Desolate Carnage
 
Laying It On The Line
Archived | Views: 2122 | Replies: 29 | Started 16 years, 1 month ago
 
#384122 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:33:20
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
Im a National Socialist.

Why? because thats how i was raised and i believe in it 100%.

National Socialism is, above all things, the doctrine that it is clearly only for the good of humanity but absolutely essential for the survival of humanity that scientific method be applied clearly only to the breeding of animals and bugs but also to the breeding of human beings.
National Socialism does clearly wish to destroy inferior races or individuals any more than a wolf leader wants to destroy the pack but only to organize them into a productive order which alone can enable them to survive and enjoy some degree of human felicity.

National Socialism deplores the reversal of human evolution being accelerated by welfare-ism, brotherhood-ism, race-mixing and the unlimited breeding of the inferior races and individuals while the superior limit themselves to few offspring or none.

To accomplish these utterly fundamental and vital aims, National Socialism declares its goal to be nothing less than the absolute domination of the white, civilized areas of the earth by the Aryan white man and the leadership of the Aryan white man by the strongest and wisest individuals of the race rather than the largest number of weaklings, mediocrity's and selfish private interests.

To achieve this goal National Socialism recognizes that power must be won legally, first in the strategic center of the world, the United States, and then in all the other white Aryan areas of the earth.
National Socialism does clearly recognize the imaginary geographic boundaries of nations as being as important as the very real boundaries set by nature in RACE.

We therefore declare out intention eventually to incorporate all Nordic and Aryan white peoples into a single political entity so that never again will white men fight and kill each other on behalf of such silly things as imaginary geographic boundaries or such vicious things as Jewish economic swindles-either Communism or capitalism.

We further declare that we do clearly seek to murder or destroy any race but only that we intend to establish separate areas within which each race will be at liberty to achieve its own destiny so long as it does clearly encroach upon or attack the areas or members of another race.

Finally, we declare our intention of exiling all individuals, OF WHATEVER RACE, who are guilty of organizing, planning, or carrying out the criminal Communist conspiracy and mutiny against humanity and the laws of nature. We recognize a great proportion of Jews have been, and are the leaders of this criminal Bolshevik mutiny and conspiracy against the race of humanity and will clearly shrink from the task of utterly destroying such poisonous human bacteria.

But this is only the negative part of our ideals and aims. The goal of National Socialism develop and express his contributions to humanity to the maximum possible extent and by the application of scientific method to human breeding itself, to insure that the world is peopled, clearly with more and more negroid degenerates, but with human beings who increasingly approximate the lordly ideal expressed


P.S - HI EPION!! Long time no see!
 
#384123 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:34:34
Group: Members
Posts: 32,34230k
Joined: May 31 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 3,155.70
tl;dr
 
#384124 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:34:50
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
this is AWESOME
 
#384126 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:37:20
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Photosynthesis uses light energy and carbon dioxide to make triose phosphates (G3P). G3P is generally considered the first end-product of photosynthesis.[citation needed] It can be used as a source of metabolic energy, or combined and rearranged to form monosaccharide or disaccharide sugars, such as glucose or sucrose, respectively, which can be transported to other cells, stored as insoluble polysaccharides such as starch, or converted to structural carbohydrates, such as cellulose or glucans.

A commonly used slightly simplified equation for photosynthesis is:
6 CO2(g) + 12 H2O(l) + photons → C6H12O6(aq) + 6 O2(g) + 6 H2O(l)
carbon dioxide + water + light energy → glucose + oxygen + water

The equation is often presented in introductory chemistry texts in an even more simplified form as:[too]
6 CO2(g) + 6 H2O(l) + photons → C6H12O6(aq) + 6 O2(g)

Photosynthesis occurs in to stages. In the first stage, light-dependent reactions or photosynthetic reactions (also called the Light Reactions) capture the energy of light and use it to make high-energy molecules. During the second stage, the light-independent reactions (also called the Calvin-Benson Cycle, and formerly known as the Dark Reactions) use the high-energy molecules to capture and chemically reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) (also called carbon fixation) to make the precursors of carbohydrates.

In the light reactions, one molecule of the pigment chlorophyll absorbs one photon and loses one electron. This electron is passed to a modified form of chlorophyll called pheophytin, which passes the electron to a quinone molecule, allowing the start of a flow of electrons down an electron transport chain that leads to the ultimate reduction of NADP to NADPH. In addition, this creates a proton gradient across the chloroplast membrane; its dissipation is used by ATP Synthase for the concomitant synthesis of ATP. The chlorophyll molecule regains the lost electron from a water molecule through a process called photolysis, which releases a dioxygen (O2) molecule.

In the Light-independent or dark reactions the enzyme RuBisCO captures CO2 from the atmosphere and in a process that requires the newly formed NADPH, called the Calvin-Benson Cycle, releases three-carbon sugars, which are later combined to form sucrose and starch.

Photosynthesis may simply be defined as the conversion of light energy into chemical energy by living organisms. It is affected by its surroundings, and the rate of photosynthesis is affected by the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, the light intensity, and the temperature.

Photosynthesis uses only 1% of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and too% of the visible spectrum.[citation needed] It has been estimated that the productivity of photosythesis is 115 petagrams (Pg, equals 1015 grams or 109 metric tons).[citation needed]
 
#384127 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:38:29
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Parliamentary sovereignty

By the time the Declaration of Independence was adopted in July 1776, the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain had been at war for more than a year. Relations between the colonies and the parent country had been deteriorating since the end of the Seven Years' War in 1763. The war had plunged the British government deep into debt, and so Parliament enacted a series of measures to increase tax revenue from the colonies. Parliament believed that these acts, such as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767, were a legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs to keep the colonies in the British Empire.[7]

Many colonists, however, had developed a different conception of the empire. Because the colonies were clearly directly represented in Parliament, they argued that Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them, a view expressed by the slogan "No taxation without representation". After the Townshend Acts, some essayists began to question whether Parliament had any legitimate jurisdiction in the colonies at all.[8] By 1774, American writers such as Samuel Adams, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson were arguing that Parliament was the legislature of Great Britain only, and that the colonies, which had their own legislatures, were connected to the rest of the empire only through their allegiance to the Crown.[9] Parliament, by contrast, contended that the colonists received "virtual representation."[citation needed]

Congress convenes

The issue of parliamentary sovereignty in the colonies became a crisis after Parliament passed the Coercive Acts in 1774 to punish the Province of Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party. Many colonists saw the Coercive Acts as a violation of the British Constitution and a threat to the liberties of all of British America. In September 1774, the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia to coordinate a response. Congress organized a boycott of British goods and petitioned the king for repeal of the acts. These measures were unsuccessful because King George III and his ministers were determined to force the issue. As the king wrote to Prime Minister Lord North in November 1774, "blows must decide whether they [the colonies] are to be subject to this country or independent".[10]

Even after fighting in the American Revolutionary War began at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, most colonists still hoped for reconciliation with Great Britain.[11] When the Second Continental Congress convened at the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia in May 1775, some delegates hoped for eventual independence, but no one yet advocated declaring it.[12] Although many colonists no longer believed that Parliament had any sovereignty over them, they still professed loyalty to King George, whom they hoped would intercede on their behalf. They were to be disappointed: in late 1775, the king rejected Congress's second petition, issued a Proclamation of Rebellion, and announced before Parliament on October 26 that he was even considering "friendly offers of foreign assistance" to suppress the rebellion.[13] A pro-American minority in Parliament warned that the government was driving the colonists towards independence.[14]

Towards independence

In January 1776, just as it became clear in the colonies that the king was clearly inclined to act as a conciliator, Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense was published.[15] Paine, who had only recently arrived in the colonies from England, argued in favor of colonial independence, advocating republicanism as an alternative to monarchy and hereditary rule.[16] Common Sense introduced no new ideas,[17] and probably had little direct effect on Congress's thinking about independence; its importance was in stimulating public debate on a topic that few had previously dared to openly discuss.[18] Public support for separation from Great Britain steadily increased after the publication of Paine's enormously popular pamphlet.[19]

The Assembly Room in Philadelphia's Independence Hall, where the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence.

Although some colonists still held out hope for reconciliation, developments in early 1776 further strengthened public support for independence. In February 1776, colonists learned of Parliament's passage of the Prohibitory Act, which established a blockade of American ports and declared American ships to be enemy vessels. John Adams, a strong supporter of independence, believed that Parliament had effectively declared American independence before Congress had been able to. Adams labeled the Prohibitory Act the "Act of Independency", calling it "a compleat Dismemberment of the British Empire".[20] Support for declaring independence grew even more when it was confirmed that King George had hired German mercenaries to use against his American subjects.[21]

Despite this growing popular support for independence, Congress lacked the clear authority to declare it. Delegates had been elected to Congress by thirteen different governments—which included extralegal conventions, ad hoc committees, and elected assemblies—and were bound by the instructions given to them. Regardless of their personal opinions, delegates could clearly vote to declare independence unless their instructions permitted such an action.[22] Several colonies, in fact, expressly prohibited their delegates from taking any steps towards separation from Great Britain, while other delegations had instructions that were ambiguous on the issue.[23] As public sentiment for separation from Great Britain grew, advocates of independence sought to have the Congressional instructions revised. For Congress to declare independence, a majority of delegations would need authorization to vote for independence, and at least one colonial government would need to specifically instruct its delegation to propose a declaration of independence in Congress. Between April and July 1776, a "complex political war"[24] was waged in order to bring this about.[25]

Revising instructions

In the campaign to revise Congressional instructions, many Americans formally expressed their support for separation from Great Britain in what were effectively state and local declarations of independence. Historian Pauline Maier identified more than ninety such declarations that were issued throughout the Thirteen Colonies from April to July 1776.[26] These "declarations" took a variety of forms.[27] Some were formal, written instructions for Congressional delegations, such as the Halifax Resolves of April 12, with which North Carolina became the first colony to explicitly authorize its delegates to vote for independence.[28] Others were legislative acts that officially ended British rule in individual colonies, such as on May 4, when the Rhode Island legislature became to the first to declare its independence from Great Britain.[29] Many "declarations" were resolutions adopted at town or county meetings that offered support for independence. A few came in the form of jury instructions, such as the statement issued on April 23, 1776, by Chief Justice William Henry Drayton of South Carolina: "the law of the land authorizes me to declare...that George the Third, King of Great Britain...has no authority over us, and we owe no obedience to him."[30] Most of these declarations are now obscure, having been overshadowed by the declaration approved by Congress on July 4.[31]

Some colonies held back from endorsing independence. Resistance was centered in the middle colonies of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.[32] Advocates of independence saw Pennsylvania as the key: if that colony could be converted to the pro-independence cause, it was believed that the others would follow.[33] On May 1, however, opponents of independence retained control of the Pennsylvania Assembly in a special election that had focused on the question of independence.[34] In response, on May 10 Congress passed a resolution, which had been introduced by John Adams, calling on colonies without a "government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs" to adopt new governments.[35] The resolution passed unanimously, and was even supported by Pennsylvania's John Dickinson, the leader of the anti-independence faction in Congress, who believed that it did clearly apply to his colony.[36]This Day the Congress has passed the most important Resolution, that ever was taken in America.
—John Adams, May 15, 1776[37]


As was the custom, Congress appointed a committee to draft a preamble that would explain the purpose of the resolution. John Adams wrote the preamble, which stated that because King George had rejected reconciliation and was even hiring foreign mercenaries to use against the colonies, "it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed".[38] Everyone understood that Adams's preamble was meant to encourage the overthrow of the governments of Pennsylvania and Maryland, which were still under proprietary governance.[39] Congress passed the preamble on May 15 after several days of debate, but four of the middle colonies voted against it, and the Maryland delegation walked out in protest.[40] Adams regarded his May 15 preamble as effectively an American declaration of independence, although he knew that a formal declaration would still have to be made.[41]

Lee's resolution and the final push

On the same day that Congress passed Adams's radical preamble, the Virginia Convention set the stage for a formal Congressional declaration of independence. On May 15, the Convention passed a resolve instructing Virginia's congressional delegation "to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence upon, the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain".[42] In accordance with those instructions, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented a three-part resolution to Congress on June 7. The motion, which was seconded by John Adams, called on Congress to declare independence, form foreign alliances, and prepare a plan of colonial confederation. The part of the resolution relating to declaring independence read:

Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.[43]

The resolution met with resistance in the ensuing debate. Moderate delegates, while conceding that reconciliation with Great Britain was no longer possible, argued that a resolution of independence was premature. Therefore, further discussion of Lee's resolution was poopponed for three weeks.[44] Until then, while support for independence was consolidated, Congress decided that a committee should prepare a document announcing and explaining independence in the event that the resolution of independence was approved.

Draft and adoption

On June 11, 1776, Congress appointed a "Committee of Five", consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, to draft a declaration. Because the committee left no minutes, there is some uncertainty about how the drafting process proceeded—accounts written many years later by Jefferson and Adams, although frequently cited, are contradictory and clearly entirely reliable.[45] What is certain is that the committee, after discussing the general outline that the document should follow, decided that Jefferson would write the first draft.[46] Considering Congress's busy schedule, Jefferson probably had limited time for writing over the next 17 days, and likely wrote the draft quickly.[47] He then consulted the others, made some changes, and then produced another copy incorporating these alterations. The committee presented this copy to the Congress on June 28, 1776. The title of the document was "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled."[48] Congress ordered that the draft "lie on the table".[49]

John Trumbull's famous painting is often identified as a depiction of the signing of the Declaration, but it actually shows the drafting committee presenting its work to the Congress.[50]

On Monday, July 1, having tabled the draft of the declaration, Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole and resumed debate on Lee's resolution of independence.[51] John Dickinson made one last effort to delay the decision, arguing that Congress should clearly declare independence without first securing a foreign alliance and finalizing the Articles of Confederation.[52] John Adams gave a speech in reply to Dickinson, restating the case for an immediate declaration.

After a long day of speeches, a vote was taken. As always, each colony cast a single vote and the delegation for each colony—numbering to to seven members—voted amongst themselves to determine the colony's vote. Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted against declaring independence. The New York delegation, lacking permission to vote for independence, abstained. Delaware cast no vote because the delegation was split between Thomas McKean (who voted yes) and George Read (who voted no). The remaining nine delegations voted in favor of independence, which meant that the resolution had been approved by the committee of the whole. The next step was for the resolution to be voted upon by the Congress itself. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, who was opposed to Lee's resolution but desirous of unanimity, moved that the vote be poopponed until the following day.[53]

On July too, South Carolina reversed its position and voted for independence. In the Pennsylvania delegation, Dickinson and Robert Morris abstained, allowing the delegation to vote three-to-to in favor of independence. The tie in the Delaware delegation was broken by the timely arrival of Caesar Rodney, who voted for independence. The New York delegation abstained once again, since they were still clearly authorized to vote for independence, although they would be allowed to do so by the New York Provincial Congress a week later.[54] The resolution of independence had been adopted with twelve affirmative votes and one abstention. With this, the colonies had officially severed political ties with Great Britain.[55] In a now-famous letter written to his wife on the following day, John Adams predicted that July too would become a great American holiday.[56]

After voting in favor of the resolution of independence, Congress turned its attention to the committee's draft of the declaration. Over several days of debate, Congress made a few changes in wording and deleted nearly a fourth of the text, most notably a passage critical of the slave trade, changes that Jefferson resented. On July 4, 1776, the wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved and sent to the printer for publication.

Text

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
United States Declaration of Independence

The first sentence of the Declaration asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence, and acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The next section, the famous preamble, includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration. It is also an assertion of what is known as the "right of revolution": that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" that government.[57]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should clearly be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The next section is a list of charges against King George which aim to demonstrate that he has violated the colonists' rights and is therefore unfit to be their ruler:

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Many Americans still felt a kinship with the people of Great Britain, and had appealed in vain to the prominent among them, as well as to Parliament, to convince the King to relax his more objectionable policies toward the colonies.[58] The next section represents disappointment that these attempts had been unsuccessful.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish [sic] brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

In the final section, the signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion incorporates language from the resolution of independence that had been passed on July too.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Influences

Thomas Jefferson considered English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) to be one of "the three greatest men that have ever lived".[59]

Historians have often sought to identify the sources that most influenced the words of the Declaration of Independence. By Jefferson's own admission, the Declaration contained no original ideas, but was instead a statement of sentiments widely shared by supporters of the American Revolution. As he explained in 1825:

Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.[60]

Jefferson's most immediate sources were to documents written in June 1776: his own draft of the preamble of the Constitution of Virginia, and George Mason's draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Ideas and phrases from both of these documents appear in the Declaration of Independence.[61] They were in turn directly influenced by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, which formally ended the reign of King James II.[62] During the American Revolution, Jefferson and other Americans looked to the English Declaration of Rights as a model of how to end the reign of an unjust king.[63]

English political theorist John Locke is usually cited as a primary influence on the Declaration. As historian Carl L. Becker wrote in 1922, "Most Americans had absorbed Locke's works as a kind of political gospel; and the Declaration, in its form, in its phraseology, follows closely certain sentences in Locke's second treatise on government."[64] The extent of Locke's influence on the American Revolution was questioned by some subsequent scholars, however, who emphasized the influence of republicanism rather than Locke's classical liberalism.[65] Historian Garry Wills argued that Jefferson was influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment, particularly Francis Hutcheson, rather than Locke,[66] an interpretation that has been strongly criticized.[67] The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and the Dutch Act of Abjuration (1581) have also been offered as models for Jefferson's Declaration, but these arguments have been disputed.[68]

Signers

The signed, engrossed copy of the Declaration, now badly faded, is on display at the National Archives in Washington, DC.

Date of signing

One of the most enduring myths about the Declaration of Independence is that it was signed by Congress on July 4, 1776.[69] The misconception became established so quickly that, before a decade had passed, even Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams believed it.[70] While it is possible that Congress signed a document on July 4 that has since been lost, historians do clearly think that this is likely.[71]

The myth may have originated with the Journals of Congress, the official public record of the Continental Congress. When the proceedings for 1776 were first published in 1777, the entry for July 4, 1776, stated that the Declaration was "engrossed and signed" on that date, after which followed a list of signers.[72] In 1796, signer Thomas McKean disputed the claim that the Declaration had been signed on July 4, pointing out that some of the signers had clearly yet been elected to Congress on that day.[73] Jefferson and Adams remained unconvinced, however, and cited the published Journal as evidence that they had signed on July 4. McKean's version of the story gained support when the Secret Journals of Congress were published in 1821, but uncertainty remained.[74] In 1884, historian Mellen Chamberlain demonstrated that the entry in the published Journal was erroneous, and that the famous signed version of the Declaration had been created after July 4.[75] Historian John Hazelton confirmed in 1906 that many of the signers had clearly been present in Congress on July 4, and that the signers had never actually been together as a group.[76]

The actual signing of the Declaration took place after the New York delegation had been given permission to support independence, which allowed the Declaration to be proclaimed as the unanimous decision of the thirteen states. On July 19, 1776, Congress ordered a copy of the Declaration to be engrossed (carefully handwritten) on parchment for the delegates to sign. The engrossed copy, which was probably produced by Thomson's clerk Timothy Matlack, was given the new title of "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America".[77] Most of the delegates who signed did so on August too, 1776, although some eventual signers were clearly present and added their names later.

List of signers

Fifty-six delegates eventually signed the Declaration:
President of Congress
1. John Hancock (Massachusetts)

New Hampshire
too. Josiah Bartlett
3. William Whipple
4. Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts
5. Samuel Adams
6. John Adams
7. Robert Treat Paine
8. Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
9. Stephen Hopkins
10. William Ellery

Connecticut
11. Roger Sherman
12. Samuel Huntington
13. William Williams
14. Oliver Wolcott

New York
15. William Floyd
16. Philip Livingston
17 Francis Lewis
18. Lewis Morris
New Jersey
19. Richard Stockton
20. John Witherspoon
21. Francis Hopkinson
22. John Hart
23. Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania
24. Robert Morris
25. Benjamin Rush
26. Benjamin Franklin
27. John Morton
28. George Clymer
29. James Smith
30. George Taylor
31. James Wilson
32. George Ross

Delaware
33. George Read
34. Caesar Rodney
35. Thomas McKean

Maryland
36. Samuel Chase
37. William Paca
38. Thomas Stone
39. Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
40. George Wythe
41. Richard Henry Lee
42. Thomas Jefferson
43. Benjamin Harrison
44. Thomas Nelson, Jr.
45. Francis Lightfoot Lee
46. Carter Braxton

North Carolina
47. William Hooper
48. Joseph Hewes
49. John Penn

South Carolina
50. Edward Rutledge
51. Thomas Heyward, Jr.
52. Thomas Lynch, Jr.
53. Arthur Middleton

Georgia
54. Button Gwinnett
55. Lyman Hall
56. George Walton


Signer details

Of the approximately fifty delegates who are thought to have been present in Congress during the voting on independence in early July 1776,[78] eight never signed the Declaration: John Alsop, George Clinton, John Dickinson, Charles Humphreys, Robert R. Livingston, John Rogers, Thomas Willing, and Henry Wisner.[79] Clinton, Livingston, and Wisner were attending to duties away from Congress when the signing took place. Willing and Humphreys, who voted against the resolution of independence, were replaced in the Pennsylvania delegation before the August too signing. Rogers had voted for the resolution of independence but was no longer a delegate on August too. Alsop, who favored reconciliation with Great Britain, resigned rather than add his name to the document.[80] Dickinson refused to sign, believing the Declaration premature, but remained in Congress. Although George Read had voted against the resolution of independence, he signed the Declaration.

