History Podcasts

Siege of Bajaur, 4-7 January 1519

Siege of Bajaur, 4-7 January 1519


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Siege of Bajaur, 4-7 January 1519

The siege of Bajaur of January 1519 was an early success during Babur's preparations for the invasion of Hindustan, and was notable for an early use of gunpowder weapons.

Bajaur is located in the mountains on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border, to the east of Chaghansarai, which had fallen into Babur's hands in the previous year. Its capture was part of Babur's preparations for his planned invasion of Hindustan, which he claimed as a descendant of Tamerlane, who had devastatingly invaded the area just over a century earlier.

The siege of Bajaur came just after Babur's memoirs resumed, and so we have his own account of the action. On 3 January 1519 Babur's camp was shaken by an earthquake. Despite this, on the following day his army left camp at dawn and advanced towards the fortress, which was then held by Haider-i-'ali, although he may not have been present during the siege. On the same day Babur sent a messenger to the fort ordering the defenders to surrender, but they refused. On 5 January Babur's men prepared to assault the fort, building mantlets and ladders.

On 6 January Babur's army advanced towards Bajaur in three columns, preparing to take up positions to the north, north-west and west of the fort. As they approached 100 to 150 of the defenders came out to attack them, armed with bows. Babur had recently acquired gunpowder weapons, and some of his men were now armed with matchlocks. Under fire from the new weapon the defenders were forced back to the shelter of the ramparts, and only a lack of available ladders prevented Babur from attempting to attack the fortress that night. Although Babur emphasised the important of the matchlocks in this fight, he also admits that only between 7 and 10 of the defenders were killed by the guns.

On 7 January the attack was resumed. Babur's left wing attacked the north-eastern tower of the fort, with some men attempting to undermine it while others kept the defenders pinned down with gun fire. There is also a mention of an artillery piece, or firingi, which was fired twice.

Babur's men soon reached the top of the walls in a number of places, before the north-eastern tower was breached. Within three hours of the start of the battle the fort was in Babur's hands. Somewhat unusually for Babur the fall of the fort was followed by a massacre of the male inhabitants and the enslaving of the women and children. According to Babur this was done because the inhabitants were both rebels against him, and heathens who had abandoned Islam.


False equivalency between Black Lives Matter and Capitol siege: Experts, advocates

Fiery exchanges took place when House lawmakers convened Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump for a historic second time, just one week after a mob of his supporters attacked the Capitol grounds. As Democrats railed against the insurrectionists, some Republicans repeatedly drew comparisons between last summer's Black Lives Matter protests and the Capitol siege of Jan. 6.

Comparisons between Black Lives Matter and what happened on Capitol Hill are false equivalencies, said several experts and advocates who spoke with ABC News.

'They lit actual flames!'

During Wednesday's hearing, several Congress members made impassioned cases for and against impeaching President Trump. During these speeches, some lawmakers denounced what they called the white supremacy among the Capitol rioters, while others accused Democrats of hypocrisy by supporting Black Lives Matter protests but condemning Trump supporters.

"If we fail to remove a White supremacist president who incited a white supremacist insurrection, it's communities like Missouri's first district that suffer the most," said Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri during her speech in support of impeachment. "The 117th Congress must understand that we have a mandate to legislate in defense of Black lives, the first step in that process is to root out white supremacy starting with impeaching the White supremacist in chief."

Rep. Bush made history as the first Black Congresswoman to be elected in the state. Missouri’s first district has a majority Black population and usually leans blue, according to an election website.

In her speech during the hearing, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., condemned the president for "radicalizing his supporters" and "inciting them to willingly join with White supremacists, Neo-Nazis and para-military extremists in a siege of the United States Capitol building."

In a video statement released following the vote, the president condemned last week's violence, but did not take responsibility for his role in the events. In the past, the president has denied accusations of racism. During the final presidential debate on Oct. 22, when moderator Kristen Welker asked the president about racial strife and hate in America, he answered by saying he is the "least racist person in this room."

Instead of rebuking the president for any role in inciting the riot, some Republicans drew comparisons between the Capitol siege and the Black Lives Matter protests that swept across the nation last year following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and several victims of police brutality.

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida defended Trump, saying "some have cited the metaphor that the president lit the flames. Well, they lit actual flames!" accusing Democrats of enabling civil unrest that ensued in some cities during the BLM protests.

