Battle of the Plains of Abraham

GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Don't know how many other history buffs we have here, but I'm certainly one. Yesterday was the anniversary of subject battle (1759) and I would argue that the seeds of the American Revolution were planted outside the walls of Quebec City on that day. If the French had been victorious and maintained control of the majority of colonized territory in North America, the revolution wouldn't have happened. This Twitter thread provides a good summary of the battle's consequences.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Don't know how many other history buffs we have here, but I'm certainly one. Yesterday was the anniversary of subject battle (1759) and I would argue that the seeds of the American Revolution were planted outside the walls of Quebec City on that day. If the French had been victorious and maintained control of the majority of colonized territory in North America, the revolution wouldn't have happened. This Twitter thread provides a good summary of the battle's consequences.
But if our Revolution hadn't occurred, the French Revolution likely wouldn't, either.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
But if our Revolution hadn't occurred, the French Revolution likely wouldn't, either.
Quite possibly. The costs of the American revolution to the French treasury were significant. Plus, while the British monarchy gradually modernized/democratized, the French version was so resolutely stuck in the past, it became unsalvageable.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Quite possibly. The costs of the American revolution to the French treasury were significant. Plus, while the British monarchy gradually modernized/democratized, the French version was so resolutely stuck in the past, it became unsalvageable.
On the other hand, the American Revolution extended slavery by several decades, as the British abolished slavery over most of the Empire by August of 1934.

 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Having slavery abolished in Canada (it wasn't even a country then) just thirty years before the US isn't something I will ever brag about.
It’s not about bragging but recognizing that the American Revolution certainly was not a positive for many people. Quite the opposite, in fact.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
It’s not about bragging but recognizing that the American Revolution certainly was not a positive for many people. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Oh, certainly. Over the course of history, thirty years isn't much. But, if you were enslaved during that time frame, it was very much a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
Oh, certainly. Over the course of history, thirty years isn't much. But, if your were enslaved during that time frame, it was very much a big deal.
I've been married for over 47 years, what do you want to know about slavery........... ;)
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Oh, certainly. Over the course of history, thirty years isn't much. But, if your were enslaved during that time frame, it was very much a big deal.
We also have the American legal fetishism about the "original meaning" of the US Constitution where justices cosplay "historians" to find some kind of justification of their rulings. Selectively, of course.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
While I am not a history buff, I do like to hear about it. One cog broken and we'd have a different today.
Reminds me of the time traveling shows to ty to make it better and everything gets screwed up.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
... Selectively, of course.
But of course.
Heard about a letter one of the signers sent to somebody in effect that the constitution is not in stone but for future generations to update it as needed.
And to bring up ancient laws is ridiculous as can be. I am surprised they have not mentioned what was in the Magna Carta.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Quite possibly. The costs of the American revolution to the French treasury were significant. Plus, while the British monarchy gradually modernized/democratized, the French version was so resolutely stuck in the past, it became unsalvageable.
And if Franklin hadn't gotten the French to fight the British with the colonists, and win, the French people wouldn't have seen revolt as winnable against the Monarchy.

They 'misunderestimated' the French population and we know how that turned out for Louis and Marie. I have to think that the Louisiana Purchase funds a had a more positive impact on the general population than if it had occurred before the French Revolution.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
And if Franklin hadn't gotten the French to fight the British with the colonists, and win, the French people wouldn't have seen revolt as winnable against the Monarchy.
It's hard to say. The French revolutionaries were quite radical and quite determined.

They 'misunderestimated' the French population and we know how that turned out for Louis and Marie. I have to think that the Louisiana Purchase funds a had a more positive impact on the general population than if it had occurred before the French Revolution.
Of course, the French government couldn't care less about American "liberty". They only helped the American revolutionaries because they were still sour over their losses during the 7-years war and wanted to poke a stick in the eye of Great Britain.

Napoleon sold Louisiana, because he needed the coin and I think he realized that re-establishing French power in North America just wasn't in the cards. The US could have probably just taken the territory, but purchasing it would avoid burning a bridge.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
It's hard to say. The French revolutionaries were quite radical and quite determined.