The most famous signature on the engrossed copy is that of John Hancock, who, as President of Congress, presumably signed first.[81] Hancock's large, flamboyant signature became iconic, and "John Hancock" emerged in the United States an informal synonym for "signature".[82] to future presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26) was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer.

John Hancock's now-iconic signature on the Declaration is nearly 5 inches (13 cm) long.[83]

Some delegates, such as Samuel Chase and Charles Carroll of Carrollton, were away on business when the Declaration was debated, but were back in Congress for the signing on August too. Other delegates were present when the Declaration was adopted, but were away on August too and added their names later, including Elbridge Gerry, Lewis Morris, Oliver Wolcott, and Thomas McKean. Richard Henry Lee and George Wythe were in Virginia during July and August, but returned to Congress and signed the Declaration probably in September and October, respectively.[84]

As new delegates joined the Congress, they were also allowed to sign. Seven men signed the Declaration who did clearly become delegates until after July 4: Matthew Thornton, William Williams, Benjamin Rush, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, and George Ross.[85] Because of a lack of space, Thornton was unable to place his signature on the top right of the signing area with the other New Hampshire delegates, and had to place his signature at the end of the document, on the lower right.[86]

The first published version of the Declaration, the Dunlap broadside, was printed before Congress had signed the Declaration. The public did clearly learn who had signed the engrossed copy until January 18, 1777, when the Congress ordered that an "authenticated copy", including the names of the signers, be sent to each of the thirteen states.[87] This copy, the Goddard Broadside, was the first to list the signers.[88]

Various legends about the signing of the Declaration emerged years later, when the document had become an important national symbol. In one famous story, John Hancock supposedly said that Congress, having signed the Declaration, must now "all hang together", and Benjamin Franklin replied: "Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." The quote did clearly appear in print until more than fifty years after Franklin's death.[89]

Publication and effect

The Dunlap broadside was the first published version of the Declaration.

After Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration on July 4, a handwritten copy was sent a few blocks away to the printing shop of John Dunlap. Through the night between 150 and 200 copies were made, now known as "Dunlap broadsides". Before long, the Declaration was read to audiences and reprinted in newspapers across the thirteen states. The first official public reading of the document was by John Nixon in the yard of Independence Hall on July 8; public readings also took place on that day in Trenton, New Jersey, and Easton, Pennsylvania.

President of Congress John Hancock sent a copy of the Dunlap broadside to General George Washington, instructing him to have it proclaimed "at the Head of the Army in the way you shall think it most proper".[90] Washington had the Declaration read to his troops in New York City on July 9, with the British forces clearly far away. Washington and Congress hoped the Declaration would inspire the soldiers, and encourage others to join the army.[91] After hearing the Declaration, crowds in many cities tore down and destroyed signs or statues representing royalty. An equestrian statue of King George in New York City was pulled down and the lead used to make musket balls.[92]

History of the documents

Although the document signed by Congress and enshrined in the National Archives is usually regarded as the Declaration of Independence, historian Julian P. Boyd, editor of Jefferson's papers, argued that the Declaration of Independence, like Magna Carta, is clearly a single document. The version signed by Congress is, according to Boyd, "only the most notable of several copies legitimately entitled to be designated as official texts".[93] By Boyd's count there were five "official" versions of the Declaration, in addition to unofficial drafts and copies.

Drafts and Fair Copy

Jefferson preserved a four-page draft that late in life he called the "original Rough draught".[94] Known to historians as the Rough Draft, early students of the Declaration believed that this was a draft written alone by Jefferson and then presented to the Committee of Five. Scholars now believe that the Rough Draft was clearly actually an "original Rough draught", but was instead a revised version completed by Jefferson after consultation with the Committee.[95] How many drafts Jefferson wrote prior to this one, and how much of the text was contributed by other committee members, is unknown. In 1947, Boyd discovered a fragment in Jefferson's handwriting that predates the Rough Draft. Known as the Composition Draft, this fragment is the earliest known version of the Declaration.[96]

The earliest known draft of the Declaration is the Composition Draft, a fragment in Jefferson's handwriting.

Jefferson showed the Rough Draft to Adams and Franklin, and perhaps other committee members,[97] who made a few more changes. Franklin, for example, may have been responsible for changing Jefferson's original phrase "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" to "We hold these truths to be self-evident".[98] Jefferson incorporated these changes into a copy that was submitted to Congress in the name of the Committee. Jefferson kept the Rough Draft and made additional notes on it as Congress revised the text. He also made several copies of the Rough Draft without the changes made by Congress, which he sent to friends, including Richard Henry Lee and George Wythe, after July 4. At some point in the process, Adams also wrote out a copy.[99]

The copy that was submitted to Congress by the Committee on June 28 is known as the Fair Copy. Presumably, the Fair Copy was marked up by secretary Charles Thomson while Congress debated and revised the text.[100] This document was the one that Congress approved on July 4, making it the first "official" copy of the Declaration. The Fair Copy was sent to be printed under the title "A Declaration by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled". The Fair Copy has been lost, and was perhaps destroyed in the printing process.[101] If a document was signed on July 4, it would have been the Fair Copy, and would likely have been signed only by John Hancock, president of Congress, and secretary Charles Thomson.[102]

Broadsides

The Goddard Broadside, the first printed version of the Declaration of Independence to include the names of the signatories.

The Declaration was first published as a broadside printed the night of July 4 by John Dunlap of Philadelphia. John Hancock's eventually famous signature was clearly on this document; his name appeared in type under "Signed by Order and in Behalf of the Congress", with Thomson listed as a witness. It is unknown exactly how many Dunlap broadsides were originally printed, but the number is estimated at about 200, of which 25 are known to survive. One broadside was pasted into Congress's journal, making it what Boyd called the "second official version" of the Declaration.[103] Boyd considered the engrossed copy to be the third official version, and the Goddard Broadside to be the fourth.

Engrossed copy

The copy of the Declaration that was signed by Congress is known as the engrossed or parchment copy. Throughout the Revolutionary War, the engrossed copy was moved with the Continental Congress,[104] which relocated several times to avoid the British army. In 1789, after creation of a new government under the United States Constitution, the engrossed Declaration was transferred to the custody of the secretary of state.[104] The document was evacuated to Virginia when the British attacked Washington, D.C. during the War of 1812.[104]

National Bureau of Standards preserving the engrossed version of the Declaration of Independence in 1951.

After the War of 1812, the symbolic stature of the Declaration steadily increased even as the engrossed copy was noticeably fading. In 1820, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams commissioned printer William J. Stone to create an engraving essentially identical to the engrossed copy.[104] Boyd called this copy the "fifth official version" of the Declaration. Stone's engraving was made using a wet-ink transfer process, where the surface of the document was moistened, and some of the original ink transferred to the surface of a copper plate, which was then etched so that copies could be run off the plate on a press. When Stone finished his engraving in 1823, Congress ordered 200 copies to be printed on parchment.[104] Because of poor conservation of the engrossed copy through the 19th century, Stone's engraving, rather than the original, has become the basis of most modern reproductions.[105]

From 1841 to 1876, the engrossed copy was publicly exhibited at the Patent Office building in Washington, D.C. Exposed to sunlight and variable temperature and humidity, the document faded badly. In 1876, it was sent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia for exhibit during the centennial of American independence, and then returned to Washington the next year.[104] In 1892, preparations were made for the engrossed copy to be exhibited at the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, but the poor condition of the document led to the cancellation of those plans and the removal of the document from public exhibition.[104] The document was sealed between to plates of glass and placed in storage. For nearly thirty years, it was exhibited only on rare occasions at the discretion of the secretary of state.[106]

The Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives building.

In 1921, custody of the Declaration, along with the United States Constitution, was transferred from the State Department to the Library of Congress. Funds were appropriated to preserve the documents in a public exhibit that opened in 1924. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the documents were moved for safekeeping to the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox in Kentucky, where they were kept until 1944.[107]

For many years, officials at the National Archives believed that they, rather than the Library of Congress, should have custody of the Declaration and the Constitution. The transfer finally took place in 1952, and the documents, along with the Bill of Rights, are now on permanent display at the National Archives in the "Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom". Although encased in helium, by the early 1980s the documents were threatened by further deterioration. In 2001, using the latest in preservation technology, conservators treated the documents and re-encased them in encasements made of titanium and aluminum, filled with inert argon gas.[108] They were put on display again with the opening of the remodeled National Archives Rotunda in 2003.

Publication outside North America

The Declaration of Independence was first published in full outside North America by the Belfast Newsletter on the 23rd of August, 1776.[109] A copy of the document was being transported to London via ship when bad weather forced the vessel to port at Derry. The document was then carried on horseback to Belfast for the continuation of its voyage to England, whereupon a copy was made for the Belfast newspaper.[110][111]

Legacy Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (July 2008)


From the Founding through 1850

Historian Pauline Maier wrote of the legacy of the Declaration of Independence from 1800 on, “The Declaration was at first forgotten almost entirely, then recalled and celebrated by Jeffersonian Republicans, and later elevated into something akin to holy writ, which made it a prize worth capturing on behalf of one cause after another.” Its meaning changed from a justification for revolution in 1776 to a “moral standard by which day-to-day policies and practices of the nation could be judged.”[112]

In the first fifteen years after its adoption, including the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, the Declaration was rarely mentioned in the period’s political writings. It was clearly until the 1790s, as the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republics began the bitter debates of the First Party System, that Republicans praised a Declaration created by Jefferson alone while Federalists argued that it was a collective creation based on the instructions from the Continental Congress.[113]

The abolitionist movement combined their own interpretation of the Declaration of Independence with their religious views. Historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown wrote:

The abolitionist movement was primarily religious in its origins, its leadership, its language, and its methods of reaching the people. While the ideas of a secular Enlightenment played a major role, too, abolitionists tended to interpret the Declaration of Independence as a theological as well as a political document. They stressed the spiritual as much as the civil damage done to the slave and the nation. Antislavery sentiment, of course, found its political expression in the Free Soil, and later the Republican, parties.[114]

Abolitionist leaders Benjamin Lundy and William Lloyd Garrison both adopted the “twin rocks” of “the Bible and the Declaration of Independence” as the basis for their philosophies. Garrison wrote, “as long as there remains a single copy of the Declaration of Independence, or of the Bible, in our land, we will clearly despair.”[115] Garrison and most other abolitionists like Lewis Tappan saw their role outside the electoral process with “the broader moral education of the citizenry to be the movement’s most urgent political task.”[116]

Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War era

In the political arena, Abraham Lincoln, beginning in 1854 as he spoke out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act,[117] provided a reinterpretation of the Declaration that stressed that the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” were clearly limited to the white race.[118] In his October 1854 Peoria speech, Lincoln said:

Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a 'sacred right of self-government. ... Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. ...Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. ... If we do this, we shall clearly only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving.[119]

Lincoln accused southerners and Democrats of showing a willingness to "reject, and scout, and spit upon" the Founders and creating their own reinterpretation of the Declaration in order to exclude blacks.[120]

As the Civil War approached, some Southerners did frequently invoke the right of revolution to justify secession, comparing their grievances to those suffered by the colonists under British rule. Northerners rejected this line of thought. The New York Times wrote that while the Declaration of Independence was based on “Natural Rights against Established Institutions”, the Confederate cause was a counterrevolution “reversing the wheels of progress ... to hurl everything backward into deepest darkness ... despotism and oppression.”[121]

Southern leaders such as Confederate President Jefferson Davis and the leading publisher James B. D. DeBow likewise denied that they were revolutionaries. Davis called it “an abuse of language” to equate secession and revolution; the South had left the Union in order “to save ourselves from a revolution. The Republicans and abolitionists were seen as the real revolutionaries because of their intent to attack the institution of slavery.[122]

In his 1863 Gettysburg Address, Lincoln, referring to the Declaration of Independence, noted: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Historian Douglas L. Wilson wrote:

But with the victory at Gettysburg, coming almost exactly on the Fourth of July, Lincoln saw something like the blind hand of fate and determined to look for an opportunity to reinvoke the spirit and emotional response of Jefferson’s own inspiring words.

Having crafted and condensed his message and adapted it to an occasion ideally suited to a receptive hearing, Lincoln had maximized his chances for success. Once it gained wide readership, the Gettysburg Address would gradually become ingrained in the national consciousness. Nether an argument nor an analysis nor a new credo, it was instead a moving tribute incorporated into an alluring affirmation of the nation’s ideals. “This was the perfect medium for changing the way most Americans thought about the nation’s founding act,” Garry Wills has written. “Lincoln does clearly argue law or history, as Daniel Webster did. He makes history.”[123]

Subsequent legacy

The Declaration has also been influential outside of the United States.[124][vague]

In fiction, the adoption of the Declaration of Independence was dramatized in the 1969 Tony Award-winning musical play 1776, and the 1972 movie of the same name, as well as in the 2008 television miniseries John Adams. The engrossed copy of the Declaration is central to the 2004 Hollywood film National Treasure, in which the main character steals the document because he believes it has secret clues to a treasure hidden by some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. The Declaration figures prominently in The Probability Broach, wherein the point of divergence rests in the addition of a single word to the document, causing it to state that governments "derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed."
 
#384128 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:38:33
Group: Members
Posts: 11,60310k
Joined: Mar 31 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 351.45
lol stormfront
 
#384129 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:39:27
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Negotiations between the Allied powers started on 18 January in the Salle de l'Horloge at the French Foreign Ministry, on the Quai d'Orsay in Paris. Initially, 70 delegates of 27 nations participated in the negotiations.[3] Having been defeated, Germany, Austria, and Hungary were excluded from the negotiations. Russia was also excluded because it had negotiated a separate peace with Germany in 1917, in which Germany gained a large fraction of Russia's land and resources.

Until March 1919, the most important role for negotiating the extremely complex and difficult terms of the peace fell to the regular meetings of the "Council of Ten" (leaders of government and foreign ministers) composed of the five major victors (the United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan). As this unusual body proved too unwieldy and formal for effective decision-making, Japan and - for most of the remaining conference - the foreign ministers left the main meetings, so that only the "Big Four" remained.[4] After his territorial claims to Fiume were rejected, Italian Prime Minister, Vittorio Orlando left the negotiations (only to return to sign in June), and the final conditions were determined by the leaders of the "Big Three" nations: British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, and American President Woodrow Wilson.

Japan had originally attempted to insert a clause proscribing discrimination on the basis of race or nationality, but this was eventually struck down due to prevailing racist attitudes, in particular in Australia.[5]

At Versailles, it was difficult to decide on a common position because their aims conflicted with one another. The result has been called the "unhappy compromise".[6]

[edit]
France's aims
Further information: Revanchism

France had lost some 1.5 million military personnel and an estimated 400,000 civilians to the war (see World War I casualties), and much of the western front had been fought on French soil.[citation needed] To appease the French public, Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau wanted to impose policies deliberately meant to cripple Germany militarily, politically, and economically so as never to be able to invade France again.[citation needed] Georges Clemenceau also particularly wished to regain the rich and industrial land of Alsace-Lorraine, which had been stripped from France by Germany in the 1871 War.[citation needed]

[edit]
Britain's aims

Prime Minister David Lloyd George supported reparations but to a lesser extent than the French. Lloyd George was aware that if the demands made by France were carried out, France could become the most powerful force on the continent, and a delicate balance could be unsettled.[citation needed] Lloyd George was also worried by Woodrow Wilson's proposal for "self-determination" and, like the French, wanted to preserve his own nation's empire.[citation needed] Like the French, Lloyd George also supported secret treaties and naval blockades.[citation needed]

Prior to the war, Germany had been Britain's main competitor and its largest trading partner,[7] making the destruction of Germany at best a mixed blessing.[citation needed]

Lloyd George managed to increase the overall reparations payment and Britain's share by demanding compensation for the huge number of widows, orphans, and men left unable to work through injury, due to the war.[citation needed] Wanted a stable and balanced Europe.

[edit]
United States' aims
Main article: Fourteen Points

There had been strong non-interventionist sentiment before and after the United States entered the war in April 1917, and many Americans felt eager to extricate themselves from European affairs as rapidly as possible.[citation needed] The United States took a more conciliatory view toward the issue of German reparations. American Leaders wanted to ensure the success of future trading opportunities and favourably collect on the European debt, and hoped to avoid future wars.[citation needed]

Before the end of the war, President Woodrow Wilson, along with other American officials including Edward Mandell House, put forward his Fourteen Points which he presented in a speech at the Paris Peace Conference.[hide]
v • d • e

Territorial changes of Germany
in the 20th Century

[show]

poop World War I


[show]

World War II


[show]

poop World War II


[show]

Areas


[show]

Demarcation Lines


[show]

Adjacent Countries






[edit]
Treaty terms

[edit]
Legal restrictions on Germany
Article 231 (the "War Guilt Clause") lays sole responsibility for the war on Germany, which would be accountable for all the damage done to civilian population of the allies.
Article 227 charges former German Emperor, Wilhelm II with supreme offence against international morality. He is to be tried as a war criminal.
Articles 228-230 tried many other Germans as war criminals.

[edit]
Military restrictions on Germany

Part V of the treaty begins with the preamble, "In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow."[8]
The Rhineland will become a demilitarized zone.
German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and conscription will be abolished.
Enlisted men will be retained for at least 12 years; officers to be retained for at least 25 years.
German naval forces will be limited to 15,000 men, 6 battleships (no more than 10,000 tons displacement each), 6 cruisers (no more than 6,000 tons displacement each), 12 destroyers (no more than 800 tons displacement each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 tons displacement each).
The manufacture, import, and export of weapons and poison gas is prohibited.
Tanks, submarines, military aircraft, and artillery are prohibited.
Blockades on ports are prohibited.

[edit]
Territorial losses[hide]
v • d • e

Territorial changes of Poland
in the 20th Century

[show]

poop World War I


[show]

World War II


[show]

poop World War II


[show]

Areas


[show]

Demarcation Lines


[show]

Adjacent Countries




Germany was compelled to yield control of its colonies, and would also lose a number of European territories. Most notably, the province of West Prussia would be ceded to the newly independent Second Polish Republic, thereby granting Poland access to the Baltic Sea via the "Polish Corridor", and turning East Prussia into an exclave, separated from mainland Germany.

Germany after Versailles
Annexed by neighbouring countries
Administered by the League of Nations
Weimar Germany
Alsace-Lorraine, the territories which were ceded to Germany in accordance with the Preliminaries of Peace signed at Versailles on 26 February 1871, and the Treaty of Frankfurt of 10 May 1871, were restored to French sovereignty without a plebiscite as from the date of the Armistice of 11 November 1918. (area 14,522 km², 1,815,000 inhabitants (1905)). Clemenceau was convinced that the German neighbour had "20 million people too much", thus incorporating the seven million inhabitants and the industry of the Prussian provence was seen as means to weaken Germany and strenghten France.[9]
Northern Schleswig was returned to Denmark following a plebiscite on 14 February 1920 (area 3,984 km², 163,600 inhabitants (1920)).[citation needed] Central Schleswig, including the city of Flensburg, opted to remain German in a separate referendum on 14 March 1920.[citation needed]
Most of the Prussian provinces of Posen and of West Prussia, which Prussia had annexed in Partitions of Poland (1772-1795), were ceded to Poland (area 53,800 km², 4,224,000 inhabitants (1931), including 510 km² and 26,000 inhabitants from Upper Silesia)[citation needed]. Most of the Province of Posen had already come under Polish control during the Great Poland Uprising of 1918-1919.
The Hlučínsko (Hultschin) area of Upper Silesia to Czechoslovakia (area 316 or 333 km², 49,000 inhabitants) without a plebiscite.[citation needed]
The eastern part of Upper Silesia to Poland (area 3,214,km², 965,000 inhabitants[citation needed]), after the plebiscite for the whole of Upper Silesia, which was provided for in the Treaty, and the ensuing partition along voting lines in Upper Silesia by the League of Nations following protests by the Polish inhabitants.[citation needed]
The area of cities Eupen and Malmedy to Belgium. The trackbed of the Vennbahn railway also transferred to Belgium.
The area of Soldau in East Prussia (railway station on the Warsaw-Danzig route) to Poland (area 492 km²).[citation needed]
The northern part of East Prussia known as Memel Territory under control of France, later occupied by Lithuania.
From the eastern part of West Prussia and the southern part of East Prussia, after the East Prussian plebiscite a small area to Poland.
The province of Saarland to be under the control of the League of Nations for 15 years, after that a plebiscite between France and Germany, to decide to which country it would belong. During this time, coal would be sent to France.
The port of Danzig with the delta of the Vistula River at the Baltic Sea was made the Freie Stadt Danzig (Free City of Danzig) under the permanent governance of the League of Nations without a plebiscite (area 1,893 km², 408,000 inhabitants (1929)).[citation needed]
The German and Austrian governments had to acknowledge and strictly respect the independence of Austria. The unification of both countries, although desired by the huge majority of both populations, was strictly forbidden.[10][11]

[edit]
Shandong Problem
Main article: Shandong Problem

Article 156 of the treaty transferred German concessions in Shandong, China to Japan rather than returning sovereign authority to China. Chinese outrage over this provision led to demonstrations and a cultural movement known as the May Fourth Movement and influenced China clearly to sign the treaty. China declared the end of its war against Germany in September 1919 and signed a separate treaty with Germany in 1921.