The unrest in some cities after some Black Lives Matter protests included vandalism and looting however, many of these events were rooted in confrontations with police after peaceful protesters left. The vast majority of demonstrations were peaceful and leading BLM activists repeatedly distanced themselves from agent provocateurs and instigators.

BLM and the failed Capitol insurrection cannot be compared, according to Cynthia Miller-Idriss, professor of education and sociology at American University and author of "Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right."

"I don't see a parallel between the two," said Miller-Idriss. "I think making a connection that there was actually incitement of violence or that there's any equivalence in the violence itself, is just absurd."

“What happened at the Capitol, you can't call that a protest anymore,” said Miller-Idriss. “That was a riot, it was sedition, it was an insurrection, a siege. it was a domestic terrorist attack.”

Stark differences have been pointed out between the protests for racial justice and the riot stoked by unfounded claims of a stolen presidential election.

2 sets of rules?

The majority white "Stop the Steal" mob that stormed the nation's Capitol building was a mix of several right-wing extremist groups, according to Larry Rosenthal, chair and lead researcher of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies.

Some were members of far-right armed militias. Others were right-wing populists, whom he described as "rally-goers" who are "fanatical about Donald Trump and his presidency."

Rosenthal also described two subsets within the extremist groups. One, is comprised of anti-government militias, whom he referred to as "people who don't recognize the legitimacy" of government on both state and local levels and often deem themselves "sovereign citizens." The other includes white nationalists, those he said are "electrified and mobilize[d] going on the streets to stand up to Black Lives Matter and the fantasy of Antifa".

"Donald Trump asserts his role as the leader of the right-wing militias," said Rosenthal. "Those people who call themselves 'patriots,' they have lived with the idea of a spark that would lead to the civil war . it's been in their largely fantasy world for four decades. And suddenly, there is this summons from the president of the United States."

There was a "stark difference" in the makeup of the Black Lives Matter protests and the Capitol riots, according to professor Mark Anthony Neal, chair of the Department of African and African American Studies at Duke University.

Neal described the Black Lives Matter protests last year as "a multi-racial social justice movement, much like the civil rights movement in the 1960s."

"Many people of color, Black folks, are killed doing mundane things … just literally sleeping in their home, walking down the block," Neal told ABC News. "What Black Lives Matter was trying to bring to the forefront was the ways in which Black and people of color are always over-policed."

Non-violent protesters during the summer faced brute force from federal officers, but rioters were met with minimal federal response.

"[Rioters] acted with an extraordinary sense of impunity," said Rosenthal. "Like nothing was going to happen to them."

Federal authorities launched an active investigation into the attack on the Capitol and there are over 275 open investigations, Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin told reporters on a conference call Friday. As of 8 a.m. Friday morning, the Department of Justice opened 98 criminal cases -- a majority of which are federal felony cases, Sherwin said.

Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, said the double standard in policing is "a long-standing issue of both covert and overt racism and how law enforcement reacts to protest. When Black people are protesting . there's an over-militarization of communities. "

"It was as though two sets of rules apply," Morial said. "One set for these [pro-Trump] protesters and another set for not just Black Lives Matter but also civil rights protests."

Motivation behind the movements

Rioters that led the insurrection on the Capitol were a mix of "far-right extremists" and self-proclaimed patriots who believe they were called to defend democracy, according to Miller-Idriss. She described how some were "intentional in their planning" and arrived "tactically prepared to storm the Capitol" carrying weapons, cuffs and mace.

These far-right extremist groups were united by "a commitment to a tremendous set of disinformation about the election" citing unfounded claims of massive voter fraud and an illegitimate election, Miller-Idriss said.

President-elect Joe Biden won the election by more than 70 electoral votes. His victory was certified when Congress convened to ratify the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6. However, weeks after the election, Trump continuously pushed false claims and baseless theories of a rigged election, leading some to argue that it incited his followers and contributed to the siege of the Capitol.

The rioters also displayed symbols of white supremacist extremism including a noose stationed across the Capitol which, according to Miller-Idriss, "symbolizes the horrific history of lynching," but also refers to a white supremacy code that signals a "day of reckoning when traitors will be hung in the streets."

These groups were motivated by a sense of threat, Miller-Idriss said -- a "precarity" or "fear of something being taken away" they believed they deserve is what signaled the attacks on the Capitol, which she said is different from disenfranchisement felt by those supporting Black Lives Matter.

