Lady Amelia Windsor (age 22)

Quote: Pacomartin

Probably with Canada being outnumbered 10 to 1 the acquisition would have been relatively peaceful with maybe a few thousand loyalists being given passage back to United Kingdom

I think you are underestimating the Canadians but I agree they could not hold out on their own but many would fight. What likely would happen is that England, France, Spain and maybe other European countries would send support. With England's control of the seas I don't think that the US could win. My point about the Kaiser is that usually other countries will band together to prevent one country from taking over huge territories. As in WWI and WWII. I didn't use WWII as an example since I didn't want to muddy the waters with the holocaust.

Quote: Pacomartin

No doubt they did. I think Winfield Scott's march from Veracruz to Mexico City advanced an average of 2 km per day.

But how many cities would have surrendered with little or no fight.

It depends. Do the French and/or British intervene on Mexico's side? I guarantee one of them would have.

I remind you that the Confederacy fully expected the British to intervene military in their defense when they declared independence.

Quote: Nareed

It depends. Do the French and/or British intervene on Mexico's side? I guarantee one of them would have.

On March 2, 1836 the Republic of Texas declared.The Treaties of Velasco were signed in the aftermath of the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836.

The Pastry War, began in November 1838 with the naval blockade of some Mexican ports and the capture of the fortress of San Juan de Ulúa in Veracruz by French forces sent by King Louis-Philippe. It ended several months later in March 1839 with a British-brokered peace. The intervention followed many claims by French nationals of losses due to unrest in Mexico.

On April 25, 1846, Mexican cavalry attacked a group of U.S. soldiers in the disputed zone under the command of General Zachary Taylor, killing about a dozen. They then laid siege to an American fort along the Rio Grande. Taylor called in reinforcements, and–with the help of superior rifles and artillery–was able to defeat the Mexicans at the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma.

The Franco–Mexican War, was an invasion of Mexico, initially supported by Britain and Spain. On 31 October 1861, France, Britain, and Spain agreed to the Treaty of London, a joint effort to extract repayment from the Mexican government. On 8 December, the Spanish fleet arrived and disembarked troops at Veracruz. On 19 June 1867, the republicans executed Maximilian I and restored the Mexican Republic.


So the idea of France or Britain intervening on Mexico's side is somewhat dubious. The question of intervening is much more open.

Quote: Pacomartin

I remind you that the Confederacy fully expected the British to intervene military in their defense when they declared independence..

This is a subject nobody ever talks about,
or even knows.

"Though often overlooked, more than 50,000 British citizens served in various capacities in the American Civil War...over 50,000 sailed from Britain to the U.S. to take part, to fight, to volunteer." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-unknown-contributions-of-brits-in-the-american-civil-war-2478471/

George McDonald Frasier, the famous
Brit writer of historical fiction, was going
to make a novel about Brits in the CW
his crowning achievement. He didn't
live long enough to write it, unfortunately.

Quote: Pacomartin

I remind you that the Confederacy fully expected the British to intervene military in their defense when they declared independence.

They also believed they could win with a smaller industrial base.

Had McClellan won the election...

Quote:

So the idea of France or Britain intervening on Mexico's side is somewhat dubious. The question of intervening is much more open.

No way either of them would want a hemisphere-spanning power, especially so close to their colonies and possessions in Central America and the Caribbean. Better to get the fighting done in a territory they had no stake in. And who knows, it might wind up as a British or French protectorate.

Quote: Evenbob

This is a subject nobody ever talks about,
or even knows.

"Though often overlooked, more than 50,000 British citizens served in various capacities in the American Civil War...over 50,000 sailed from Britain to the U.S. to take part, to fight, to volunteer." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-unknown-contributions-of-brits-in-the-american-civil-war-2478471/.

That compares to 70,000 who left the states to live in Canada (called United Empire Loyalists 'UEL') because they opposed the revolution.

John L. O'Sullivan (Born November 15, 1813 At sea; Died March 24, 1895 (aged 81) New York City) was an American columnist and editor who used the term "manifest destiny" in 1845 to promote the annexation of Texas and the Oregon Country to the United States.

That is, O'Sullivan believed that God ("Providence") had given the United States a mission to spread republican democracy ("the great experiment of liberty") throughout North America. Because Great Britain would not use Oregon for the purposes of spreading democracy, thought O'Sullivan, British claims to the territory could be disregarded.

O'Sullivan believed that manifest destiny was a moral ideal (a "higher law") that superseded other considerations, including international laws and agreements.

He made clear he did not include eastern Canada as part of the destiny, and worked to defuse tensions between the two countries in the 1840s.

O'Sullivan's original conception of manifest destiny was not a call for territorial expansion by force. He believed that the expansion of U.S.-style democracy was inevitable, and would happen without military involvement as whites (or "Anglo-Saxons") emigrated to new regions.

O'Sullivan disapproved of U.S. involvement the Mexican-American War in 1846, although he came to believe that the outcome would be beneficial to both countries.
O'Sullivan's phrase provided a label for sentiments which had become particularly popular during the 1840s, but the ideas themselves were not new.

O'Sullivan married Susan Kearny Rodgers on October 21, 1846. The couple went to Cuba for their honeymoon, where one of O'Sullivan's sisters lived. O'Sullivan thereafter became involved in a movement to win Cuban independence from Spanish rule. Composed of Cuban dissidents and American "filibusters", the movement hoped to have Cuba annexed to the United States.

On May 10, 1848, O'Sullivan had the first of several meetings with President Polk to try to convince the president to buy Cuba from Spain. Polk offered Spain one hundred million dollars for Cuba—the amount suggested by O'Sullivan—but the offer was declined. That same year he also urged Polk to take the Yucatan from Mexico.

Quote: Wizard

The whole royal family is ridiculous. They accomplish nothing except showing up to ceremonial functions. What difference does it make what age the king/queen is?

I take this back. The royal wedding provided at least a week of entertainment here in the US. Even I got caught up in it, a little.

Quote: Wizard

I take this back. The royal wedding provided at least a week of entertainment here in the US. Even I got caught up in it, a little.

I think it will prove to have been a significant event in race relations both here and there. I didn't realize she was black until the day before the wedding, just didn't care, I guess. But it seems to have been a big deal that she is.

Quote: beachbumbabs

But it seems to have been a big deal that she is.

I think it was probably a bigger deal in the USA than it was in Britain.

Prince Maximilian of Liechtenstein married a very dark woman from Panama on 29 January 2000. She is much darker than Meghan. Their son was born on 18 May 2001.


Some people noted that their wedding dresses were similar.