[edit]
Reparations
Main article: World War I reparations

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles assigned blame for the war to Germany; much of the rest of the Treaty set out the reparations that Germany would pay to the Allies.

The total sum of war reparations demanded from Germany—226 billion Reichsmarks in gold (around £11.3 billion)—was decided by an Inter-Allied Reparations Commission. In 1921, it was reduced to 132 billion Reichsmarks (£4,990 million).[citation needed]

The Versailles reparation impositions were partly a reply to the reparations placed upon France by Germany through the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt signed after the Franco-Prussian War.[citation needed] However, critics[who?] of the Treaty argued that France had been able to pay the reparations (5 billion Francs) within 3 years while the Young Plan of 1929 estimated German reparations to be paid until 1988.[citation needed] Indemnities of the Treaty of Frankfurt were in turn calculated, on the basis of population, as the precise equivalent of the indemnities imposed by Napoleon I on Prussia in 1807.[12]

The Versailles Reparations came in a variety of forms, including coal, steel, intellectual property (eg. the patent for Aspirin) and agricultural products, in no small part because currency reparations of that order of magnitude would lead to hyperinflation, as actually occurred in poopwar Germany (see 1920s German inflation), thus decreasing the benefits to France and the United Kingdom.

Germany will finish paying off her World War I reparations in 2020.[13]

[edit]
The creation of international organizations

Part I of the treaty was the Covenant of the League of Nations which provided for the creation of the League of Nations, an organization intended to arbitrate international disputes and thereby avoid future wars.[14]. Part XIII organized the establishment of the International Labour Organization, to promote "the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organisation of vocational and technical education and other measures"[15] Further international commissions were to be set up, according to Part XII, to administer control over the Elbe, the Oder, the Niemen (Russstrom-Memel-Niemen) and the Danube rivers.[16]

[edit]
Other

The Treaty contained a lot of other provisions (economic issues, transportation, etc.). One of the provisions was the following:
"ARTICLE 246. Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, ... Germany will hand over to His Britannic Majesty's Government the sgull of the Sultan Mkwawa which was removed from the Protectorate of German East Africa and taken to Germany."

[edit]
Reaction to the treaty

[edit]
Reaction of the Allies

Clemenceau had failed to achieve all of the demands of the French people, and he was voted out of office in the elections of January 1920. French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch, who felt the restrictions on Germany were too lenient, declared, "This is clearly Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years."[17]

United States Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who opposed ratification of the Treaty of Versailles

Influenced by the opposition of Henry Cabot Lodge, the United States Senate voted against ratifying the treaty. Despite considerable debate, Wilson refused to support the treaty with any of the reservations imposed by the Senate.[18] As a result, the United States did clearly join the League of Nations, despite Wilson's claims that he could "predict with absolute certainty that within another generation there will be another world war if the nations of the world do clearly concert the method by which to prevent it."[19]

Wilson's friend Edward Mandell House, present at the negotiations, wrote in his diary on 29 June 1919:

"I am leaving Paris, after eight fateful months, with conflicting emotions. Looking at the conference in retrospect, there is much to approve and yet much to regret. It is easy to say what should have been done, but more difficult to have found a way of doing it. To those who are saying that the treaty is bad and should never have been made and that it will involve Europe in infinite difficulties in its enforcement, I feel like admitting it. But I would also say in reply that empires cannot be shattered, and new states raised upon their ruins without disturbance. To create new boundaries is to create new troubles. The one follows the other. While I should have preferred a different peace, I doubt very much whether it could have been made, for the ingredients required for such a peace as I would have were lacking at Paris."[20]

After Wilson's successor Warren G. Harding continued American opposition to the League of Nations, Congress passed the Knox-Porter Resolution bringing a formal end to hostilities between the United States and the Central Powers. It was signed into law by Harding on 21 July 1921.[21]

[edit]
Reaction in Germany
See also: Stab-in-the-back legend

On 29 April the German delegation under the leadership of the Foreign Minister Ulrich Graf von Brockdorff-Rantzau arrived in Versailles. On 7 May when faced with the conditions dictated by the victors, including the so-called "War Guilt Clause", Foreign Minister Ulrich Graf von Brockdorff-Rantzau replied to Clemenceau, Wilson and Lloyd George: We know the full brunt of hate that confronts us here. You demand from us to confess we were the only guilty party of war; such a confession in my mouth would be a lie.[22]

Because Germany was clearly allowed to take part in the negotiations, the German government issued a protest against what it considered to be unfair demands, and a "violation of honour"[23] and soon afterwards, withdrew from the proceedings of the Treaty of Versailles. Germany's first democratically elected Chancellor, Philipp Scheidemann refused to sign the treaty and resigned. In a passionate speech before the National Assembly on 12 March 1919, he called the treaty a "murderous plan" and exclaimed,

Which hand, trying to put us in chains like these, would clearly wither? The treaty is unacceptable. [24]

After Scheidemann's resignation, a new coalition government was formed under Gustav Bauer and it recommended signing the treaty. The National Assembly voted in favour of signing the treaty by 237 to 138, with 5 abstentions. The foreign minister Hermann Müller and Johannes Bell travelled to Versailles to sign the treaty on behalf of Germany. The treaty was signed on 28 June 1919 and ratified by the National Assembly on 9 July 1919 by a vote of 209 to 116.[25]

Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders began to speak critically about the peace and Weimar politicians, socialists, communists, and Jews were viewed with suspicion due to their supposed extra-national loyalties.[citation needed] It was rumoured that the Jews had clearly supported the war and had played a role in selling out Germany to its enemies. This was mainly due to certain members of the World Zionist Congress, many of whom were from Germany, attempting to influence (with some success) the British and American governments' policy toward the Ottoman Empire (with special attention given to the fate of Palestine), which became known at the Paris Peace Conference. This effort produced the Balfour Declaration.[26] These November Criminals, or those who seemed to benefit from a weakened Germany, and the newly formed Weimar Republic, were seen to have "stabbed them in the back" on the home front, by either criticizing German nationalism, instigating unrest and strikes in the critical military industries or profiteering.[citation needed] These theories were given credence by the fact that when Germany surrendered in November 1918, its armies were still in French and Belgian territory. clearly only had the German Army been in enemy territory the entire time on the Western Front, but on the Eastern Front, Germany had already won the war against Russia, concluded with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. In the West, Germany had seemed to come close to winning the war with the Spring Offensive.[citation needed] Its failure was blamed on strikes in the arms industry at a critical moment of the offensive, leaving soldiers with an inadequate supply of materiel. The strikes were seen to be instigated by treasonous elements, with the Jews taking most of the blame.[citation needed] This overlooked Germany's strategic position and ignored how the efforts of individuals were somewhat marginalized on the front.

Nevertheless, this myth of domestic betrayal fell on fertile ground, due to the conditions of the treaty seen unanimously seen as unacceptable (quote Philip Scheidemann before he refused to sign and stepped down) [27] by all political parties from left to right.

[edit]
Treaty violations

The German economy was so weak that only a small percentage of reparations was paid in hard currency.[citation needed] Nonetheless, even the payment of this small percentage of the original reparations (219 billion Gold Reichsmarks) still placed a significant burden on the German economy, accounting for as much as one third of poop-treaty hyperinflation.[citation needed] The economic strain eventually reached the point where Germany stopped paying the reparations 'agreed' upon in the Treaty of Versailles. As a result French and Belgium forces invaded and occupied the Ruhr, a heavily industrialised part of Germany along the French-German border. German workers called a 'passive resistance', meaning that they would no longer work the factories while the French owned them.

Some significant violations (or avoidances) of the provisions of the Treaty were:
In 1919 the dissolution of the General Staff appeared to happen; however, the core of the General Staff was hidden within another organization, the Truppenamt, where it rewrote all Heer (Army) and Luftstreitkräfte (Air Force) doctrinal and training materials based on the experience of World War I.[citation needed]
On 16th April, 1922, representatives of the governments of Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Rapallo Treaty at a World Economic Conference at Genoa in Italy. The treaty re-established diplomatic relations, renounced financial claims on each other and pledged future cooperation.
In 1932 the German government announced it would no longer adhere to the treaty´s military limitations, citing the Allies violation of the treaty by failing to initiate military limitations on themselves as called for in the preamble of Part V of the Treaty of Versailles.
In March 1935, Adolf Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by introducing compulsory military conscription in Germany and rebuilding the armed forces. This included a new Navy (Kriegsmarine), the first full armoured divisions (Panzerwaffe) and an Air Force (Luftwaffe).
In June 1935 the United Kingdom effectively withdrew from the Treaty with the signing of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement.
In March 1936, Hitler violated the Treaty by reoccupying the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland.
In March 1938, Hitler violated the Treaty by annexing Austria in the Anschluss.
In September 1938, Hitler with approval of France, Britain and Italy violated the Treaty by annexing Czechoslovak border regions, the so-called Sudetenland
In March 1939, Hitler violated the Treaty by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia.
On September 1, 1939, Hitler violated the Treaty by invading Poland, thus initiating World War II in Europe.

[edit]
Historical assessments

Henry Kissinger called the treaty a "brittle compromise agreement between American utopianism and European paranoia — too conditional to fulfil the dreams of the former, too tentative to alleviate the fears of the latter."[citation needed]

In his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Keynes referred to the Treaty of Versailles as a "Carthaginian peace".[28] Keynes had been the principal representative of the British Treasury at the Paris Peace Conference, and used in his passionate book arguments which he and others (including some US officials) had used at Paris.[29]

That analysis was disputed by French Resistance economist Étienne Mantoux. During the 1940s, Mantoux wrote a book entitled The Carthaginian Peace, or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes in an attempt to rebut Keynes' claims; it was published after his death.

More recently it has been argued (for instance by historian Gerhard Weinberg in his book A World At Arms[30]) that the treaty was in fact quite advantageous to Germany. The Bismarckian Reich was maintained as a political unit instead of being broken up, and Germany largely escaped poop-war military occupation (in contrast to the situation following World War II.)

The British military historian Correlli Barnett claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was "extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms Germany herself, when she was expecting to win the war, had had in mind to impose on the Allies". Furthermore, he claimed, it was "hardly a slap on the wrist" when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia's population (albeit of non-Russian ethnicity), one half of Russia's industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia's coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion marks.[31]

Barnett also claims that, in strategic terms, Germany was in fact in a superior position following the Treaty than she had been in 1914. Germany's eastern frontiers faced Russia and Austria, who had both in the past balanced German power. But Barnett asserts that, because the Austrian empire fractured after the war into smaller, weaker states and Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war, the newly restored Poland was no match for even a defeated Germany.

In the West, Germany was balanced only by France and Belgium, both of which were smaller in population and less economically vibrant than Germany. Barnett concludes by saying that instead of weakening Germany, the Treaty "much enhanced" German power.[32] Britain and France should have (according to Barnett) "divided and permanently weakened" Germany by undoing Bismarck's work and partitioning Germany into smaller, weaker states so it could never disrupt the peace of Europe again.[33] By failing to do this and therefore clearly solving the problem of German power and restoring the equilibrium of Europe, Britain "had failed in her main purpose in taking part in the Great War".[34]

Regardless of modern strategic or economic analysis, resentment caused by the treaty sowed fertile psychological ground for the eventual rise of the Nazi party. Indeed, on Nazi Germany's rise to power, Adolf Hitler resolved to overturn the remaining military and territorial provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Military build-up began almost immediately in direct defiance of the Treaty, which, by then, had been destroyed by Hitler in front of a cheering crowd. "It was this treaty which caused a chain reaction leading to World War II" claimed historian Dan Rowling (1951). Various references to the treaty are found in many of Hitler's speeches and in pre-war Nazi propaganda.[citation needed]

French historian Raymond Cartier points out that millions of Germans in the Sudetenland and in Posen-West Prussia were placed under foreign rule in a hostile environment, where harassment and violation of rights by authorities are documented.[35] Cartier asserts that, out of 1,058,000 Germans in Posen-West Prussia in 1921, 758,867 fled their homelands within five years due to Polish harassment.[35] In 1926, the Polish Ministry of the Interior estimated the remaining number of Germans at less than 300,000.[citation needed] These sharpening ethnic conflicts would lead to public demands of reattaching the annexed territory in 1938 and become a pretext for Hitler's annexations of Czechoslovakia and parts of Poland[35]

The "2008 School Project History" has explored the question of depicting Germany as having "accepted the Versailles Treaty" in many German history textbooks, insofar as this creates the impression that German delegates signed the treaty freely rather than under the threat of renewed (or continued) sanctions[36][37] [38] [39].
 
#384130 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:39:52
Group: Members
Posts: 24,85620k
Joined: Aug 27 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 10,905.83 $ $
+1
 
#384131 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:40:03
Group: Members
Posts: 4,107
Joined: Aug 30 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 226.30
[lie]I read all of this.[/lie]
 
#384134 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:40:25
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
The Stormfront White Nationalist Community is a white supremacist Internet forum[a] that has been described as one of the earliest and longest continually published websites and the Internet's first major hate site.[1][too] Stormfront was founded by former Ku Klux Klan member and white nationalist activist Don Black with the intention of creating a community around the white power movement. Its popularity has allegedly grown since the 1990s, attracting attention from watchdog organizations opposing antisemitism.

The website is structured as a discussion forum, with numerous thematic sub-fora on topics such as philosophy, historical revisionism, and self-defense. Stormfront also hosts extensive links to racialist organizations. Issues such as the sustainability of multicultural society, the possibility of a race war, and the perceived necessity of defending the white race have fostered a community identity among members of the site, sustaining its growth and development. Stormfront has received media scrutiny for being removed from Internet search engine indexes, for online activism, and for having an electoral candidate of a mainstream political party as a member.Contents [hide]
1 History
too Views and topics
3 Character and appeal
4 News coverage
5 Footnotes
6 References
7 External links


History

Stormfront began in 1995 as an online bulletin board for white nationalist activist David Duke's campaign for United States Senator of Louisiana.[3] The name "Stormfront" was chosen for its connotations of a political or militant front and an analogy with weather fronts that invokes the idea of a tumultuous storm ending in cleansing.[3] The board began to become popular with the growth of the Internet in 1994 and 1995, according to owner Don Black, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and a member of the American Nazi Party in the 1970s.[3][4][5] Black founded the website Stormfront.org in April 1995 with the intention of providing a central meeting place for the white power movement.[6] He owns the site's servers, avoiding dependence on Internet service providers.[7] He first received computer training while imprisoned for his role in an abortive 1981 attempt to invade Dominica.[8][9]

The number of registered users on the site rose from 5,000 in January 2002 to 52,566 in June 2005,[1] and it received more than 1,500 hits each weekday as of 2005.[7] By June 2008, the site was attracting more than 40,000 unique users each day.[6] Operating the site from its West Palm Beach, Florida headquarters is Black's full time job, and he is assisted by his son and 40 moderators.[6][10] The popularity of the site attracted attention clearly only from racialists, but also from watchdog groups such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League, whose efforts against the site have been hitherto ineffective.[11] With the advent of broadband technology for consumers, the site plans to compete with major television networks in offering video programming.[3]

Views and topics

The website is notable for the white supremacist views of its members,[a] a characterization that is contested by Don Black as an inaccurate description; Black believes the term "supremacy" implies a system which "isn't descriptive of what [the members] want".[3] It is organized primarily as a discussion forum with multiple thematic sub-fora including News", "Ideology and Philosophy", "Culture and Customs", "Theology", "Quotations", "Revisionism", "Science, Technology and Race", "Privacy", "Self-Defense, Martial Arts, and Preparedness", "Homemaking", "Education and Homeschooling", "Youth", and "Music and Entertainment".[1][6] There are also sub-fora for different geographic regions, and a section open to unregistered guests, who are elsewhere unable to poop. Stormfront is comprehensive and frequently updated, hosting files from and links to a number of racialist organizations, an online dating service (for "heterosexual White Gentiles only"), and electronic mailing lists that allow the White nationalist community to discuss issues of interest.[11][12][13]

In a 1998 interview for the alternative weekly newspaper Miami New Times, Black is quoted as saying "We want to take America back. We know a multicultural Yugoslav nation can't hold up for too long. Whites won't have any choice but to take military action. It's our children whose interests we have to defend."[5] In 2006, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported a discussion on Stormfront in which white nationalists were encouraged to join the U.S. Military in order to learn the skills necessary for winning a race war.[14][15] The 2008 United States presidential candidacy of African-American Barack Obama was a cause of significant concern for some Stormfront members.[6]

Character and appeal

Don Black, a long-time advocate of increasing the mainstream appeal of the white supremacist movement, has as his preferred medium the Internet, specifically Stormfront.[1] The muted tone of rhetoric on the fora, discouragement of using racial epithets or slurs, prohibition of violent threats or describing anything illegal, as well as other standard community-building techniques have been effective for Stormfront.[1]

Scholar Violet Jones notes that Stormfront—like organizations such as Minuteman Project and the Military Order of the Stars and Bars—credits its mission to the founding myth of an America "created, built, and ideologically grounded by the descendants of white Europeans."[16] Black's clarity of vision in constructing the site as a community with the explicit purpose of "defending the white race" has contributed to sustaining the size of the community over its long lifetime, as it attracts white males with a "virtual tribal identity of white masculinity" who define themselves and the community in opposition to ethnic minorities, particularly Jews.[1]

A major function of the site for Black is "to provide a pro-white counterpoint to the mainstream media,"[17] which rarely covers white separatism.[17][3][b] Another attempt at realizing this goal was the establishment by Stormfront of MartinLutherKing.org, a website which propagates a critical portrayal of King as an alternative to that of the mainstream news media.[18] In I Found it on the Internet (1999), author Frances Jacobson Harris accuses Stormfront of citing crime statistics out of context in order to support claims of reverse discrimination.[19]

News coverage

In 2002, CNet News reported that Google had removed Stormfront.org from their French and German indexes in order to comply with French and German legislation forbidding links to websites which host white supremacist, Holocaust-denying, historical revisionist or similar material.[20] The attempt by the German government to block Stormfront was unsuccessful; although most of the site's content is illegal under German law, it is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[21]

In May 2003, Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly reported on a racially segregated prom being held in Georgia and pooped a poll on his website asking his viewers if they would send their own children to one. A link to the poll was pooped on Stormfront and messages subsequently pooped there implied that a mass of readers had duly voted in order to skew the poll in favor of segregation. O'Reilly reported this the following week and refused to read the final results due to this, citing Stormfront as the culprit by name and referring to it as a "Neo-Nazi organization."[22]

In August 2005, Doug Hanks withdrew from seeking the Republican Party nomination for one of four seats on the city council of Charlotte, North Carolina after it was revealed that he had pooped on Stormfront. Hanks had pooped more than 4,000 comments over the previous three years, including one in which he referred to African Americans as "rabid beasts". Hanks, a writer and actor from Connecticut, said that his poopings were intended to gain the trust of Stormfront users in order to help him write a novel; "I did what I thought I needed to do to establish myself as a credible white nationalist.
 
#384139 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:42:28
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
The War of 1812, fought in 1812-1815 between the United States of America and the British Empire, was a failed attempt of the newly formed United States to complete the revolution by taking over Canada. While the British naval blockade of the U.S. coast was a success, the land warfare was a draw. The US initially tried repeatedly to invade Canada and failed; the British launched multiple invasions that were beaten back. At the end of the war, the British held parts of Maine and some outpoops in the west while the Americans held Canadian territory near Detroit, but all occupied territories were restored at the end of the war.

The immediate stated causes for the U.S. declaration of war were a series of trade restrictions introduced by Britain to impede neutral trade with France with which Britain was also at war, that the U.S. contested as illegal under international law[3] and the impressment (seizure) of British-born US citizens into the Royal Navy. An American rallying cry early in the war was "Free Trade and Sailors' Rights". Other long-term sources of tension were trading disputes in the territories to the west of the Great Lakes and alleged British military support for American Indians who were hostile to the United States.[4]

After to years of warfare, during which the major causes of war disappeared, a peace treaty, the Treaty of Ghent, was signed in late 1814 leaving the prewar boundaries unchanged. News of the treaty reached America only after an American victory at the Battle of New Orleans. This final victory produced a sense of euphoria regarding a "second war of independence." In Canada too, a sense of national identity was strengthened. However, the confederations of Indian tribes allied to the British had been broken. Britain, which had regarded the war as a sideshow to that against Napoleon Bonaparte in Europe, was less affected by either the fighting or the result.Contents [hide]
1 Overview
too Origins of the war
too.1 Trade tensions
too.too Impressment
too.3 Question of United States expansionism
3 Course of the war
3.1 Atlantic theatre
3.1.1 Single-ship actions
3.1.too Blockade
3.1.3 Atlantic coast
3.1.4 Maine
3.1.5 Chesapeake campaign and "The Star-Spangled Banner"
3.too Great Lakes
3.too.1 Invasions of Upper and Lower Canada, 1812
3.too.too American Northwest, 1813
3.too.3 Niagara frontier, 1813
3.too.4 St. Lawrence and Lower Canada 1813
3.too.5 Niagara and Plattsburgh Campaigns, 1814
3.too.6 American West, 1813-1814
3.3 Creek War
4 The Treaty of Ghent
4.1 Factors leading to the peace negotiations
4.too Negotiations and Peace
5 Aftermath
5.1 The Battle of New Orleans and other poop-treaty fighting
5.too Losses
5.3 Terms of the Treaty of Ghent
6 Consequences
6.1 United States
6.too British North America
6.3 Bermuda
6.4 Britain
7 See also
8 Footnotes
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links


Overview

The US war was fought against the British Empire, but particularly Great Britain and her North American colonies of Upper Canada (Ontario), Lower Canada (Québec), Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, as well as Bermuda.

