly we had a couple of cops in the family..........The shame of it all......

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Michele View Post
                              Nobody claimed that.
                              Nice backpedal. No one claimed 100%, either.

                              Originally posted by Michele View Post
                              Sure, that your reference to natives is irrelevant at best, a strawman at worst. Sorry to have to spell it out so bluntly.
                              So non-whites are irrelevant at best?

                              Welcome to ignore. I have no time for racists.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by jeffdoorgunnr View Post
                                It gets real fuzzy.........various relatives have done lots of digging......one of my cousins recently died and my mother gave me all her research. One paper she had claims the maternal side had a land grant given by the king of England sometime in the mid 1650's...........who knows.....you put all of our ancestors together. we are mostly mutts. Got some pictures looks to be from new York city in the teens or twenties no captions or even if they are relatives......one of a big dude on a horse {mounted cop}supposedly we had a couple of cops in the family..........The shame of it all......


                                I'd be embarrassed by a family member in NYPD, too.

                                Still, a neat story.

                                My wife's uncle did some digging into their past and found an ancestor who took part in Pickett's charge (and lived). He was in one other major battle (that can be documented), but I don't recall which one. I want to say Antietam, but I'm not sure. He served in the same infantry company for the duration and never rose above private. Enlisted in his 30s.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X