The Black Lives Matter movement was founded in 2013 after the verdict in the murder trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager who was killed while walking home in Florida.

Amid a racial reckoning in 2020, BLM protests across the country fought against racial injustice, police brutality and advocated for numerous Black Americans that had been violently killed.

Neil said it's important to make the distinction between the Black Lives Matter movement and the Capitol siege.

"One movement, in the case of Black Lives Matter, is really a critique, an attempt to undermine white supremacy. In the latter case, what happened at the Capitol in January was an attempt to buttress white supremacy."


AIM occupation of Wounded Knee begins

On the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, some 200 Sioux Native Americans, led by members of the American Indian Movement (AIM), occupy Wounded Knee, the site of the infamous 1890 massacre of 300 Sioux by the U.S. Seventh Cavalry. The AIM members, some of them armed, took 11 residents of the historic Oglala Sioux settlement hostage as local authorities and federal agents descended on the reservation.

AIM was founded in 1968 by Russell Means, Dennis Banks, and other Native leaders as a militant political and civil rights organization. From November 1969 to June 1971, AIM members occupied Alcatraz Island off San Francisco, saying they had the right to it under a treaty provision granting them unused federal land. In November 1972, AIM members briefly occupied the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C., to protest programs controlling reservation development. Then, in early 1973, AIM prepared for its dramatic occupation of Wounded Knee. In addition to its historical significance, Wounded Knee was one of the poorest communities in the United States and shared with the other Pine Ridge settlements some of the country’s lowest rates of life expectancy.

The day after the Wounded Knee occupation began, AIM members traded gunfire with the federal marshals surrounding the settlement and fired on automobiles and low-flying planes that dared come within rifle range. Russell Means began negotiations for the release of the hostages, demanding that the U.S. Senate launch an investigation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and all Sioux reservations in South Dakota, and that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hold hearings on the scores of Indian treaties broken by the U.S. government.

The Wounded Knee occupation lasted for a total of 71 days, during which time two Sioux men were shot to death by federal agents and several more were wounded. On May 8, the AIM leaders and their supporters surrendered after officials promised to investigate their complaints. Russell Means and Dennis Banks were arrested, but on September 16, 1973, the charges against them were dismissed by a federal judge because of the U.S. government’s unlawful handling of witnesses and evidence.

Violence continued on the Pine Ridge Reservation throughout the rest of the 1970s, with several more AIM members and supporters losing their lives in confrontations with the U.S. government. In 1975, two FBI agents and a Native man were killed in a shoot-out between federal agents and AIM members and local residents. In the trial that followed, AIM member Leonard Peltier was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to two consecutive life terms. With many of its leaders in prison, AIM disbanded in 1978. Local AIM groups continued to function, however, and in 1981 one group occupied part of the Black Hills in South Dakota. 

Congress took no steps to honor broken Indian treaties, but in the courts some tribes won major settlements from federal and state governments in cases involving tribal land claims. Russell Means continued to advocate for Native rights at Pine Ridge and elsewhere and in 1988 was a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. In 2001, Means attempted to run for the governorship of New Mexico, but his candidacy was disallowed because procedure had not been followed. Beginning in 1992, Means appeared in several films, including Last of the Mohicans. He also had a guest spot on HBO’s Curb Your Enthusiasm. His autobiography, Where White Men Fear to Tread, was published in 1997. Means died on October 12, 2012, at age 72.


Siege of Orleans Broken: May 8, 1429

Charles furnished Joan with a small army, and on April 27, 1429, she set out for Orleans, besieged by the English since October 1428. On April 29, as a French sortie distracted the English troops on the west side of Orleans, Joan entered unopposed by its eastern gate. She brought greatly needed supplies and reinforcements and inspired the French to a passionate resistance. She personally led the charge in several battles and on May 7 was struck by an arrow. After quickly dressing her wound, she returned to the fight, and the French won the day. On May 8, the English retreated from Orleans.


Not an argument: 'Slavery wasn't a race issue'

In my last post about Stefan Molyneux’s video “The Truth About Slavery (Transcript),” I focused on his denial of the role of market forces in perpetuating and intensifying the practice of slavery in the Americas.