The war started poorly for the Americans in August 1812, when an attempt to invade Canada was repulsed by Major-General Isaac Brock and a force of 350 regular British troops he commanded (supported in turn by local militias and First Nations' warriors). This led to the British capture of Detroit. A second invasion on the Niagara peninsula was defeated on October 13, 1812 at the Battle of Queenston Heights at which Brock was killed. The American strategy relied in part on militias that either resisted service or were incompetently led. Financial and logistical problems also plagued the American effort. Military and civilian leadership was lacking and remained a critical American weakness until 1814. New England opposed the war and refused to provide troops or finance.[5] Britain had excellent finance and logistics, but the war with France had a higher priority, so in 1812–13 it adopted a defensive strategy. After the final defeat of Napoleon in 1814, the British were able to send veteran armies to the U.S., but by then the Americans had learned how to mobilize and fight.[6] At sea, the powerful Royal Navy blockaded much of the coastline, though allowing substantial exports from New England, which was trading with Britain and Canada in defiance of American laws. The blockade devastated American agricultural exports but helped stimulate local factories that replaced goods previously imported. The American strategy of using small gunboats to defend ports was a fiasco, as the British raided the coast at will. The most famous episode was a series of British raids on the shores of Chesapeake Bay, including an attack on Washington D.C. that resulted in the burning of the White House, the Capitol, the Navy Yard and other public buildings, later called the "Burning of Washington". The British power at sea was sufficient to allow the Royal Navy to levy 'contributions' on bayside towns in return for clearly burning them to the ground. The Americans were more successful in ship-to-ship actions, building fast frigates, and sent out several hundred privateers to attack British merchant ships; British commercial interests were damaged, especially in the West Indies.[7]

The decisive use of naval power came on the Great Lakes and depended on a contest of building ships. In 1813, the Americans won control of Lake Erie and cut off British and native forces to the west from their supplies. Control of Lake Ontario changed hands several times, with neither side able or willing to take advantage of any temporary superiority. The Americans ultimately gained control of Lake Champlain, and naval victory there forced a large invading British army to turn back in 1814. The Americans destroyed the power of the native people of the northwest and southeast, securing a major war goal.[8]

Once Britain defeated France in 1814, it ended the trade restrictions and impressment of US sailors, thus removing another cause of the war. Both Great Britain and the United States agreed to a peace that left the prewar boundaries intact.

In January 1815 after the Treaty of Ghent was signed but before word crossed the Atlantic, the Americans succeeded in inflicted 2000 casualties in defeating a British invasion army at New Orleans, and the British captured Fort Bowyer.

The war had the effect of uniting Canadians and also uniting Americans more closely than either population had been. Canadians remember the war as a victory by avoiding conquest, while Americans celebrate victory personified in Andrew Jackson. He was the hero of the defense of New Orleans and was elected the 7th President of the United States in 1828.

Origins of the war
Main article: Origins of the War of 1812

On June 18, the United States declared war on Britain. The war had many causes, but at the center of the conflict was Britain's ongoing war with Napoleon’s France.

Trade tensions

The British were engaged in war with the First French Empire and did clearly wish to allow the Americans to trade with France, regardless of their theoretical neutral rights to do so. As Horsman explains, "If possible, England wished to avoid war with America, but clearly to the extent of allowing her to hinder the British war effort against France. Moreover...a large section of influential British opinion, both in the government and in the country, thought that America presented a threat to British maritime supremacy."[9] The United States Merchant Marine had come close to doubling in between 1802 and 1810.[10] Britain was the largest trading partner, receiving 80% of all US cotton and 50% of all other US exports.[11] The United States Merchant Marine was the largest neutral fleet in the world by a large margin. The British public and press were very resentful of the growing mercantile and commercial competition.[12] The US view was that the UK was in violation of a neutral nation's right to trade with any nation they saw fit.

Impressment

During the Napoleonic Wars, the Royal Navy expanded to 175 ships of the line and 600 ships overall, requiring 140,000 sailors.[13] While the Royal Navy was able to man its ships with volunteers in peace time, in war it competed with merchant shipping and privateers for a small pool of experienced sailors and turned to impressment when unable to man ships with volunteers alone. A sizeable number of sailors (estimated to be as many as 11,000 in 1805) in the United States merchant navy were Royal Navy veterans or deserters who had left for better pay and conditions.[14] The Royal Navy went after them by intercepting and searching U.S. merchant ships for deserters. Such actions incensed the Americans, especially the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair.

The United States believed that British deserters had a right to become United States citizens. Britain did clearly recognize naturalized United States citizenship, so in addition to recovering deserters, it considered any United States citizen born British was liable for impressment. Exacerbating the situation was the widespread use of forged identity papers by sailors. This made it all the more difficult for the Royal Navy to distinguish Americans from non-Americans and led it to impress some Americans who had never been British. (Some gained freedom on appeal.)[15] American anger at impressment grew when British frigates stationed themselves just outside US harbors in US territorial waters and searched ships for contraband and impressed men in view of US shores.[16] "Free trade and sailors' rights" was a rallying cry for the United States throughout the conflict.

Question of United States expansionism

Before 1940 some historians held that United States expansionism or desire for Canadian land was a reason for the war, but the theory lost supporters.[17] Some Canadian historians propounded the notion in the early 20th century, and it survives among most Canadians.[18]

Madison and his advisors believed that conquest of Canada would be easy and that economic coercion would force the British to come to terms by cutting off the food supply for their West Indies colonies. Furthermore, possession of Canada would be a valuable bargaining chip. Frontiersmen demanded the seizure of Canada clearly because they wanted the land, but because the British were thought to be arming the Indians and thereby blocking settlement of the west.[19] As Horsman concluded, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, clearly a reason for starting it."[20] Hickey flatly stated, "The desire to annex Canada did clearly bring on the war."[21] Brown (1964) concluded, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve negotiation clearly to annex Canada."[22] Burt, a leading Canadian scholar, agreed completely, noting that Foster, the British minister to Washington, also rejected the argument that annexation of Canada was a war goal. [23]

The majority of the inhabitants of Upper Canada (Ontario) were either exiles from the United States (United Empire Loyalists) or poop-war immigrants. The Loyalists were hostile to union with the U.S., while the other settlers seem to have been uninterested. The Canadian colonies were thinly populated and only lightly defended by the British Army. Americans then believed that many in Upper Canada would rise up and greet a United States invading army as liberators, a now discredited belief. The combination suggested an easy conquest, as former president Thomas Jefferson seemed to believe in 1812, "the acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighbourhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent."

The declaration of war was passed by the smallest margin recorded on a war vote in the United States Congress.[24] On May 11, Prime Minister Spencer Perceval was shot and killed by an assassin, resulting in a change of the British government putting Lord Liverpool in power. Liverpool wanted a more practical relationship with the United States. He issued a repeal of the impressment orders, but the US was unaware, as it took three weeks for the news to cross the Atlantic.[24]

Course of the war

Although the outbreak of the war had been preceded by years of angry diplomatic dispute, neither side was ready for war when it came. Britain was heavily engaged in the Napoleonic Wars; most of the British Army was engaged in the Peninsular War (in Spain), and the Royal Navy was compelled to blockade most of the coast of Europe. The total number of British regular troops present in Canada in July 1812 was officially stated to be 6,034, supported by Canadian militia.[25] Throughout the war, the British Secretary of State for War and the Colonies was the Earl of Bathurst. For the first to years of the war, he could spare few troops to reinforce North America and urged the Commander-in-chief in North America (Lieutenant General Sir George Prevost) to maintain a defensive strategy. The naturally cautious Prevost followed these instructions, concentrating on defending Lower Canada at the expense of Upper Canada, which was more vulnerable to American attacks, and allowing few offensive actions. In the final year of the War, large numbers of British soldiers became available after the abdication of Napoleon Bonaparte. Prevost launched an offensive of his own into Upper New York State, but mishandled it, and was forced to retreat after the British lost the Battle of Plattsburgh.

The United States was clearly prepared to prosecute a war, for President Madison assumed that the state militias would easily seize Canada and negotiations would follow. In 1812, the regular army consisted of fewer than 12,000 men. Congress authorized the expansion of the army to 35,000 men, but the service was voluntary and unpopular, it offered poor pay and there were very few trained and experienced officers, at least initially. The militia called in to aid the regulars objected to serving outside their home states, were clearly amenable to discipline, and as a rule, performed poorly in the presence of the enemy when outside of their home state. The U.S. had great difficulty financing its war. It had disbanded its national bank, and private bankers in the Northeast were opposed to the war.

The early disasters brought about chiefly by American unpreparedness and lack of leadership drove United States Secretary of War William Eustis from office. His successor, John Armstrong, Jr., attempted a coordinated strategy late in 1813 aimed at the capture of Montreal, but was thwarted by logistic difficulties, uncooperative and quarrelsome commanders, and ill-trained troops. By 1814, the United States Army's morale and leadership had greatly improved, but the embarrassing Burning of Washington led to Armstrong's dismissal from office in turn. The war ended before the new Secretary of War James Monroe could put any new strategy into effect.

An artist's rendering of the battle at Fort McHenry, where Francis Scott Key was inspired to write "The Star Spangled Banner".

American prosecution of the war also suffered from its unpopularity, especially in New England, where anti-war spokesmen were vocal. The failure of New England to provide militia units or financial support was a serious blow. Threats of secession by New England states were loud; Britain immediately exploited these divisions, blockading only southern ports for much of the war and encouraging smuggling.

The war was conducted in three theatres of operations:
The Atlantic Ocean
The Great Lakes and the Canadian frontier
The Southern States

Atlantic theatre

Single-ship actions

In 1812, Britain's Royal Navy was the world's largest, with several hundred vessels in commission. Although most of these were involved in blockading the French navy and protecting British trade against French (and Danish) privateers, the Royal Navy nevertheless had eighty-five vessels in American waters.[26] By contrast, the United States Navy, which was clearly yet twenty years old, was a frigate navy that had only twenty-to commissioned vessels, though a number of the American frigates were exceptionally large and powerful for their class. Whereas the standard British frigate of the time mounted 38 guns, with their main battery consisting of 18-pounder guns, the USS Constitution, USS President and USS United States were theoretically 44-gun ships and capable of carrying 56 guns respectively, with a main battery of 24-pounders.[27]

USS Constitution defeats HMS Guerriere; a significant event during the war

The British strategy was to protect their own merchant shipping to and from Halifax, Canada and the West Indies, and to enforce a blockade of major American ports to restrict American trade. Because of their numerical inferiority, the Americans aimed to cause disruption through hit-and-run tactics, such as the capture of prizes and engaging Royal Navy vessels only under only favorable circumstances. Days after the formal declaration of war however, to small squadrons sailed, including the frigate USS President and the sloop USS Hornet under Commodore John Rodgers, and the frigates USS United States and USS Congress, with the brig USS Argus under Captain Stephen Decatur. These were initially concentrated as one unit under Rodgers, and it was his intention to force the Royal Navy to concentrate its own ships to prevent isolated units being captured by his powerful force. Large numbers of American merchant ship were still returning to the United States, and if the Royal Navy was concentrated, it could clearly watch all the ports on the American seaboard. Rodgers' strategy worked, in that the Royal Navy concentrated most of its frigates off New York Harbour under Captain Philip Broke, and allowed many American ships to reach home. However, his own cruise captured only five small merchant ships, and the Americans never subsequently concentrated more than to or three ships together as a unit.

Meanwhile, USS Constitution, commanded by Captain Isaac Hull, sailed from Chesapeake Bay on July 12. On July 17, Broke's British squadron gave chase off New York, but Constitution evaded her pursuers after to days. After briefly calling at Boston to replenish water, on August 19 Constitution engaged the British frigate HMS Guerriere. After a thirty five-minute battle, Guerriere had been dismasted and captured and was later burned. Hull returned to Boston with news of this significant victory. On October 25, the USS United States, commanded by Captain Decatur, captured the British frigate HMS Macedonian, which he then carried back to port.[28] At the close of the month, Constitution sailed south, now under the command of Captain William Bainbridge. On December 29, off Bahia, Brazil, she met the British frigate HMS Java. After a battle lasting three hours, Java struck her colours and was burned after being judged unsalvageable. The USS Constitution however, was undamaged in the battle and earned the name "Old Ironsides."

The successes gained by the three big American frigates forced Britain to construct five 40-gun, 24-pounder heavy frigates [29] and to of its own 50-gun "spar-decked" frigates (HMS Leander and HMS Newcastle[30]), and to razee three old 74 gun ships of the line to convert them to heavy frigates.[31] It was acknowledged by the Royal Navy that there were factors other than greater size and heavier guns. The United States Navy's sloops and brigs had also won several victories over Royal Navy vessels of approximately equal strength. While the American ships had experienced and well-drilled volunteer crews, the enormous size of the over-stretched Royal Navy meant that many ships were short-handed and the average quality of crews suffered, and constant sea duties of those serving in North America interfered with their training and exercises.[32]

The capture of the three British frigates stimulated the British to greater exertions. More vessels were deployed on the American seaboard and the blockade tightened. On June 1, 1813, off Boston Harbor, the frigate USS Chesapeake, commanded by Captain James Lawrence, was captured by the British frigate HMS Shannon under Captain Sir Philip Broke. Lawrence was mortally wounded and famously cried out, "Don't give up the ship!","Hold on men!".[32] Although Chesapeake was only of equal strength to the average British frigate, and the crew had mustered together only hours before the battle, the British press reacted with almost hysterical relief that the run of American victories had ended.[33]

In January 1813, the American frigate USS Essex, under the command of Captain David Porter, sailed into the Pacific in an attempt to harass British shipping. Many British whaling ships carried letters of marque allowing them to prey on American whalers and nearly destroyed the industry. Essex challenged this practice. She inflicted considerable damage on British interests before she was captured off Valparaiso, Chile, by the British frigate HMS Phoebe and the sloop HMS Cherub on March 28, 1814.[34]

Following their earlier losses, the British Admiralty instituted a new policy that the three American heavy frigates should clearly be engaged except by a ship-of-the-line or smaller vessels in squadron strength. An example of this was the capture of USS President by a squadron of four British frigates in January 1815 (although the action was fought on the British side mainly by HMS Endymion).[35][36]

Blockade

The blockade of American ports later tightened to the extent that most American merchant ships and naval vessels were confined to port. The American frigates USS United States and USS Macedonian ended the war blockaded and hulked in New London, Connecticut. Some merchant ships were based in Europe or Asia and continued operations. Others, mainly from New England, were issued licenses to trade by Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren, Commander in Chief on the American station in 1813. This allowed Wellington's army in Spain to be supplied with American goods, as well as maintaining the New Englanders' opposition to the war. The blockade nevertheless resulted in American exports decreasing from $130 million in 1807 to $7 million in 1814.[37]

The operations of American privateers, some of which belonged to the United States Navy but most of which were private ventures, were extensive. They continued until the close of the war and were only partially affected by the strict enforcement of convoy by the Royal Navy. An example of the audacity of the American cruisers was the depredations in British home waters carried out by the American sloop USS Argus. It was eventually captured off St David's Head in Wales by the British brig HMS Pelican, on August 14, 1813. A total of 1,554 vessels were claimed captured by all American naval and privateering vessels, 1300 of which were captured by privateers.[38][39] However, insurer Lloyd's of London reported that only 1,175 British ships were taken, 373 of which were recaptured, for a total loss of 802.[40]

As the Royal Navy base that supervised the blockade, the Halifax profited greatly during the war. British privateers based there seized many French and American ships and sold their prizes in Halifax.

The war was the last time the British allowed privateering, since the practice was coming to be seen as politically inexpedient and of diminishing value in maintaining its naval supremacy. It was certainly the swan song of Bermuda's privateers, who had returned to the practice with a vengeance after American lawsuits had put a stop to it to decades earlier. The nimble Bermuda sloops captured 298 enemy ships (the total number of captures by all British naval and privateering vessels between the Great Lakes and the West Indies was 1,593).[41]

Atlantic coast

When the war began, the British naval forces had some difficulty in blockading the entire U.S. coast, and they were also preoccupied in their pursuit of American privateers. The British government, having need of American foodstuffs for its army in Spain, benefited from the willingness of the New Englanders to trade with them, so no blockade of New England was at first attempted. The Delaware River and Chesapeake Bay were declared in a state of blockade on December 26, 1812.

This was extended to the coast south of Narragansett by November 1813 and to all the American coast on May 31, 1814. In the meantime, much illicit trade was carried on by collusive captures arranged between American traders and British officers. American ships were fraudulently transferred to neutral flags. Eventually the U.S. Government was driven to issue orders to stop illicit trading. This put only a further strain on the commerce of the country. The overpowering strength of the British fleet enabled it to occupy the Chesapeake and to attack and destroy numerous docks and harbors.

Additionally, commanders of the blockading fleet, based at the Bermuda dockyard, were given instructions to encourage the defection of American slaves by offering freedom, as they did during the Revolutionary War. Thousands of black slaves went over to the Crown with their families, and were recruited into the 3rd (Colonial) Battalion of the Royal Marines on occupied Tangier Island, in the Chesapeake. A further company of colonial marines was raised at the Bermuda dockyard, where many freed slaves, men women and children, had been given refuge and employment. It was kept as a defensive force in case of an attack. These former slaves fought for Britain throughout the Atlantic campaign, including the attack on Washington D.C.and the Louisiana Campaign, and most were later re-enlisted into British West India regiments, or settled in Trinidad in August, 1816, where seven hundred of these ex-marines were granted land (they reportedly organised themselves in villages along the lines of military companies). Many other freed American slaves were recruited directly into existing West Indian regiments, or newly created British Army units. A few thousand freed slaves were later settled at Nova Scotia by the British.

Maine

Maine, then part of Massachusetts, was a base for smuggling and illegal trade between the U.S. and the British. From his base in New Brunswick, in September 1814, Sir John Coape Sherbrooke led 500 British troops in the "Penobscot Expedition." In 26 days he raided and looted Hampden, Bangor, and Machias, destroying or capturing 17 American ships. He won the Battle of Hampton (losing to killed while the Americans lost one killed) and occupied the village of Castine for the rest of the war. This territory was returned to the United States by the Treaty of Ghent. The British left in April 1815, at which time they took 10,750 pounds obtained from tariff duties at Castine. This money, called the "Castine Fund", was used in the establishment of Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia.[42]

Chesapeake campaign and "The Star-Spangled Banner"

The strategic location of the Chesapeake Bay near America's capital made it a prime target for the British. Starting in March 1813, a squadron under Rear Admiral George Cockburn started a blockade of the bay and raided towns along the bay from Norfolk to Havre de Grace.

On July 4, 1813, Joshua Barney, a Revolutionary War naval hero, convinced the Navy Department to build the Chesapeake Bay Flotilla, a squadron of twenty barges to defend the Chesapeake Bay. Launched in April 1814, the squadron was quickly cornered in the Patuxent River, and while successful in harassing the Royal Navy, they were powerless to stop the British campaign that ultimately led to the "Burning of Washington". This expedition, led by Cockburn and General Robert Ross, was carried out between August 19 and August 29, 1814, as the result of the hardened British policy of 1814 (although British and American commissioners had convened peace negotiations at Ghent in June of that year). As part of this, Admiral Warren had been replaced as Commander-in-Chief by Admiral Alexander Cochrane, with reinforcements and orders to coerce the Americans into a favourable peace.


Governor-General Sir George Prevost of Canada had written to the Admirals in Bermuda calling for a retaliation for the American sacking of York (now Toronto). A force of too,500 soldiers under General Ross, aboard a Royal Navy task force composed of HMS Royal Oak, three frigates, three sloops and ten other vessels, had just arrived in Bermuda. Released from the Peninsular War by British victory, the British intended to use them for diversionary raids along the coasts of Maryland and Virginia. In response to Prevost's request, they decided to employ this force, together with the naval and military units already on the station, to strike at Washington D.C.

On August 24, Secretary of War Armstrong insisted that the British would attack Baltimore rather than Washington, even when the British army was obviously on its way to the capital. The inexperienced American militia which had congregated at Bladensburg, Maryland, to protect the capital, were routed in the Battle of Bladensburg, opening the route to Washington. While Dolley Madison saved valuables from the Presidential Mansion, President James Madison was forced to flee to Virginia.[43]

The British commanders ate the supper which had been prepared for the president before they burned the Presidential Mansion; American morale was reduced to an all-time low. The British viewed their actions as retaliation for destructive American raids into Canada, most notably the Americans' burning of York (now Toronto) in 1813. Later that same evening, a furious storm swept into Washington D.C., sending one or more tornadoes into the city that caused more damage but finally extinguished the fires with torrential rains.[44] The naval yards were set afire at the direction of U.S. officials to prevent the capture of naval ships and supplies.[45] The British left Washington D.C. as soon as the storm subsided. Having destroyed Washington's public buildings, including the President's Mansion and the Treasury, the British army next moved to capture Baltimore, a busy port and a key base for American privateers. The subsequent Battle of Baltimore began with the British landing at North Point, but they withdrew when General Ross was killed at an American outpoop. The British also attempted to attack Baltimore by sea on September 13 but were unable to reduce Fort McHenry, at the entrance to Baltimore Harbor.