Of course, the French government couldn't care less about American "liberty". They only helped the American revolutionaries because they were still sour over their losses during the 7-years war and wanted to poke a stick in the eye of Great Britain.

Napoleon sold Louisiana, because he needed the coin and I think he realized that re-establishing French power in North America just wasn't in the cards. The US could have probably just taken the territory, but purchasing it would avoid burning a bridge.
And the US & France had been at odds after 1793 because, the Americans reasoned, any treaties entered into before Louie's death were null and void, so France definitely needed the money to recoup their expenses from our revolution.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
And the US & France had been at odds after 1793 because, the Americans reasoned, any treaties entered into before Louie's death were null and void, so France definitely needed the money to recoup their expenses from our revolution.
In 1803, Napoleon was churning through cash for his current adventures, never mind paying down old bills. He definitely needed the money and with so many other balls in the air, was in no position to re-assert any claims over North American territories.

In the end, The Plains of Abraham was the most consequential battle in the history of the Americas, IMHO. One could even argue it was the most consequential battle in modern world history. Without the defeat of the French, there is no American revolution.

I'd be interested in other perspectives, if anyone wishes to offer any.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
In 1803, Napoleon was churning through cash for his current adventures, never mind paying down old bills. He definitely needed the money and with so many other balls in the air, was in no position to re-assert any claims over North American territories.

In the end, The Plains of Abraham was the most consequential battle in the history of the Americas, IMHO. One could even argue it was the most consequential battle in modern world history. Without the defeat of the French, there is no American revolution.

I'd be interested in other perspectives, if anyone wishes to offer any.
It would be interesting to run a program that considers some of the possible outcomes if the colonists hadn't rebelled and won. Would many of the monarchies change to some form of Democracy or would they stay on course and maintain their control over people? Would the Kaiser have abdicated/Weimar Republic come to be? Would Britain have attacked North America in the event that France had become the controlling power here? I think they would, because the original colonies were not only a way for people to leave England, but England used them as a business venture and a source for many raw materials.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
I'd be interested in other perspectives, if anyone wishes to offer any.
Sure! It laid the seed of a Norwegian statehood bid in 1814 that failed and we were until 1905 under Swedish oppression and tyranny!

In reality, for most people it did not matter one way or the another.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
It would be interesting to run a program that considers some of the possible outcomes if the colonists hadn't rebelled and won. Would many of the monarchies change to some form of Democracy or would they stay on course and maintain their control over people?
The possible course of world history without a USA is an intriguing question. At the time of the American Revolution, Great Britain had an elected parliament. Granted, only male land-owners could vote, but it was progress.

By the late 19th century, Imperial Germany was roughly equally democratic to Great Britain - more so in some respects, less so in others. In other words, monarchy does not necessarily mean autocracy.

Would the Kaiser have abdicated/Weimar Republic come to be?
Without the 1st World War, this wasn't going to happen. It's difficult to say whether that war would have started if there were no USA. There are a lot of moving parts to world affairs.

Would Britain have attacked North America in the event that France had become the controlling power here? I think they would, because the original colonies were not only a way for people to leave England, but England used them as a business venture and a source for many raw materials.
Well, France already controlled far more North American territory than Great Britain at the beginning of the 7-Years War. That said, the population of the British colonies far, far exceeded that of the French and was concentrated in a smaller geographical area. I doubt the French would have been able to overwhelm them, regardless of the outcome of the wider war. And, the British did not fight with the French over North America for its own sake. It was just a consequence of the wider war - the 7-Years war has been called the real 1st World War.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Sure! It laid the seed of a Norwegian statehood bid in 1814 that failed and we were until 1905 under Swedish oppression and tyranny!

In reality, for most people it did not matter one way or the another.
Proud Vikings under the heel of those soft Swedes. How humiliating! :D
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Proud Vikings under the heel of those soft Swedes. How humiliating! :D
We got rid of the Swedish king in 1905 by noting that he was unable to form a cabinet (a failure to govern), so swoosh he was gone. Unlike the Danish and Norwegian state union, the Swedish king was also the Norwegian king, but it was not a state union. Norway had it’s own constitution since 1814 where the king just happened to be Swedish. Details matters when playing legal hardball. :)

A war was averted in 1905 but it was a close call.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top