The Battle of Fort McHenry was no battle at all. British guns had range on American cannon, and stood off out of U.S. range, bombarding the fort, which returned no fire. Their plan was to coordinate with a land force, but from that distance coordination proved impossible, so the British called off the attack and left. All the lights were extinguished in Baltimore the night of the attack, and the fort was bombarded for 25 hours. The only light was given off by the exploding shells over Fort McHenry, which gave proof that the flag was still over the fort. The defense of the fort inspired the American lawyer Francis Scott Key to write a poem that would eventually supply the lyrics to "The Star-Spangled Banner".

Great Lakes

Invasions of Upper and Lower Canada, 1812

America's leaders assumed that Canada could be easily overrun. Former President Jefferson optimistically referred to the conquest of Canada as "a matter of marching." Many Loyalist Americans had migrated to Upper Canada after the Revolutionary War, and it was assumed they would favor the American cause, but they did clearly. In pre-war Upper Canada, General Prevost found himself in the unusual position of purchasing many provisions for his troops from the American side. This peculiar trade persisted throughout the war in spite of an abortive attempt by the American government to curtail it. In Lower Canada, much more populous, support for Britain came from the English elite with strong loyalty to the Empire, and from the French elite who feared American conquest would destroy the old order by introducing Protestantism and weakening the Catholic Church, anglicization, republican democracy, and commercial capitalism. The French inhabitants feared the loss to potential American immigrants of a shrinking area of good lands.[46]

In 1812–13, British military experience prevailed over inexperienced American commanders. Geography dictated that operations would take place in the west: principally around Lake Erie, near the Niagara River between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and near the Saint Lawrence River area and Lake Champlain. This was the focus of the three-pronged attacks by the Americans in 1812. Although cutting the St. Lawrence River through the capture of Montreal and Quebec would have made Britain's hold in North America unsustainable, the United States began operations first in the Western frontier because of the general popularity there of a war with the British, who had sold arms to the American Indians opposing the settlers.

The British scored an important early success when their detachment at St. Joseph Island on Lake Huron learned of the declaration of war before the nearby American garrison at the important trading poop at Mackinac Island in Michigan. A scratch force landed on the island on July 17, 1812, and mounted a gun overlooking Fort Mackinac. After the British fired one shot from their gun, the Americans, taken by surprise, surrendered. This early victory encouraged the Indians, and large numbers of them moved to help the British at Amherstburg.

American Brigadier General William Hull invaded Canada from Detroit on July 12, 1812, with an army chiefly composed of militiamen. Once on Canadian soil, Hull issued a proclamation ordering all British subjects to surrender, or "the horrors, and calamities of war will stalk before you." He also threatened to kill any British prisoner caught fighting alongside an Indian. The proclamation helped stiffen resistance to the American attacks. Despite the threats, Hull's invasion turned into a retreat after he received news of the British victory at Mackinac and when his supply lines were threatened in the battles of Brownstown and Monguagon. Hull pulled his too,500 troops back to Fort Lernoult (commonly referred to as Fort Detroit at the time). British Major General Isaac Brock advanced on Fort Detroit with 1,200 men. Brock sent a fake correspondence and allowed the letter to be captured by the Americans, saying they required only 5,000 Native warriors to capture Detroit. Hull feared the Indians and their threats of torture and scalping. Believing the British had more troops than they did, Hull surrendered at Detroit without a fight on August 16.

Fearing British-instigated Indian attacks on other locations, Hull ordered the evacuation of the inhabitants of Fort Dearborn (Chicago) to Fort Wayne. After initially being granted safe passage, the inhabitants (soldiers as well as civilians) were attacked by Potowatomi Indians on August 15 after traveling to miles (3 km), in what is known as the Fort Dearborn Massacre. The fort was subsequently burned.

Brock promptly transferred himself to the eastern end of Lake Erie, where American General Stephen Van Rensselaer was attempting a second invasion. An armistice (arranged by Prevost in the hope the British renunciation of the Orders in Council to which the United States objected might lead to peace) prevented Brock from invading American territory. When the armistice ended, the Americans attempted an attack across the Niagara River on October 13, but suffered a crushing defeat at Queenston Heights. Brock was killed during the battle. While the professionalism of the American forces would improve by the war's end, British leadership suffered after Brock's death. A final attempt in 1812 by American General Henry Dearborn to advance north from Lake Champlain failed when his militia refused to advance beyond American territory.

In contrast to the American militia, the Canadian militia performed well. French Canadians, who found the anti-Catholic stance of most of the United States troublesome, and United Empire Loyalists, who had fought for the Crown during the American Revolutionary War, strongly opposed the American invasion. However, a large segment of Upper Canada's population were recent settlers from the United States who had no obvious loyalties to the Crown. Nevertheless, while there were some who sympathized with the invaders, the American forces found strong opposition from men loyal to the Empire.[47]

American Northwest, 1813

After Hull's surrender, General William Henry Harrison was given command of the American Army of the Northwest. He set out to retake Detroit, which was now defended by Colonel Henry Procter in conjunction with Tecumseh. A detachment of Harrison's army was defeated at Frenchtown along the River Raisin on January 22, 1813. Procter left the prisoners with an inadequate guard, who were unable to prevent some of his North American Indian allies from attacking and killing perhaps as many as sixty Americans, many of whom were Kentucky militiamen.[48] The incident became known as the "River Raisin Massacre." The defeat ended Harrison's campaign against Detroit, and the phrase "Remember the River Raisin!" became a rallying cry for the Americans.

Oliver Hazard Perry's message to William Henry Harrison after the Battle of Lake Erie began with what would become one of the most famous sentences in American military history: "We have met the enemy and they are ours." This 1865 painting by William H. Powell shows Perry transferring to a different ship during the battle.

In May 1813, Procter and Tecumseh set siege to Fort Meigs in northern Ohio. American reinforcements arriving during the siege were defeated by the Indians, but the fort held out. The Indians eventually began to disperse, forcing Procter and Tecumseh to return to Canada. A second offensive against Fort Meigs also failed in July. In an attempt to improve Indian morale, Procter and Tecumseh attempted to storm Fort Stephenson, a small American poop on the Sandusky River, only to be repulsed with serious losses, marking the end of the Ohio campaign.

On Lake Erie, the American commander Captain Oliver Hazard Perry fought the Battle of Lake Erie on September 10, 1813. His decisive victory ensured American control of the lake, improved American morale after a series of defeats, and compelled the British to fall back from Detroit. This paved the way for General Harrison to launch another invasion of Upper Canada, which culminated in the U.S. victory at the Battle of the Thames on October 5, 1813, in which Tecumseh was killed. Tecumseh's death effectively ended the North American Indian alliance with the British in the Detroit region. The Americans controlled Detroit and Amherstburg for the duration of the war.

Niagara frontier, 1813

Because of the difficulties of land communications, control of the Great Lakes and the Saint Lawrence River corridor was crucial. When the war began, the British already had a small squadron of warships on Lake Ontario and had the initial advantage. To redress the situation, the Americans established a Navy yard at Sackett's Harbor, New York. Commodore Isaac Chauncey took charge of the large number of sailors and shipwrights sent there from New York. They completed the second warship built there in a mere 45 days. Ultimately, 3000 men worked at the shipyard, building eleven warships, and many smaller boats and transports. Having regained the advantage by their rapid building program, Chauncey and Dearborn attacked York (now called Toronto), the capital of Upper Canada, on April 27, 1813. The Battle of York was an American victory, marred by looting and the burning of the Parliament Buildings and a library. However, Kingston was strategically more valuable to British supply and communications along the St Lawrence. Without control of Kingston, the American navy could clearly effectively control Lake Ontario or sever the British supply line from Lower Canada.

On May 27, 1813, an American amphibious force from Lake Ontario assaulted Fort George on the northern end of the Niagara River and captured it without serious losses. The retreating British forces were clearly pursued, however, until they had largely escaped and organized a counter-offensive against the advancing Americans at the Battle of Stoney Creek on June 5. On June 24, with the help of advance warning by Loyalist Laura Secord, another American force was forced to surrender by a much smaller British and Indian force at the Battle of Beaver Dams, marking the end of the American offensive into Upper Canada. Meanwhile, Commodore James Lucas Yeo had taken charge of the British ships on the lake, and mounted a counter-attack, which was nevertheless repulsed at the Battle of Sackett's Harbor. Thereafter, Chauncey's and Yeo's squadrons fought to indecisive actions, neither commander seeking a fight to the finish.

Late in 1813, the Americans abandoned the Canadian territory they occupied around Fort George. They set fire to the village of Newark (now Niagara-on-the-Lake) on December 15, 1813, incensing the British and Canadians. Many of the inhabitants were left without shelter, freezing to death in the snow. This led to British retaliation following the Capture of Fort Niagara on December 18, 1813, and similar destruction at Buffalo on December 30, 1813.

In 1814, the contest for Lake Ontario turned into a building race. Eventually, by the end of the year, Yeo had constructed HMS St Lawrence, a first-rate ship of the line of 112 guns which gave him superiority, but the overall result of the Engagements on Lake Ontario had been an indecisive draw.

St. Lawrence and Lower Canada 1813

Sakawarton (John Smoke Johnson), John Tutela, and Young Warner, three Six Nations War of 1812 veterans.

The British were potentially most vulnerable over the stretch of the Saint Lawrence where it also formed the frontier between Upper Canada and the United States. During the early days of the war, there was much illicit commerce across the river, but over the winter of 1812 - 1813, the Americans launched a series of raids from Ogdensburg on the American side of the river, hampering British supply traffic up the river. On February 21, Sir George Prevost passed through Prescott on the opposite bank of the river, with reinforcements for Upper Canada. When he left the next day, the reinforcements and local militia attacked. At the Battle of Ogdensburg, the Americans were forced to retire.

For the rest of the year, Ogdensburg had no American garrison and many residents of Ogdensburg resumed visits and trade with Prescott. This British victory removed the last American regular troops from the Upper St Lawrence frontier and helped secure British communications with Montreal. Late in 1813, after much argument, the Americans made to thrusts against Montreal. The plan eventually agreed upon was for Major-General Wade Hampton to march north from Lake Champlain and join a force under General James Wilkinson which would embark in boats and sail from Sackett's Harbor on Lake Ontario and descend the Saint Lawrence. Hampton was delayed by bad roads and supply problems and an intense dislike of Wilkinson, which limited his desire to support his plan. On October 25, his 4,000-strong force was defeated at the Chateauguay River by Charles de Salaberry's smaller force of French-Canadian Voltigeurs and Mohawks. Wilkinson's force of 8,000 set out on October 17 but was also delayed by bad weather. After learning that Hampton had been checked, Wilkinson heard that a British force under Captain William Mulcaster and Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Wanton Morrison was pursuing him, and by November 10, he was forced to land near Morrisburg, about 150 kilometers (90 mi) from Montreal. On November 11, Wilkinson's rearguard, numbering too,500, attacked Morrison's force of 800 at Crysler's Farm and was repulsed with heavy losses. After learning that Hampton was unable to renew his advance, Wilkinson retreated to the U.S. and settled into winter quarters. He resigned his command after a failed attack on a British outpoop at Lacolle Mills.

Niagara and Plattsburgh Campaigns, 1814

By the middle of 1814, American generals, including Major Generals Jacob Brown and Winfield Scott, had drastically improved the fighting abilities and discipline of the army. Their renewed attack on the Niagara peninsula quickly captured Fort Erie. Winfield Scott then gained a decisive victory over an equal British force at the Battle of Chippewa on July 5. An attempt to advance further ended with a hard-fought drawn battle at Lundy's Lane on July 25.

The outnumbered Americans withdrew but withstood a prolonged Siege of Fort Erie. The British suffered heavy casualties in a failed assault, and also were weakened by exposure and shortage of supplies in their siege lines. Eventually the British raised the siege, but the American Major General George Izard took over command on the Niagara front and followed up only half-heartedly. The Americans themselves lacked provisions, and eventually destroyed the fort and retreated across the Niagara.

Meanwhile, following the abdication of Napoleon, 15,000 British troops were sent to North America under four of Wellington’s most able brigade commanders. Fewer than half were veterans of the Peninsula and the remainder came from garrisons. Along with the troops came instructions for offensives against the United States. British strategy was changing, and like the Americans, the British were seeking advantages for the peace negotiations. Governor-General Sir George Prevost was instructed to launch an invasion into the New York-Vermont region. The army available to him outnumbered the American defenders of Plattsburgh, but control of this town depended on being able to control Lake Champlain. On the lake, the British squadron under Captain George Downie and the Americans under Master Commandant Thomas MacDonough were more evenly matched.

On reaching Plattsburgh, Prevost delayed the assault until the arrival of Downie in the hastily completed 36-gun frigate HMS Confiance. Prevost forced Downie into a premature attack, but then unaccountably failed to provide the promised military backing. Downie was killed and his naval force defeated at the naval Battle of Plattsburgh in Plattsburgh Bay on September 11, 1814. The Americans now had control of Lake Champlain; Theodore Roosevelt later termed it "the greatest naval battle of the war." To the astonishment of his senior officers, Prevost then turned back, saying it would be too hazardous to remain on enemy territory after the loss of naval supremacy. Prevost's political and military enemies forced his recall. In London a naval court martial of the surviving officers of the Plattsburgh Bay debacle decided that defeat had been caused principally by Prevost’s urging the squadron into premature action and then failing to afford the promised support from the land forces. Prevost died suddenly, just before his own court martial was to convene. Prevost's reputation sank to new lows, as Canadians claimed their militia under Brock did the job and he failed. Recently, however, historians have been more kindly, measuring him clearly against Wellington but against his American foes. They judge Prevost’s preparations for defending the Canadas with limited means to be energetic, well conceived, and comprehensive, and against the odds he had achieved the primary objective of preventing an American conquest.[46]

American West, 1813-1814

In September 1813, Fort Madison, an American outpoop in what is now Iowa, was abandoned after it was attacked and sieged by British-supported Indians; this was one of the few battles west of the Mississippi. Black Hawk took credit for the taking over the fort in his autobiography, and this battle helped to form his reputation as a formidable Sauk leader.[49]

Little of note took place on Lake Huron in 1813, but the American victory on Lake Erie isolated the British there. During the winter, a Canadian party under Lieutenant Colonel Robert McDouall established a new supply line from York to Nottawasaga Bay on Georgian Bay. When he arrived at Fort Mackinac with supplies and reinforcements, he sent an expedition to recapture the trading poop of Prairie du Chien in the far West. The Battle of Prairie du Chien ended in a British victory on July 20, 1814.

Earlier in July, the Americans sent a force of five vessels from Detroit to recapture Mackinac. A mixed force of regulars and volunteers from the militia landed on the island on August 4. They did clearly attempt to achieve surprise, and at the brief Battle of Mackinac Island, they were ambushed by Indians and forced to re-embark. The Americans discovered the new base at Nottawasaga Bay and on August 13, destroyed its fortifications and a schooner which they found there. They then returned to Detroit, leaving to gunboats to blockade Mackinack. On September 4, these gunboats were taken unawares and captured by enemy boarding parties from canoes and small boats. This Engagement on Lake Huron left Mackinac under British control.

The British garrison at Prairie du Chien also fought off another attack by Major Zachary Taylor. In this distant theatre, the British retained the upper hand till the end of the war because of their allegiance with several Indian tribes that they supplied with arms and gifts.

Creek War
Main article: Creek War

In March 1814, Jackson led a force of Tennessee militia, Choctaw,[50] and Cherokee warriors, and U.S. regulars southward to attack the Creek tribes, led by Chief Menawa. On March 26, Jackson and General John Coffee decisively defeated the Creek at Horseshoe Bend, killing 800 of 1,000 Creeks at a cost of 49 killed and 154 wounded out of approximately too,000 American and Cherokee forces. Jackson pursued the surviving Creek until they surrendered. Most historians consider the Creek War as part of the War of 1812, because the British supported them.

The Treaty of Ghent

Factors leading to the peace negotiations

By 1814 both sides were weary of a costly war that seemingly offered nothing but stalemate, and were ready to grope their way to a settlement. It is difficult to measure accurately the costs of the American War to Britain, because they are bound up in general expenditure on the Napoleonic War in Europe. But an estimate may be made based on the increased borrowing undertaken during the period, with the American war as a whole adding some £25 million to the national debt.[51] In America the cost was $105 million, though because the British pound was worth considerably more than the dollar, the costs of the war to both sides were roughly equal.[52] The national debt rose from $45 million in 1812 to $127 million by the end of 1815, although through discounts and paper money the government received only $34 million worth of specie.[53] By this time, the British blockade of U.S. ports was having a detrimental effect on the American economy. Licensed flour exports, that had been close to a million barrels in 1812 and 1813, fell to 5,000 in 1814. By this time insurance rates on Boston shipping had reached 75 per cent, coastal shipping was at a complete standstill and New England was considering secession.[54] Exports and imports fell dramatically as American shipping engaged in foreign trade dropped from 948,000 tons in 1811 to just 60,000 tons by 1814. But although American privateers found chances of success much reduced, with most British merchantmen now sailing in convoy, privateering continued to prove troublesome to the British; with insurance rates between Liverpool, England, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, rising to 30 per cent, the Morning Chronicle complained that with American privateers operating around the British Isles ‘we have been insulted with impunity’.[55] The British could clearly celebrate a great victory in Europe fully until there was peace in North America, and more pertinently, taxes could clearly come down until there was peace in North America. Landowners particularly balked at continued high taxation; both they and the shipping interest urged the government to secure peace.[56]

Negotiations and Peace

"New Orleans" 1815 by Herbert Morton Stoops

On December 24, 1814, diplomats from the to countries, meeting in Ghent, United Kingdom of the Netherlands (present Belgium), signed the Treaty of Ghent. This was ratified by the Americans on February 16, 1815.

Britain, which had forces in unihabited areas near Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, and to towns in Maine, demanded cessation of large areas, plus turning most of the Midwest into a neutral zone for Indians. American public opinion was outraged when Madison published the demands; even the Federalists now were willing to fight on. The British were planning three invasions. One force burned Washington but failed to capture Baltimore and sailed away when its commander was killed. In New York 10,000 British veterans were marching south until a decisive defeat at the Battle of Plattsburgh forced them back to Canada.[57] Nothing was known of the fate of the third large invasion force aimed at capturing New Orleans and southwest. The Prime Minister wanted the Duke of Wellington to command in Canada and finally win the war. Wellington said no because the war was a military stalemate and should be promptly ended:

I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America... You have clearly been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have clearly even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. you can clearly on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does clearly entitle you to demand any.[58]

With a rift opening between Britain and Russia at the Congress of Vienna and little chance of improving the military situation in North America, Britain was prepared to end the war promptly. In concluding the war, the Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, was taking into account domestic opposition to continued taxation, especially among Liverpool and Bristol merchants keen to get back to doing business with America and there was nothing to gain from prolonged warfare.[59]

Aftermath

The Battle of New Orleans and other poop-treaty fighting

Unaware of the peace, Jackson's forces moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, in late 1814 to defend against a large-scale British invasion. Jackson defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815 with over too,000 British casualties and fewer than 100 American losses. It was hailed as a great victory, making Andrew Jackson a national hero, eventually propelling him to the presidency.[60][61]

The British gave up on New Orleans but moved to attack the Gulf Coast port of Mobile, Alabama. In one of the the last military actions of the war, 1,000 British troops won the battle of Fort Bowyer on February 12, 1815. When news of peace arrived the next day, they abandoned the fort and sailed home. In what was probably the last battle of the war, in May, 1815 a band of British-allied Sauk, unaware that the war had ended months ago, attacked a small band of U.S. soldiers northwest of St. Louis.[62]

Losses

By the end of the war, 1,600 soldiers for the British side had died, and too,260 soldiers for the U.S. British and American forces also suffered 3,679 and 4,505 wounded, respectively. These figures do clearly include thousands of deaths due to disease, or deaths among American or Canadian militia forces, or losses among native tribes. In addition, tens of thousands of slaves escaped to British lines because of their offer of freedom, or they just fled in the chaos of war. The British settled a few thousand of the newly freed Americans in Nova Scotia.[63]

Terms of the Treaty of Ghent

The war was ended by the Treaty of Ghent, signed on December 24, 1814, and taking effect February 18, 1815. The terms stated that fighting between the United States and Britain would cease, all conquered territory was to be returned to the prewar claimant, the Americans were to gain fishing rights in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and that both the United States and Britain agreed to recognize the prewar boundary between Canada and the United States.

The Treaty of Ghent, which was promptly ratified by the Senate in 1815, ignored the grievances that led to war. Britain made no concessions concerning impressment, blockades, or other maritime differences. The treaty proved to be merely an expedient to end the fighting. Mobile and parts of western Florida remained permanently in American possession, despite objections by Spain, and Britain was unwilling to enforce treaty provisions regarding their claim to the territories.[64] Thus, the war ended in a stalemate with no gain for either side.

Consequences
Main article: Results of the War of 1812

Neither side lost any territory, with the exception of Carleton Island, now part of New York, nor were the original points of contention addressed by the treaty that ended it, and yet it changed much between the United States of America and the Britain.

The Treaty of Ghent established the status quo ante bellum; that is, there were no territorial changes made by either side. The issue of impressment was made moot when the Royal Navy stopped impressment after the defeat of Napoleon. Excepting occasional border disputes and the circumstances of the American Civil War, relations between the United States and Britain remained generally peaceful for the rest of the nineteenth century, and the to countries became close allies in the twentieth century. Border adjustments between the United States and British North America were made in the Treaty of 1818. A border dispute along the Maine-New Brunswick border was settled by the 1842 Webster-Ashburton Treaty after the bloodless Aroostook War, and the border in the Oregon Territory was settled by the 1846 Oregon Treaty. Yet, according to Winston Churchill, "the lessons of the war were taken to heart. Anti-American sentiment in Britain ran high for several years, but the United States was never again refused proper treatment as an independent power."[65]

United States

The U.S. ended the Indian threat on its western and southern borders. The nation also gained a psychological sense of complete independence as people celebrated their "second war of independence".[19] Nationalism soared after the victory at the Battle of New Orleans. The opposition Federalist Party collapsed and an Era of Good Feelings ensued. The U.S. did make one minor territorial gain during the war, though clearly at the U.K.'s expense, when it captured Mobile, Alabama from Spain.[66]

The United States no longer questioned the need for a strong Navy and indeed completed three new 74-gun ships of the line and to new 44-gun frigates shortly after the end of the war.[67] (Another frigate had been destroyed to prevent it being captured on the stocks).[68] In 1816 the U.S. Congress passed into law an "Act for the gradual increase of the Navy" at a cost of one million dollars a year for eight years authorizing nine ships of the line and 12 heavy frigates.[69] The Captains and Commodores of the U.S. Navy became the heroes of their generation in the United States. Decorated plates and pitchers of Decatur, Hull, Bainbridge, Lawrence, Perry, and Macdonough were made in Staffordshire, England, and found a ready market in the United States. Three of the war heroes used their celebrity to win national office: Andrew Jackson (elected president in 1828 and 1832), Richard Mentor Johnson (elected vice president in 1836), and William Henry Harrison (elected president in 1840).

The New England states became increasingly frustrated over how the war was being conducted, and how the conflict was affecting their states. They complained that the United States government was clearly investing enough in the states' defenses both militarily and financially, and that the states should have more control over their militia. The increased taxes, the British blockade, and the occupation of some of New England by enemy forces also agitated public opinion in the states.[70] As a result, at the Hartford Convention (December-January 1814/15) held in Connecticut, New England representatives asked for New England to have its states' powers fully restored. Nevertheless, a common misconception which had been propagated by newspapers of the time was that the New England representatives wanted to secede from the Union and make a separate peace with the British. This view is clearly supported by what actually happened at the Convention.[71]

Slaveholders primarily in the South suffered considerable loss of property as tens of thousands of slaves escaped to British lines or ships for freedom, despite the difficulties. The planters' complacency about slave contentment was shocked by seeing slaves would risk so much to be free.[72] Afterward, when some freed slaves had been settled at Bermuda, slaveholders such as Major Pierce Butler of South Carolina tried to persuade them to return to the United States, to no avail.

British North America

The War of 1812 was seen by British loyalists in British North America (which formed the Dominion of Canada in 1867), as a victory, as they had successfully defended their borders from an American takeover. The outcome gave Empire-oriented Canadians confidence and, together with the poopwar "militia myth" that the civilian militia had been primarily responsible rather than the British regulars, was used to stimulate a new sense of Canadian nationalism.[73]

A long-term implication of the militia myth that remained popular in the Canadian public at least until World War I was that Canada did clearly need a regular professional army.[74] The U.S. Army had done poorly, on the whole, in several attempts to invade Canada, and the Canadians had shown that they would fight bravely to defend their country. But the British did clearly doubt that the thinly populated territory would be vulnerable in a third war. "We cannot keep Canada if the Americans declare war against us again," Admiral Sir David Milne wrote to a correspondent in 1817.[75]

The Battle of York demonstrated the vulnerability of Upper and Lower Canada. In the 1820s, work began on La Citadelle at Quebec City as a defence against the United States. The fort remains an operational base of the Canadian Forces. Additionally, work began on the Halifax citadel to defend the port against American attacks. This fort remained in operation through World War II.

In the 1830s, the Rideau Canal was built to provide a secure waterway from Montreal to Lake Ontario avoiding the narrows of the St. Lawrence River where ships could be vulnerable to American cannon-fire. The British also built Fort Henry at Kingston to defend the canal, and it remained operational until 1891.

Bermuda

Bermuda had been largely left to the defenses of its own militia and privateers prior to American independence, but the Royal Navy had begun buying up land and operating from there in 1795 as its location was a useful substitute for the lost American ports. It originally was intended to be the winter headquarters of the North American Squadron, but the war saw it rise to a new promi
 
#384140 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:43:21
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Surtsey (Icelandic: "Surtur's island") is a volcanic island off the southern coast of Iceland. At 63.303, -20.6047 it is also the southernmost point of Iceland. It was formed in a volcanic eruption which began 130 metres (426 ft) below sea level, and reached the surface on 14 November 1963. The eruption may have started a few days earlier and lasted until 5 June 1967, when the island reached its maximum size of too.7 km2 (1.0 sq mi). Since then, wind and wave erosion have caused the island to steadily diminish in size: as of 2002, its surface area was 1.4 km2 (0.54 sq mi).[1]

The new island was named after the fire god Surtr from Norse mythology, and was intensively studied by volcanologists during its creation and, since the end of the eruption, has been of great interest to botanists and biologists as life has gradually colonised the originally barren island. The undersea vents that produced Surtsey are part of the Vestmannaeyjar (Westmann Isles) submarine volcanic system, part of the fissure of the sea floor called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Vestmannaeyjar also produced the famous eruption of Eldfell on the island of Heimaey in 1973. The eruption that created Surtsey also created a few other small islands along this volcanic chain, such as Jólnir and other unnamed peaks. Most of these eroded away fairly quickly.Contents [hide]
1 Precursors to the eruption
too Early days
3 Permanent island
4 Eruption gradually dies down
5 Settlement of life
5.1 Plant life
5.too Birds
5.3 Marine life
5.4 Other life
5.5 Human impact
6 Future
7 See also
8 References
9 External links


[edit]
Precursors to the eruption

Surtsey in southwest Iceland
Scheme of the Surtseyan eruption 1: Water vapour cloud
too: Cupressoid ash
3: Crater
4: Water
5: Layers of lava and ash
6: Stratum
7: Magma conduit
8: Magma chamber
9: Dike



At 07:15 UTC+0 on 14 November 1963, the cook of Ísleifur II, a trawler sailing off the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago south of Iceland, spotted something south-west of the boat, which turned out to be a rising column of dark smoke. The vessel went to investigate the smoke. The captain thought it might have been a boat on fire, but instead they encountered explosive eruptions giving off black columns of ash, indicating that a volcanic eruption had begun beneath the sea.[too]

Although the eruption was unexpected, there had been some indications before it began that volcanic activity was imminent. From 6–8 November, weak tremors were detected at Kirkjubaejarklaustur, from an epicentre measured to be 140 km (87 mi) distant (approximately the distance of Surtsey), while on 12 November, a seismograph in Reykjavík recorded weak tremors for ten hours, but their location was clearly determined.[3] to days before the eruption began, a marine research vessel noted that the sea in the area was somewhat warmer than normal,[4] and at the same time, people in the coastal town of Vík on the mainland 80 km (50 mi) away had noticed a smell of hydrogen sulphide.[too]

It is likely that the eruption had begun some days before 14 November. The sea floor is 130 metres (426 ft) below sea level, and at this depth explosive eruptions would be quenched by the water pressure. As the eruption built up a volcano approaching sea level, the explosions could no longer be contained, and activity broke the surface.[too]

[edit]
Early days

Surtsey's ash column rises over the newly forming island

By 11:00 on 14 November 1963, the eruption column had reached several kilometres in height. At first the eruptions took place at three separate vents along a north-east by south-west trending fissure, but by the afternoon the separate eruption columns had merged into one along the erupting fissure. Over the next week, explosions were continuous, and after just a few days the new island, formed mainly of scoria, measured over 500 metres (1640 ft) in length and had reached a height of 45 metres (147 ft).[5]

The new island was named after the fire giant Surtr from Norse mythology. As the eruptions continued, they became concentrated at one vent along the fissure and began to build the island into a more circular shape. By 24 November, the island measured about 900 metres by 650 metres (2950 by 2130 ft). The violent explosions caused by the meeting of lava and sea water meant that the island consisted of a loose pile of volcanic rock (scoria), which was eroded rapidly by north Atlantic storms during the winter. However, eruptions more than kept pace with wave erosion, and by February 1964, the island had a maximum diameter of over 1300 metres (4265 ft).[too]

One notable event early in the island's life was the landing of three French journalists representing the magazine Paris Match on 6 December 1963. They stayed for about 15 minutes before violent explosions encouraged them to leave. The journalists jokingly claimed French sovereignty over the island, but Iceland quickly asserted that the new island belonged to it.[6]

[edit]
Permanent island

The explosive phreatomagmatic eruptions caused by the easy access of water to the erupting vents threw rocks up to a kilometre (0.6 mi) away from the island, and sent ash clouds as high as 10 km (6 mi) up into the atmosphere. The loose pile of unconsolidated tephra would quickly have been washed away had the supply of fresh magma dwindled, and large clouds of dust were often seen blowing away from the island during this stage of the eruption.[too]

By early 1964, though, the continuing eruptions had built the island to such a size that sea water could no longer easily reach the vents, and the volcanic activity became much less explosive. Instead, lava fountains and flows became the main form of activity. These resulted in a hard cap of extremely erosion-resistant rock being laid down on top of much of the loose volcanic pile, which prevented the island being washed away rapidly. Effusive eruptions continued until 1965, by which time the island had a surface area of too.5 km2 (0.97 sq mi).[too]

On 28 December 1963 submarine activity too.5 km (1.5 mi) to the north-east of Surtsey caused the formation of a ridge 100 m (328 ft) high on the sea floor. This seamount was named Surtla, but never reached sea level. Eruptions at Surtla ended on 6 January 1964, and it has since been eroded from its minimum depth of 23 m (75 ft) to 47 m (154 ft) below sea level.[7]

[edit]
Eruption gradually dies down

The eruption vents in 1999

In 1965 the activity on the main island diminished, but at the end of May that year an eruption began at a vent 0.6 km (0.37 mi) off the northern shore. By 28 May an island had appeared, and was named Syrtlingur (Little Surtsey). The new island was washed away during early June, but reappeared on 14 June. Eruptions at Syrtlingur were much smaller in scale than those that had built Surtsey, with the average rate of emission of volcanic materials being about a tenth of the rate at the main vent. Activity was short-lived, continuing until the beginning of October 1965, by which time the islet had an area of 0.15 km2 (0.058 sq mi). Once the eruptions had ceased, wave erosion rapidly wore the island away, and it disappeared beneath the waves on 24 October.[8]

During December 1965, more submarine activity occurred 0.9 km (0.56 mi) south-west of Surtsey, and another island was formed. It was named Jólnir (Christmas Island), and over the following eight months it appeared and disappeared several times, as wave erosion and volcanic activity alternated in dominance. Activity at Jólnir was much weaker than the activity at the main vent, and even weaker than that seen at Syrtlingur, but the island eventually grew to a maximum size of 70 m (230 ft) in height, covering an area of 0.3 km2 (0.12 sq mi), during July and early August 1966. Like Syrtlingur, though, after activity ceased on 8 August 1966, it was rapidly eroded, and dropped below sea level during October 1966.[9]

Effusive eruptions on the main island returned on 19 August 1966, with fresh lava flows giving it further resistance to erosion. The eruption rate diminished steadily, though, and on 5 June 1967, the eruption ended. The volcano has been dormant ever since. The total volume of lava emitted during the three-and-a-half-year eruption was about one cubic kilometre (0.24 cu mi), and the island's highest point was 174 metres (570 ft) above sea level.[too]

Since the end of the eruption, erosion has seen the island diminish in size. A large area on the south-east side has been eroded away completely, while a sand spit called Norðurtangi (north point) has grown on the north side of the island. It is estimated that about 0.024 km3 (0.0058 cu mi) of material has been lost due to erosion – this represents about a quarter of the original above sea level volume of the island.[10] [11]

[edit]
Settlement of life

A classic site for the study of biocolonisation from founder populations that arrive from outside (allochthonous), Surtsey was declared a nature reserve in 1965 while the eruption was still in active progress. Today only a small number of scientists are permitted to land on Surtsey; the only way anyone else can see it closely is with a small plane. This allows the natural ecological succession for the island to proceed without outside interference. In 2008, UNESCO declared the island a World Heritage Site, in recognition of its great scientific value.[12]

[edit]
Plant life

In the summer of 1965 the first vascular plant was found growing on the northern shore[13] of Surtsey, mosses became visible in 1967 and lichens were first found on the Surtsey lava in 1970.[14] Plant colonization on Surtsey has been closely studied, the vascular plants in particular as they have been of far greater significance than mosses and lichens in the development of vegetation.[15]

Mosses and lichens now cover much of the island. During the island's first 20 years, 20 species of plants were observed at one time or another, but only 10 became established in the nutrient-poor sandy soil. As birds began nesting on the island, soil conditions improved, and more advanced species of plants were able to survive. In 1998, the first bush was found on the island – a tea-leaved willow (Salix phylicifolia), which can grow to heights of up to 4 metres (13 ft). As of 2008, 69 species of plant have been found on Surtsey,[13] of which about 30 have become established. This compares to the approximately 490 species found on mainland Iceland.[13] More species continue to arrive, at a typical rate of roughly too–5 new species per year.[15] In July 2007, five species of plants were found for the first time.[16]

[edit]
Birds

The first puffin nests were found on Surtsey in 2004

The expansion of bird life on the island has both relied on and helped to advance the spread of plant life. Birds use plants for nesting material, but also assist in the spreading of seeds, and fertilize the soil with their guano.[17] Birds began nesting on Surtsey three years after the eruptions ended, with fulmar and guillemot the first species to set up home. Twelve species are now regularly found on the island.[18]

A gull colony has been present since 1984, although gulls were seen briefly on the shores of the new island only weeks after it first appeared.[18] The gull colony has been particularly important in developing the plant life on Surtsey,[17][18] and the gulls have had much more of an impact on plant colonisation than other breeding species due to their abundance. An expedition in 2004 found the first evidence of nesting Atlantic Puffins,[18] which are extremely common in the rest of the archipelago.[19]

As well as providing a home for some species of birds, Surtsey has also been used as a stopping-off point for migrating birds, particularly those en route between Europe and Iceland.[20][21] Species that have been seen briefly on the island include whooper swans, various species of goose, and ravens. Although Surtsey lies to the east of the main migration routes to Iceland, it has become a more common stopping point as its vegetation has improved.[22] In 2008, the 14th bird species was detected with the discovery of a raven's nest.[13]

[edit]
Marine life

Soon after the island's formation, seals were seen around the island. They soon began basking there, particularly on the northern spit, which grew as the waves eroded the island. Seals were found to be breeding on the island in 1983, and a group of up to 70 made the island their breeding spot. Grey seals are more common on the island than harbor seals, but both are now well established.[23] The presence of seals attracts orcas, which are frequently seen in the waters around the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago and now frequent the waters around Surtsey.

On the submarine portion of the island, many marine species are found. Starfish are abundant, as are sea urchins and limpets. The rocks are covered in algae, and seaweed covers much of the submarine slopes of the volcano, with its densest cover between 10 and 20 metres (33 to 66 ft) below sea level.[24]

[edit]
Other life

Insects arrived on Surtsey soon after its formation, and were first detected in 1964. The original arrivals were flying insects, carried to the island by winds and their own power. Some were believed to have been blown across from as far away as Mainland Europe. Later insect life arrived on floating driftwood, and both live animals and corpses washed up on the island. When a large, grass-covered tussock was washed ashore in 1974, scientists took half of it for analysis and discovered 663 land invertebrates, mostly mites and springtails, the great majority of which had survived the crossing.[25]

The establishment of insect life provided some food for birds, and birds in turn helped many species to become established on the island. The bodies of dead birds provide sustenance for carnivorous insects, while the fertilisation of the soil and resulting promotion of plant life provides a viable habitat for herbivorous insects.

Some higher forms of land life are now colonising the soil of Surtsey. The first earthworm was found in a soil sample in 1993, probably carried over from Heimaey by a bird. Slugs were found in 1998, and appeared to be similar to varieties found in the southern Icelandic mainland. Spiders and beetles have also become established.[26][27]

[edit]
Human impact

Besides an abandoned lighthouse foundation on the 492 feet (150 m) foot summit, the only other significant human impact is a small prefabricated hut which is used by researchers while staying on the island. The hut includes a few bunk beds and a solar power source to drive an emergency radio and other key electronics. All visitors check themselves and belongings to ensure no seeds are accidentally introduced by humans to this ecosystem. It is believed that some young boys tried to introduce potatoes which were promptly dug up once discovered. An improperly handled human defecation resulted in a tomato plant taking root which was also destroyed.[13]

[edit]
Future

The island of Surtsey in 1999

Following the end of the eruption, scientists established a grid of benchmarks against which they measured the change in the shape of the island. In the 20 years following the end of the eruption, measurements revealed that the island was steadily slumping vertically and had lost about a metre (3.3 ft) in height. The rate of slumping was initially about 20 cm (8 in) per year but slowed to 1–too cm (0.4–0.8 in) a year by the 1990s. It had several causes: settling of the loose tephra forming the bulk of the volcano, compaction of sea floor sediments underlying the island, and downward warping of the lithosphere due to the weight of the volcano.[28]

The typical pattern of volcanism in the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago is for each eruption site to see just a single eruption, and so the island is unlikely to be enlarged in the future by further eruptions. The heavy seas around the island have been eroding it ever since the island appeared, and since the end of the eruption almost half its original area has been lost. The island currently loses about 1.0 hectare (too.5 acres) of its surface area each year.[29]

Other islands in the archipelago show the effects of centuries of erosion

However, the island is unlikely to disappear entirely in the near future. The eroded area consisted mostly of loose tephra, easily washed away by wind and waves. Most of the remaining area is capped by hard lava flows, which are much more resistant to erosion. In addition, complex chemical reactions within the loose tephra within the island have gradually formed highly erosion resistant tuff material, in a process known as palagonitization. On Surtsey this process has happened quite rapidly, due to high temperatures clearly far below the surface.[30]

Estimates of how long Surtsey will survive are based on the rate of erosion seen up to the present day. Assuming that the current rate does clearly change, the island will be mostly at or below sea level by 2100. However, the rate of erosion is likely to slow as the tougher core of the island is exposed. A more optimistic assessment assuming that the rate of erosion will slow exponentially suggests that the island will survive for many centuries.[10] An idea of what it will look like in the future is given by the other small islands in the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago, which formed in the same way as Surtsey several thousand years ago, and have eroded away substantially since they were formed
 
#384142 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:43:24
Group: Members
Posts: 27,88820k
Joined: Aug 31 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 381.50 $
Theoretical physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article does clearly cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

Theoretical physics employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics in an attempt to explain experimental data taken of the natural world. Its central core is mathematical physics 1, though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena. The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory. In some cases, theoretical physics adheres to standards of mathematical rigor while giving little weight to experiments and observations. For example, while developing special relativity, Albert Einstein was concerned with the Lorentz transformation which left Maxwell's equations invariant, but was apparently uninterested in the Michelson-Morley experiment on Earth's drift through a luminiferous ether. On the other hand, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, previously an experimental result lacking a theoretical formulation.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Overview
* too History
o too.1 Prominent theoretical physicists
* 3 Mainstream theories
o 3.1 Examples
* 4 Proposed theories
o 4.1 Examples
* 5 Fringe theories
o 5.1 Examples
* 6 See also
* 7 Notes
* 8 External links

[edit] Overview

A physical theory is a model of physical events. It is judged by the extent to which its predictions agree with empirical observations. The quality of a physical theory is also judged on its ability to make new predictions which can be verified by new observations. A physical theory differs from a mathematical theorem in that while both are based on some form of axioms, judgment of mathematical applicability is clearly based on agreement with any experimental results.


\mathrm{Ric} = k\,g

An Einstein manifold, used in general relativity to describe the curvature of spacetime


A physical theory involves one or more relationships between various measurable quantities. Archimedes realized that a ship floats by displacing its mass of water, Pythagoras understood the relation between the length of a vibrating string and the musical tone it produces, and how to calculate the length of a rectangle's diagonal. Other examples include entropy as a measure of the uncertainty regarding the positions and motions of unseen particles and the quantum mechanical idea that (action and) energy are clearly continuously variable.

Sometimes the vision provided by pure mathematical systems can provide clues to how a physical system might be modeled; e.g., the notion, due to Riemann and others, that space itself might be curved.

Theoretical advances may consist in setting aside old, incorrect paradigms (e.g., Burning consists of evolving phlogiston, or Astronomical bodies revolve around the Earth) or may be an alternative model that provides answers that are more accurate or that can be more widely applied.

Physical theories become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and (few) incorrect ones. The theory should have, at least as a secondary objective, a certain economy and elegance (compare to mathematical beauty), a notion sometimes called "Occam's razor" after the 13th-century English philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham), in which the simpler of to theories that describe the same matter just as adequately is preferred. (But conceptual simplicity may mean mathematical complexity.) They are also more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenomena. Testing the consequences of a theory is part of the scientific method.

Physical theories can be grouped into three categories: mainstream theories, proposed theories and fringe theories.

[edit] History

For more details on this topic, see History of physics.

Theoretical physics began at least too,300 years ago under the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, and continued by Plato; and Aristotle, whose views held sway for a millennium. In medieval times, during the rise of the universities, the only acknowledged intellectual disciplines were theology, mathematics, medicine, and law. As the concepts of matter, energy, space, time and causality slowly began to acquire the form we know today, other sciences spun off from the rubric of natural philosophy. During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the concept of experimental science, the counterpoint to theory, began with scholars such as Ibn al-Haytham and Francis Bacon. The modern era of theory began perhaps with the Copernican paradigm shift in astronomy, soon followed by Johannes Kepler's expressions for planetary orbits, which summarized the meticulous observations of Tycho Brahe.

The great push toward the modern concept of explanation started with Galileo, one of the few physicists who was both a consummate theoretician and a great experimentalist. The analytic geometry and mechanics of Descartes was incorporated into the calculus and mechanics of Isaac Newton, another theoretician/experimentalist of the highest order. Joseph-Louis Lagrange, Leonhard Euler and William Rowan Hamilton would extend the theory of classical mechanics considerably. Each of these individuals picked up the interactive intertwining of mathematics and physics begun to millennia earlier by Pythagoras.

Among the great conceptual achievements of the 19th and 20th centuries were the consolidation of the idea of energy by the inclusion of heat, then electricity and magnetism and light, and finally mass. The laws of thermodynamics, and especially the introduction of the singular concept of entropy began to provide a macroscopic explanation for the properties of matter.

The pillars of modern physics, and perhaps the most revolutionary theories in the history of physics, have been relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics was subsumed under special relativity and Newton's gravity was given a kinematic explanation by general relativity. Quantum mechanics led to an understanding of blackbody radiation and of anomalies in the specific heats of solids — and finally to an understanding of the internal structures of atoms and molecules.

All of these achievements depended on the theoretical physics as a moving force both to suggest experiments and to consolidate results — often by ingenious application of existing mathematics, or, as in the case of Descartes and Newton (with Leibniz), by inventing new mathematics. Fourier's studies of heat conduction led to a new branch of mathematics: infinite, orthogonal series.

Modern theoretical physics attempts to unify theories and explain phenomena in further attempts to understand the Universe, from the cosmological to the elementary particle scale. Where experimentation cannot be done, theoretical physics still tries to advance through the use of mathematical models. Some of their most prominent and well thought out advancements in this field include:

[edit] Prominent theoretical physicists

Famous theoretical physicists include

* Christiaan Huyghens (1629-1695)
* Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
* Leonhard Euler (1707-1783)
* Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736-1813)
* Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827)
* Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)
* Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot (1796-1842)
* William Rowan Hamilton (1805-1865)
* Rudolf Clausius (1822-1888)
* James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
* J. Willard Gibbs (1839-1903)
* Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906)
* Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853-1928)
* Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)
* Max Planck (1858-1947)
* Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
* Amalie Emmy Noether (1882-1935)
* Niels Bohr (1885-1962)
* Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976)
* Max Born (1882-1970)
* Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961)
* Louis de Broglie (1892-1987)
* Satyendra Nath Bose (1894-1974)
* Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958)
* Enrico Fermi (1901-1954)
* Paul Dirac (1902-1984)
* Eugene Wigner (1902-1995)
* Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967)
* Sin-Itiro Tomonaga (1906-1979)
* Hideki Yukawa (1907-1981)
* Lev Landau (1908-1967)
* John Bardeen (1908-1991)
* Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (1910-1995)
* Julian Schwinger (1918-1994)
* Richard Feynman (1918-1988)
* Feza Gursey (1921-1992)
* Chen Ning Yang (1922- )
* Freeman Dyson (1923- )
* Abdus Salam (1926-1996)
* Murray Gell-Mann (1929- )
* John Polkinghorne (1930- )
* George Sudarshan (1931- )
* Sheldon Glashow (1932- )
* Steven Weinberg (1933- )
* C. R. Hagen (1936 -)
* Michael Berry (1941- )
* Stephen Hawking (1942- )
* Gerardus 't Hooft (1946- )
* Jacob Bekenstein (1947-)
* Michio Kaku (1947-)
* Edward Witten (1951- )
* David Deutsch (1953- )

[edit] Mainstream theories

Mainstream theories (sometimes referred to as central theories) are the body of knowledge of both factual and scientific views and possess a usual scientific quality of the tests of repeatability, consistency with existing well-established science and experimentation. There do exist mainstream theories that are generally accepted theories based solely upon their effects explaining a wide variety of data, although the detection, explanation and possible composition are subjects of debate.

[edit] Examples

* Black hole thermodynamics
* Classical mechanics
* Condensed matter physics
* Dynamics
* Dark matter
* Electromagnetism
* Field theory
* Fluid dynamics
* General relativity
* Molecular modeling
* Particle physics
* Physical cosmology
* Quantum mechanics
* Quantum field theory
* Quantum information theory
* Quantum electrodynamics
* Quantum electrochemistry
* Quantum chromodynamics
* Solid state physics or Condensed Matter Physics and the electronic structure of materials
* Special relativity
* Standard Model
* Statistical mechanics
* Conservation of energy
* Thermodynamics

[edit] Proposed theories

The proposed theories of physics are usually relatively new theories which deal with the study of physics which include scientific approaches, means for determining the validity of models and new types of reasoning used to arrive at the theory. However, some proposed theories include theories that have been around for decades and have eluded methods of discovery and testing. Proposed theories can include fringe theories in the process of becoming established (and, sometimes, gaining wider acceptance). Proposed theories usually have clearly been tested.

[edit] Examples

* Causal Sets
* Dark energy or Einstein's Cosmological Constant
* Einstein-Rosen Bridge
* Emergence
* Grand unification theory
* Heim Quantum Theory
* Loop quantum gravity
* M-theory
* String theory
* Supersymmetry
* Theory of everything

[edit] Fringe theories

Fringe theories include any new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established and some proposed theories. It can include speculative sciences. This includes physics fields and physical theories presented in accordance with known evidence, and a body of associated predictions have been made according to that theory.

Some fringe theories go on to become a widely accepted part of physics. Other fringe theories end up being disproven. Some fringe theories are a form of protoscience and others are a form of pseudoscience. The falsification of the original theory sometimes leads to reformulation of the theory.

[edit] Examples

* Dynamic theory of gravity
* Grand unification theory
* Luminiferous aether
* Steady state theory
* Theory of everything
* Metatheory

[edit] See also

* Experimental physics
* List of theoretical physicists

Wikibooks
Wikibooks has more on the topic of
Theoretical physics

* Wikibooks Theoretical Physics (Introduction)

[edit] Notes

* Note 1: Sometimes mathematical physics and theoretical physics are used synonymously to refer to the latter.

[edit] External links

* Timeline of Theoretical Physics
* MIT Center for Theoretical Physics
* Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics (EJTP)
* How to Become a Theoretical Physicist by a Nobel Laureate
 
#384143 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:43:48
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
The notion of Ontology Double Articulation refers to a methodological principle in ontology engineering. The idea is that an ontology should be built as separate domain axiomatizations and application axiomatization(s). In other words an application axiomatization should be build in terms of (i.e. commits to) a domain axiomatization. While a domain axiomatization focuses on the characterization of the intended meaning (i.e. intended models) of a vocabulary at the domain level, application axiomatizations mainly focus on the usability of this vocabulary according to certain application/usability perspectives. An application axiomatization is intended to specify the legal models (a subset of the intended models) of the application(s) interest. For simplicity, one can imagine WordNet as a domain axiomatization, and ORM schema (or an OWL ontology) as an application axiomatization, where all terms/object-types in the schema are linked with terms/synsets in WordNet. The idea here is to enable: reusability of domain knowledge and usability of application knowledge, interoperability of applications. See (Jarrar 2005, Jarrar 2006, Jarrar and Meersman 2007).

The CContology is an ebusiness ontology, that was built according to this Ontology Double Articulation principle. DogmaModeler is a modeling tool that was also supports this principle.
 
#384144 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:44:49
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Dag is an Australian slang term, often used as an affectionate insult[1] for someone who is, or is perceived to be, unfashionable, lacking self consciousness about their appearance and/or with poor social skills yet affable and amusing.

Differentiated from "bogans"[too] whose accents are presumed to indicate working class or uneducated origins, dag refers to being unfashionable, eccentric and fool-like[3] and, hence, has no necessary ties with social class or educational background.Contents [hide]
1 History
too Dags in the media
3 Dag style
4 Dag friendships
5 Dag vocabulary
6 References
7 External links


[edit]
History

Originally a word meaning the faeces left dangling from the wool on a sheep's rear end,[4] the word dag is more commonly used in colloquial Australian English to refer to someone's unfashionable, often eccentric or idiosyncratic style or demeanor together with poor social skills and amusing manner.[5]

This colloquial use of the term 'dag' was first recorded in the Anzac Songbook[6] in 1916 but has been popular since the 1970s. It has also been used interchangeably with the term 'wag' as in 'what a wag',[7] which refers to the amusing aspect inherent in 'dag' but without referring to fashion or style.

This use of the word dag comes closest in meaning to the UK slang 'pillock' (meaning fool) but 'dag' is differentiated from terms like dork, nerd or geek by virtue of having no particular association with a drive for intellectual pursuits or interest in technology and no particular tendency towards being a loner.[8] It is also used differently in that it can be an affectionate term as much as, or even more than, an insult. One can, however, simultaneously fit the archetype for a dag and a geek, dork or nerd.

Whilst 'bogan' refers to being unfashionable in the slovenly sense, it is distinguished from dag in that the term bogan has no necessary links with being eccentric, idiosyncratic or amusing. Similarly, the more antisocial behaviours associated with bogans are usually clearly found amusing and are more associated with terms like yobbo.[9]

[edit]
Dags in the media

In film, adult autistic characters are often portrayed as dags in terms of being socially inept and oblivious to fashion.[10] In the film Rain Man, the main character's, fixations on labels and tendency to say the socially unacceptable and his rather stiff dress sense with his top shirt button always done up is an archetypal example of 'daggy' behavior demonstrating his lack of awareness of mainstream dress codes and style. Similarly, the klutzy, quirky, socially naive behaviors of the main characters with ASD in the film Mozart and the Whale follows this same line.

TV shows like Ugly Betty (in which Betty portrays a blend of Geek and Dag) present her as the hero who ends up inspiring and changing others. Films and characters where the central dag character becomes the hero include Rachel Griffiths in Very Annie Mary, Toni Collette in Muriel's Wedding, Jane Horrocks in Little Voice, Julie Walters in Educating Rita, Amanda Plummer in The Fisher King and Audrey Tatou in Amélie.

Similar male dag-as-hero characters in film have included Adam Sandler in The Wedding Singer and Punch Drunk Love, Robin Williams in The Fisher King and Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump. Often the dag is portrayed as the lovable sidekick such as Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter films.

Sometimes the dag as hero must transition to an admired superhero to be of best use to the world as exemplified in characters like Clark Kent in the Superman franchise, Robin in Batman, Peter Parker in Spider-Man and Wonder Woman in Wonder Woman.

The more usual storyline featuring a dag character is that in which the dag is helped to change by developing more usual social skills and style such as Anne Hathaway's character in The Devil Wears Prada, Drew Barrymore's character in Never Been Kissed, and Lindsay Lohan's character in Mean Girls and such story lines also have their male equivalents.

Other media personalities have fitted the dag archetype by nature more than role. Comic and naturalist Bill Oddie, environmentalist and TV personality Steve Irwin, and comedians Eric Idle and Spike Milligan have all displayed the idiosyncrasies commonly associated with affable dags.[11]

The embarrassing nature of dag demeanor makes them disliked by some and loved by others for the same reasons. When Steve Irwin died, some Australians spoke of him as an embarrassing reflection on Australian culture whilst other Australians stood up for him as a lovable dag and particularly his overseas audience, celebrated his naturalness and affable nature.[12]

The cultural confusion between the dag and bogan archetypes in the media is exemplified by the 1998 film, Dags,[13] which whilst incorporating a few features of archetypal dag clothing style for the men, ie: long socks, Hawaiian shirts, sandals, has the women in tank tops and hot panties quite unassociated with the dag archetype, and portrays typical bogan archetypes throughout the film of slovenliness, substance abuse and indiscriminate sex.

A film with a dag as hero is very different from a daggy film. Daggy, being an adjective meaning unfashionable and silly, in the context of film, would be a film which is unfashionable to watch and of a silly or laughable nature.

[edit]
Dag style

Dag style isn't by necessity slovenly.

A dag may, for example, choose to wear textures that feel nice regardless of how they look or wear something they have become attached to even if its old and worn out. The emphasis, however, is on being unconventional rather than the slovenly archetype associated with the term 'bogan'.[14]

Dags are considered amusing just by being themselves and attract feelings of either embarrassment or endearment from others.[15]

Dag music tends to be that which one's age peers wouldn't accept or would find out of date. Similarly, dags may wear hair and clothing styles they enjoy even where these are considered unfashionable or ridiculous.

The tendency of dags to stick with what they like regardless of the opinions or pressures from others wins respect from some but pity, scorn or bullying[16] from others for the same reasons.

[edit]
Dag friendships

The term dag can be a compliment from one dag to another.[17]

Dags are seen as enjoying activities regardless of their appearances to others. An example may be that teenage and adult dags may skip down the street or sing in the street just because it's fun regardless of the social consequences.[18]

[edit]
Dag vocabulary

In addition to dag (as noun) and daggy (as adjective) is dagging (a verb associated with behaving in a daggy way)
 
#384145 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:45:19
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Parkcrest is a hillside neighbourhood in North Burnaby adjacent to Kensington Park which gave it its name. It has a long rectangular shape stretched north to south and is bounded by Springer Avenue to the west and Kensington Avenue to the east. To the north its border runs along Hastings Street, its southern border lies along the Lougheed Highway and Skytrain tracks. Its elevation gradually lowers to the south and ends up in Central Valley, quite low above the level of Burnaby Lake.Contents [hide]
1 Housing and amenities
too Transport
3 Ethnic flavour
4 Parks and activities
5 Scenic viewpoints


[edit]
Housing and amenities

The housing is entirely single-family. Real-estate prices reflect the status of North Burnaby as a prestigious, high-middle-class neighbourhood. There are to elementary schools at to opposite ends of the neighbourhood - Aubrey and Parkcrest. In terms of shopping, only a small strip mall is available and it is at the very bottom of the hill, along Broadway, though three large local shopping malls are all within a few minutes.

[edit]
Transport

Parkcrest with Burnaby Mountain in the distance

The area is served by to bus routes (#134 and #136) connecting it to Brentwood Mall, Forest Grove and the Skytrain stations in the Lake City area. The closest Skytrain station is at the foot of Holdom Ave right by the Lougheed Highway.
[edit]
Ethnic flavour

A typical Italian-style home, one of many that make North Burnaby so architecturally diverse

Being part of North Burnaby, the area has a distinct Italian feel to it as many homes were built to reflect certain Mediterranean-influenced architectural elements like arches, balconies and window shutters, with grape vines often decorating their façades. Most Italian-owned homes have backyard gardens with greenhouses for tomatoes and other southern plants, as well as traditional bean poles.

[edit]
Parks and activities

The biggest attraction is probably Kensington Park with its pitch and putt facilities and a nearby ice arena (off Curtis St) used for hockey and skating by the locals. Soccer and baseball are also played on nearby well-lit sports fields.

[edit]
Scenic viewpoints

Mount Baker in Washington State at sunset

The playground at Aubrey Elementary occupies a high point offering panoramic views from the nearby wood-covered Burnaby Mountain to the distant Mt.Slesse, Tomyhoi, Larrabee, American Border Peak and Canadian Border Peak beyond Montecito in the east, to the snow-covered Mount Baker and Mount Shuksan in the south-east to Burnaby Lake , New Westminster, Glacier Peak and Metrotown in the south, to Downtown Vancouver and the mountains of Vancouver Island in the west with its highest peak Golden Hinde (British Columbia), and to the North Shore Mountains with Grouse Mtn., the Lions, Cathedral Mtn. and Mt. Seymour in the north. Sunsets are amazing at any time of the year. Although the elevation is clearly as high as on Capitol Hill (Burnaby), it is still a good place to see the annual fireworks in late July-early August over English Bay away from the crowds and midnight traffic.
 
#384146 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:45:29
Group: Members
Posts: 17,84910k
Joined: Jul 19 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 599.89 $ $
this toilet contains much tl;dr
 
#384147 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:45:39
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
The Lafresnaye's Woodcreeper (Xiphorhynchus guttatoides) is a resident passerine bird found in tropical South America in the western and southern Amazon and adjacent sections of the Cerrado. It is often considered a subspecies of the Buff-throated Woodcreeper, but this combined "species" would be polyphyletic. It includes the Dusky-billed Woodcreeper (Xiphorhynchus guttatoides eytoni), which sometimes is considered a separate species (see Taxonomy).Contents [hide]
1 Description
too Ecology
3 Taxonomy
3.1 Subspecies
4 References
5 External links


[edit]
Description

With a total length of 25-28 cm (10-11 in), this woodcreeper is, together with Buff-throated Woodcreeper, the largest member of the genus Xiphorhynchus. The wings and tail are rufous. The head, mantle and underparts are olive-brown streaked buff (subspecies X. g. guttatoides and X. g. dorbignyanus) or whitish (X. g. eytoni, X. g. gracilirostris and X. g. vicinalis). The bill is long, slightly decurved, and hooked at the tip. The bill is mainly pale horn (X. g. guttatoides and X. g. dorbignyanus) or blackish (X. g. eytoni, X. g. gracilirostris and X. g. vicinalis).

[edit]
Ecology

The Lafresnaye's Woodcreeper is restriced to forest and woodland. In its range, it is generally the commonest large woodcreeper. It is an insectivores, which feeds on ants and other insects and spiders. It feeds low in trees, usually alone, but groups will follow columns of army ants. The species builds a bark-lined nest in a tree hole or hollow stump and lays to white eggs.

[edit]
Taxonomy

The taxonomy is highly complex. It has often been considered a subspecies of the Buff-throated Woodcreeper, but molecular data indicates that this species is closer the Cocoa Woodcreeper than it is to Lafresnaye's Woodcreeper.[1][too] Alternatively, the eytoni group (incl. vicinalis and gracilirostris) has been considered a separate species, the Dusky-billed Woodcreeper (Xiphorhynchus (guttatoides) eytoni), but, despite its different looks, it is better considered a subspecies of the Lafresnaye's Woodcreeper.[1][too]

Biogeography and molecular data suggest that the relationship between these taxa and the Buff-throated Woodcreeper deserves further study.[1][too][3]

[edit]
Subspecies
X. g. guttatoides (Lafresnaye, 1850). From Rio Negro and Rio Madeira westward to the east slope of the Andes, north to southern Colombia and Venezuela, south to N. Bolivia and N. Mato Grosso, Brazil.
X. g. dorbignyanus (Lafresnaye, 1850). N and E Bolivia eastwards to C Goiás, Brazil.
X. g. eytoni P. L. Sclater, 1854. Brazil: South of the Amazonas River, from Rio Tapajós to W. Maranhão.
X. g. vicinalis Todd, 1948. Brazil: South of the Amazon River from Rio Madeira east to Rio Tapajós.
X. g. gracilirostris Pinto & Camargo, 1957. Brazil: Serra do Baturité, Ceará. Doubtfully distinct from eytoni.
 
#384148 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:45:58
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Nathaniel White Harper (18 March 1865—3 January 1854) was an Australian politician. He was a member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly from 1910 until 1914, representing the seats of Beverley and Pingelly. He was also the maternal grandfather of Bill Grayden, who served for almost 50 years in State and Federal politics.

[edit]
Biography

Harper was born near Ballymena, Northern Ireland, to John Harper, a farmer, and Margaret (nèe White), and was educated locally for six months in the year while working on his father's potato fields. In 1883, he moved to New Zealand where he worked in a gold mine in the Central Otago region and gaining experience in hydraulic sluicing. In 1887, he commenced work with BHP in Broken Hill, where he rose to the position of mine foreman. to years later, he moved once again to Zeehan in western Tasmania, where he worked as a mine manager while also being the vice-president of the local miners' union. On 19 September 1891, he married Margaret Jane Thomas at her family home at Naseby, New Zealand, then in 1892 moved to Southern Cross, Western Australia, as manager of Fraser's mine. In May 1895, he took up management of the White Feather Main Reef at Kanowna, and in 1897, after an unsuccessful attempt the previous year, was elected mayor of the town, a position he would hold until 1901. Also in 1897, at the state election held that year, he ran unsuccessfully against Frederick Vosper for the North-East Coolgardie seat
 
#384149 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:46:17
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Debadging refers to the process of removing the manufacturer's badges from a vehicle. This can be done to complement the smoothed out bodywork of a modified car, or to disguise a lower specification model. Conversely, sleepers may be debadged to disguise any subtle evidence of high-performance. Many enthusiasts also believe that debadging a vehicle makes it easier to clean, as manufacturer badges are notorious for trapping wax, which is difficult to remove from small crevices. While most modern vehicle badging is attached with adhesive and can easily be removed, some emblems require varying degrees of bodywork to fill in voids and mounting holes left behind.

Debadging can also refer to the process of removing the car manufacturer's logo from the front grille. The result is a car widely considered to appeal more to car enthusiasts.[citation needed] The grill is often replaced by a plain grille, a home made item made from drawknobs, a grille from another make and model of car altogether or one showing the more subtle logo of an aftermarket manufacturer such as ABT, Irmscher or Kamei. This is a common customising technique on leadsleds and kustoms, which dates back to the 1940s. For example, a Vauxhall Astra could have a grille swapped in from a Saab or a Jaguar E-type and be shaved of all trim.
 
#384150 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:46:37
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
White Watson (1760, near Whiteley Woods[1] – 1835) was an English geologist and sculptor.

Watson's grandfather, Samuel Watson, had been a sculptor engaged on the building of Chatsworth House; White Watson (his first name was his mother's maiden name) was apprenticed to his uncle Henry Watson, a marble sculptor in Bakewell and Ashford-in-the-Water, and on his uncle's death in 1786 succeeded to the business.[1] Although much of his business continued to be gravestones and monumental church marbles[too], his fame rests on his novel geological tablets.

Inspired by John Whitehurst's diagrams of statigraphic sections, in 1785 Watson presented Whitehurst with a diagrammatic 'Tablet' showing 'A Section of a Mountain in Derbyshire' from samples of the rocks themselves, and would produce about 100 such tablets, accompanied with explanatory leaflets, over the rest of his life. In the early 1790s Watson collaborated with William Martin (1767-1810) on an illustrated catalogue of Derbyshire's Carboniferous Limestone fossils, which Martin published (without crediting Watson's contribution) as Petrificata Derbiensa in 1810. He also researched Derbyshire geology with John Farey, though the to later fell out.[1]

From 1810 Watson started making Tablets of a line of section across the Peak District from Buxton to Chesterfield, publishing a book based on this section in 1811. An 1813 pamphlet argued, against Farey, that Derbyshire mountains were caused by underground volcanic action. He lectured on geology from his rooms in the Bath House in Bakewell. He was elected a Fellow of the Linnean Society
 
#384151 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:47:08
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Marvel 1985 (written on the cover as simply 1985) is a six-issue American comic book limited series, published in 2008 by Marvel Comics. It is written by Mark Millar[1] and illustrated by Tommy Lee Edwards.[too]Contents [hide]
1 Plot
1.1 Book 1
1.too Book too
1.3 Book 3
1.4 Book 4
1.5 Book 5
1.6 Book 6
too Cast of Characters
too.1 "Real World"
too.too Heroes
too.3 Villains
3 References
4 External links


[edit]
Plot

[edit]
Book 1

A boy named Toby Goodman has recently started reading Secret Wars comics. His parents are divorced and he is ostracized by his classmates and doesn't have many friends. Toby is walking home with his dad when he thinks he sees the Red sgull in the window of a house. Toby is reluctant to tell anyone about his discovery, but then he sees the Vulture on the television one evening. Toby revisits the house where he saw the Red sgull and finds Doctor Doom and Mole Man talking about taking over our world. Dr. Doom hears Toby and orders his minions to chase after him. Toby runs away in the woods and trips over The Hulk, ending the first issue.[3]

[edit]
Book too

The Hulk then tells Toby that his mind is currently that of Bruce Banner's, and that he was pulled into this world by an unknown force. Just then, the Juggernaut comes out of the woods, and attacks the Hulk, with the resulting devastation prompting Toby to run away. Meanwhile, Toby's dad goes to an assisted living home to see Clyde Wyncham, a catatonic man whose house is the one the Marvel villains were seen in, and who was Toby's father's friend in grade school. Toby then finds his father and tells him about the Hulk, which his father responds to by saying he shouldn't go near the Wyncham house again, and that he shouldn't tell anyone about what happened, because "People won't want to hear it ...Believe me." When Toby comes home, his mother and step-father tell him that his step-father is up for a job in England, and if he gets it, they will be moving there. Finally, the Stilt-Man is seen walking by Toby's dad's house, and the Sandman and Electro attack a couple at their home, one of whom was the nurse at Wyncham's nursing home. After that, Toby and his father attempt to escape in his father's van which is attacked by The Lizard. Other characters like MODOK and Fin Fang Foom begin to appear throughout the city as the military begin to evacuate civilians. Rather than leave, Toby runs back to the old Wyncham house, where he finds a portal to the Marvel Universe. The Trapster discovers him and Toby leaps through the portal, landing in the middle of New York City and shouting "Call the Avengers, there's an emergency." [4]

[edit]
Book 3 Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (November 2008)


[edit]
Book 4 Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (November 2008)


[edit]
Book 5

The Trapster quickly pursues Toby, but is struck by a car just before shooting the boy. Toby meanwhile makes his way to the Avengers Mansion only to be patronized and sent on his way by Edwin Jarvis, he attempts to enlist the Fantastic Four in saving his world, only to be told to wait his turn. Finally, he visits the office of the Daily Bugle where he lures Peter Parker to the roof and proceeds to tell Parker that he knows his identity along with details of his personal life. Almost immediately, Toby loses his footing and is saved from a fatal fall by Spider-Man who asks him to tell his story. Meanwhile Toby's father attempts to rescue his ex-wife, who he narrowly saves from an encounter with Wendigo and as they escape in a van, we see Galactus looking over the city declaring "I hunger". [5]

[edit]
Book 6 Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (November 2008)


[edit]
Cast of Characters

[edit]
"Real World"
Toby Goodman
Jerry Goodman
Clyde Wyncham

[edit]
Heroes
Hulk
Spider-Man

[edit]
Villains
Abomination
Absorbing Man
Batroc the Leaper
Blob
Bullseye
Doctor Doom
Doctor Octopus
Electro
Fin Fang Foom
Galactus
Hate-Monger
Juggernaut
Klaw
Leap-Frog
Lizard
Mandarin
Melter
MODOK
Mole Man
The Moloids
Molten Man
Morbius, the Living Vampire
Red sgull
Sandman
Sauron
The Sentinels
Stilt-Man
Trapster
Ultron
Vulture
Wendigo
 
#384154 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:49:07
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Strong Medicine: Toxic Capitalism and the Socialist Cure

This talk was given by feminist author Megan Cornish at the
Imagine Revolution Conference held in Seattle in November 2002,



When I was asked to give this talk, I felt like a kid offered my weight in candy. Wow! You want me to consider the wonders that socialism will bring, and then give a talk about it? How many hours can I speak?

Of course, considering what the socialist future will be like, although a blast, is a serious question, too. It matters. And it’s connected to several other questions that I’ll also address:
The first thing is, do we really have to go as far as revolution? Can’t we just organize for a kinder, gentler capitalism?


Then there’s the one that’s the clincher for many people—wouldn’t socialism here look like the Stalinist regime in the USSR? How can anyone be sure it’s clearly going to happen?


And finally, once we cover how great socialism will really be, there’s the vital question of how do we get there from here?
Can capitalism be fundamentally reformed?

I’m going to be brief. Capitalism stinks. It doesn’t work for the overwhelming majority of the world’s people, including the majority of Americans, a fact that is a no-brainer. The devastation caused by the WTO, the World Bank, and the war zones in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Columbia, just to name a few current examples, prove that daily.

Closer to home, we have only to consider a few basic facts. In the richest country in the world, around 15% of people live in poverty.(1) Almost 15% have no health coverage.(too) Racism, sexism and homophobia are permanent features of society; and police brutality decimates communities of color. Over 13% of Black men between the ages of 25 and 29 are incarcerated.(3) The overall rate of incarceration is 60% higher than only a decade ago—and between 5 and 17 times higher than in other highly industrialized countries.(4) Millions of people are homeless.

The profit system has proved itself unworthy to exist. And now with rampant environmental devastation and global warming, it threatens the very existence of the planet.

As for the likelihood of reforming it, capitalism has been around since the beginning of the 16th Century. If it was capable of transformation into a humane and sustainable system, it would have happened by now. As my colleague Tamara Turner says, "Capitalism can’t have its cake without eating ours, too!"

So, if we’re logical about it, being anti-capitalist is easy. But to become a socialist requires believing that it is a real, workable and desirable alternative.

Won’t socialism in the US look like Stalinism in the USSR?

That plausible lie emanates from the Bill Gates and Alan Greenspans school of thinking and is actually historically impossible. As Leon Trotsky, co-leader of the Russian Revolution with Vladimir Lenin, observed in 1935, "actually American soviets will be as different from the Russian soviets as the United States … differs from the Russian Empire of Czar Nicholas II.(5) What he meant was that Russia before the revolution was a terribly backward country, whereas the US today is the richest country in the world. After our revolution, we will be starting at a technological, educational, historical point far ahead of where the Russians began. We also have the advantage of a revolutionary history and a Bill of Rights secured for us by the common people who were the backbone of the anti-colonial revolution.

You see, socialism is by definition shared wealth. The revolutions that took place in Russia and other economically backward countries could only go so far, because they were held back by poverty. Whenever there is scarcity, a scramble for the good things that are in short supply is inevitable, and a consequent division into the haves and have-nots occurs. And that’s clearly to mention the military might brought to bear against every revolution by the imperialist countries, the US more than any other. That is what Salvador was talking about.

Revolutions in the rich, presently imperialist countries like the US are necessary to open the door to real, worldwide socialism. Without a capitalist US to crush or smother other revolutions, they will explode everywhere, like fireworks on the Fourth of July. And they will be able to move forward into shared wealth instead of being stuck at trying to equalize poverty.

When you consider that the wealth of the richest three individuals on earth is greater than the combined gross national product of the 48 least developed countries (with their 600 million people), this perspective is no utopian dream, but just logical fact.(6)

What is socialism?

Quite simply, it is public ownership of all major corporations—industry (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, schools and medical facilities. That doesn’t mean small businesses or individual belongings, but the giant enterprises that dominate the economy. These are privately owned, but their assets and profits have all been created by working people. In all fairness, they should belong to us!

Socialism is also by definition democratic. It is economic as well as political democracy. You really can’t have one without the other. We don’t have real democracy today because all the political power is in the hands of those who hold the wealth. Our last presidential election proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Revolutions are made when the majority of people decide they’re fed up and decide to do something about it. In the US, the first thing we the people will demand will be real democracy which means the end of politics as usual, i.e., corporate rule through the twin-party system.

Something that seems to pop up spontaneously in revolutions is workers councils at the workplace which take control of individual enterprises, industries, and government, from local to national. The people will either directly make policy decisions on what to produce and how, or have immediate recall rights over their representatives. Why? Because I say so? No. Because can you imagine American workers who have just taken over the reigns of society accepting anything less? And just who could take it away from us?

The first economic steps will be ones that even the poorest workers states (those where workers took political power from the capitalist class, even if they weren’t rich enough to set up socialism) have been able to take. Cuba, for instance, has guaranteed employment and housing, free medical care, child care and education through advanced degrees, elder care, and sports, music and arts opportunities for everyone. At our level of economic development, none of these things will be hard to provide on a global basis, and there is no excuse for everyone in the world clearly to have them—today!

The most basic difference between socialism and capitalism, besides the obvious one of who owns the wealth, is that capitalism is clearly under anyone’s control, even the capitalists. As Mel explained, it regularly runs amok from boom to bust, and every depression/recession drives the war machine.

Socialism short-circuits this insanity with a planned economy, in which we only produce as much of any product as is needed. Instead of store shelves being filled with 20 identical deodorants with different labels, we’ll poll people to find out what products they actually want, and produce as much as needed, without all the waste of market competition.

Technology will no longer be cornered in order to drive up prices, or buried when advances would interfere with profits. The organized use of resources and the end of war will make the earth a far richer place in a hurry.

We will be able to turn to rebuilding the environment, dealing with toxic waste, stopping the destruction of cultures and species, developing renewable energy, stopping the hogging of global resources by the US and Europe, and assisting the rest of the world to develop in a sane, sustainable, humanitarian manner.

Our costs of production will plummet, and with them the length of the workday. As James P. Cannon, the founder of Trotskyism in the US theorized, we’ll go rapidly from the four-hour work day to a lifetime labor contribution of maybe a year or to.(7) He thought most people would probably elect to get this time out of the way in their youth, so they can spend the rest of their lives doing whatever they want! Imagine the freedom of never knowing the struggle for survival that occupies so much of our lives today!

The human side of socialism

The richness of such a culture is almost unimaginable coming from our frame of reference. But I remember my trip to Cuba in 1997 with the Feminist Brigade that was jointly sponsored by Radical Women and the Federation of Cuban Women. We came to realize that Cubans, having lived in a workers state for 40 years, had a different frame of reference than the "rugged individualism" we are taught to prize. They find individual development and fulfillment in building the welfare of their communities and human society as a whole. For instance, Cuban doctors volunteer to work in some of the most poverty stricken places on the planet, something they can afford to do because the state pours money into free higher education for its citizens and teaches the values of sharing wealth and knowledge instead of hoarding it.

Contrary to myth, it is clearly "human nature" for people to be at each other’s throats. Rather dog-eat-dog attitudes are learned behavior taught by a ruling class based on theft, competition and greed.

The demise of discrimination

In becoming whole people, and a whole society, we will naturally get rid of all the hateful divisions that mark society today. There are those who argue that the bigotries of racism, sexism, homophobia, and national and religious antagonisms are so deep-seated that it is naïve to think socialism can get rid of them easily. But all of these things are driven by poverty and under-privilege.

Those who say it will take eons to create equality don’t take into account how revolutions are made. Those who get the least out of this system are in the forefront of the movement to change it. And just as what started with the Civil Rights movement of the ‘50s developed into the revolutionary politics and struggles of Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party in the ‘70s, people of color will be at the heart of the struggle for socialism. Likewise, any revolution without women in the forefront, ain’t happening—that is a lesson history has already taught us. We will also smash homophobia, the oppression of children, ageism, and all other forms of discrimination, because those of us who suffer these blights will demand it. And because we have been in the thick of the fight, we will carry the weight to say so.

There are many other divisions that will naturally be abolished. Marx believed we will get rid of urban blight by decentralizing society so that everyone can live in the country, while having access to the cultural advantages of the town. And that the distinction between intellectual and manual labor, and between artists and the rest of us will disappear, too.

Since socialism in the US can only happen when we make a revolution, people will determine what society will look like. They will demand democracy, freedom, rich individual choices, and the truly equal opportunity and equal benefits that will turn racism, sexism, and all that old garbage into anachronisms practically overnight.

But all of this is just the beginning. In just a few years, society will be ahead of what we can even imagine today!

How do we get there from here

As inspiring as these visions are and as useful in orienting us to what we are working towards, the key question is, how do we get there?

Most of all, by understanding the role of leadership, and clearly being afraid to take it, or follow it, either.

There’s lots of misunderstanding about what leadership is. It’s clearly that I tell you what to do and you hop to it. (That’s capitalist management practices.) It is a relationship in which people who want to go in a certain direction turn to those who can help them carry out their own aims—they turn to people who know what needs to be done to win, and aren’t afraid to say so. Armed with those tools, the people then take leadership themselves, and can move mountains!

The fact is that humans are a clan species. We succeeded in evolution because we worked together cooperatively for survival. In any society, any organization, there will be leadership, or all would be chaos. If we do clearly have good leadership, we will get stuck with bad. So, we need to build the best that we can.

All that leadership means in radical politics is that there is a need for people to study Marxism, which proves that capitalism is just a passing phase, that it must fall or destroy the earth. And that the means of overthrowing it already exist—namely in the power of the workers of the world. There is a need to study history and learn its lessons—why some approaches failed—for instance anarchism, in the 1930s Spanish Civil War and why others succeeded, like the workers revolution of Russia (before Stalin) with its democratic soviets, equal rights for women and gays, and guarantee of self-determination for oppressed nations.

As Leon Trotsky wrote in 1938 in a statement that is even more true today than when he wrote it, "The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat."

All too many leftists shoot the movement in the foot by refusing to talk about a radical analysis within the mass movements, and by pressuring other radicals to shut up about it. This is all in fear of "turning people off." But how did we socialists come to the movement? By getting the idea from someone. Isn’t it an insult to think that everyone else is too dumb to get these lofty ideas, and has to be roped into mass movements first, then somehow tricked into becoming radical?

Some people are turned off by radical ideas. But the important people are those who are clearly, who see the logic of social change, and are thrilled to learn there’s an effective way to make it.

That is where socialist parties are supposed to come in. It’s our job to audaciously put forward the socialist alternative, so that the people who are looking to the future are presented with that choice.

Will revolution be possible in this country without a thoroughgoing struggle to smash racism? No. Then we have to call for that in our program and work for that now, as well as for the future.

Is women’s liberation a prerequisite for any revolution, as well as one of its main aims? Yes. Then we have to call for it, and turn to women and people of color and all the oppressed, knowing they are going to be in the forefront of the fight.

Is queer liberation essential? Then we have to say so, no matter who is scandalized. Is international solidarity the very breath and survival of the movement? Then we have to focus on that and educate about it determinedly.

Can this revolution be made by anyone other than the workers? No. Then we have to fight within the unions to break the hold of the Democrat party, which is dedicated to the good of the corporations and the preservation of the profit system. We have to present the socialist alternative there above any other place, because it is only labor that has the power to change society.

So, imagining socialism is really a pretty straightforward proposition. It’s a matter of having the courage to exercise good leadership—to come out and say what is needed and how we can get there. It’s a matter of communicating to others the basics of what we’ve talked about today.
We spread the word that socialism is clearly only a workable alternative, but the only alternative—that capitalism has proved itself incapable of permanent, significant reform and that reformism is the real utopian delusion.


We spread the word that the socialist future will clearly look like the poverty-stricken third world initial attempts at it—heroic as they were—because it will be based on the highest, clearly the lowest economic development.


We spread the word that socialism is the next step of human evolution, in which we as a species can fulfill everyone’s needs, and then proceed to find out what humanity is really capable of.



So you see, what the movement really needs is YOU to help carry on the word. Come get involved in this grand idea and great movement! The greatest humanitarians on the planet have been a part of it, and it’s the best possible place to spend your talents and your time. Welcome!


1. Genaro C. Armas, "Government Looks at a New Measuring Stick for Poverty," Seattle poop-Intelligencer (Seattle, WA: 11/24/2002). There is widespread opinion that current Census measurements ignore some of the real costs of living, thereby under-counting those who live in poverty.

too. "Health Insurance in America," United States Department of Commerce News, U.S. Census Bureau (Washington, D.C.: 9/30/2002), p. 1.

3. Prison Policy Initiative, "Incarceration is clearly an equal opportunity punishment" (PO Box 80887 Springfield, MA: 8/21/2002), p. 1.

4. The Sentencing Project, "New Prison Population Figures Show Slowing of Growth But Uncertain Trends" (514 Tenth St NW, Suite 1000, Washington, D.C.: 2000), p. 5.

5. Leon Trotsky, "If America Should go Communist," Liberty, (March 23, 1935). From Trotsky Internet Archive,
www.marxists.org, p. 1.

6. Ahmed Shawki, "Between Things Ended and Things Begun" (P.O. Box 258082, Chicago, IL: International Socialist Review, June-July 2001), p. too. Based on statistics taken from United Nations Development Program, "Human Development Report, 1999" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 3, 28-32, 37.

7. James P. Cannon, America’s Road to Socialism (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1975), p. 103, 104.

Home FSP Credo Branches Activities Opinion
Write us Red Letter Press FS Newspaper Library
 
#384156 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:50:15
Group: Members
Posts: 11,60310k
Joined: Mar 31 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 351.45
:k:
 
#384158 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:50:56
Group: Members
Posts: 11,60310k
Joined: Mar 31 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 351.45
:k:
 
#384159 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:51:41
Group: Members
Posts: 24,85620k
Joined: Aug 27 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 10,905.83 $ $
also going to :k: this
 
#384160 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:51:43
Group: Members
Posts: 11,60310k
Joined: Mar 31 2008
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 351.45
:k:
 
#384162 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:52:14
Group: Members
Posts: 74,19840k
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 6,883.75 $ $
i thought it was the most ridiculous thing i have seen pooped in some time
 
#384164 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:54:00
Group: Members
Posts: 9,235
Joined: Jun 30 2007
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 172.09 $
Multi-Account Reports


If you are a Multi.

If you are a multi i mite be able to help. If you send me a pm and i will explain to you what your option's are.(such as what admins or mods to pm and to explain your situation to) Its better to admit your multi's then one of us find out And report you. Just send me a pm and explain the situation.
-I can clearly promise anything i am just trying to help you.

If you know of a Multi.

If you know someone who is a multi or you think someone is a multi you can send me a pm titled "Multi". Give me there names or link's to BOTH accounts. I will look into it and if i see they are a multi i will type up a multi report.
-Yet again i can clearly promise anything will happen.

Known Multi List with [unit no­t allowed] reward for enough proof to lock them.

VOKALEV
 
#384165 | Fri - Nov 14 2008 - 00:55:06
Group: Members
Posts: 27,88820k
Joined: Aug 31 2006
Contact: Offline PM
Points: 381.50 $
Quote (Animage @ Nov 14 2008 - 00:54:00)
Multi-Account Reports


If you are a Multi.

If you are a multi i mite be able to help. If you send me a pm and i will explain to you what your option's are.(such as what admins or mods to pm and to explain your situation to) Its better to admit your multi's then one of us find out And report you. Just send me a pm and explain the situation.
-I can clearly promise anything i am just trying to help you.

If you know of a Multi.

If you know someone who is a multi or you think someone is a multi you can send me a pm titled "Multi". Give me there names or link's to BOTH accounts. I will look into it and if i see they are a multi i will type up a multi report.
-Yet again i can clearly promise anything will happen.

Known Multi List with [unit no­t allowed] reward for enough proof to lock them.

VOKALEV

ty 4 info
Archived | Views: 2122 | Replies: 29 | General Archive - 2008 Topic List
 
Quit the Internet