That section of the video represented only a small portion. Aside from his obvious libertarian ideological objective, Molyneux has a second objective, which dovetails with the interests of white nationalism: to deny the racial character of slavery while crediting white Europeans with ending it (and writing black abolitionists out of the tale entirely).

Europeans ended slavery, and therefore, you only ever hear Europeans being blamed for slavery. This is horribly unjust. Look, if we want to move the moral standard of mankind further up, which I think we all want to do, let's stop attacking everyone who shows the first sign of conscience and better behavior in the world and only ascribe the blame to them. Let's not look at European guilt as a mineable resource which you can squeeze with state power to produce the diamonds of fiscal transfers.

Here, Molyneux is arguing against a strawman. No one blames Europeans for slavery as an institution, generally speaking. But it’s a historical fact that slavery in the Americas was distinct in its racial character. The racial caste system created under slavery outlived abolition. Jim Crow laws, which had deep roots in the slave codes, had a lasting impact on American society that is still felt today since there are people still living who were raised under segregation.

Furthermore, “scientific racism” and the other racist ideologies that provided a justification for slavery still have an effect on our society. In fact, Stefan gives a platform to many of the modern-day inheritors of these ideologies, like white nationalist Jared Taylor and Pioneer Fund-affiliated race researchers, such as Richard Lynn, Charles Murray and Linda Gottfredson.

It’s not so much that you “only hear” about white North Americans with reference to slavery—most people who don’t get their history from Youtube videos know that slavery existed in the Roman Empire or Brazil—it’s that the history of Trans-Atlantic slave trade is particularly relevant to us, which is why it looms so large in the narrative when we attempt to tell the story of who we are as a people.

Molyneux goes beyond bad history in his “Truth About” series. This isn’t even just poorly applied historiography with an ideological bent. It’s propaganda that mixes unverifiable, untrue and poorly sourced material with a lot of information that—while factually accurate—is presented in a misleading way without context that would fundamentally change its significance.

After my last post, I noticed that Molyneux’s videos contain a link to sources. From my attempts to run down sources for many of his more incredible claims, I gathered that his sources weren’t the best, but upon actually seeing his list of sources, they were somehow worse than I had imagined.

Many were from sites with a circa-1998 geocities aesthetic that just screams “credibility,” two were anti-Muslim Wordpress blogs and then of course there is that venerable repository of arcane historical knowledge Rasta Livewire. Much of his “Irish slave” material came from an article by notorious historical revisionist, conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier Michael A. Hoffman who authored “They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold Story of Enslavement of Whites in Early America.” The book earned rave reviews by none other than Wilmot Robertson, the man who coined the term “ethnostate.”

The other claims about “Irish slaves” come from the author of “White Cargo,” which is slightly more credible but still problematic and not the work of professional historians.

Of all his sources, the most credible is the website of the History Channel and the most academic is a lesson plan of a high school history class.

I also tracked many of the statistics on the various anti-Muslim websites he sources back to a single book by South African missionary Peter Hammond titled “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam.” Hammond is one of those Eurabia-type nutters who believes in a global Islamic conspiracy comparable to the average neo-Nazi paranoia about the Jews.

And if using bad sources weren’t bad enough, he plagiarizes prolifically, in some cases verbatim.

For example, here is an excerpt from the transcript of his video:

Islam dominated the slave trade from the 7th to the 15th century, but between 1519 and 1815 Europe also joined in the trade in human flesh. Interestingly enough, it was the European nations that had suffered the most at the hands of the Muslim slave raiders, and under centuries of Muslim military occupations such as Spain and Portugal who dominated the European slave trade.

Here is a line from the Christian site “Truth and Grace” listed in his sources:

While Islam dominated the slave trade from the 7th to the 15th Century, between 1519 and 1815 Europe also joined in this trade in human flesh. And it was those European nations which had suffered the most at the hands of Muslim slave raiders, and under centuries of Muslim military occupation, Spain and Portugal, who dominated the European slave trade.

Can you spot the difference? Me neither.

He also copies the entire section that follows almost word for word, but you get the idea. And this isn’t the only instance. I would venture a guess that about 75 percent of this video (and most of his videos) is just a bunch of garbage dredged up from the bowels of the Internet and interspersed with lame jokes and commentary.

One, is it has become a race issue for obvious financial gain reasons and reasons of the profitability of victimization in the face of a relatively empathetic culture. So, it's become a race issue and it fundamentally wasn't. It was a power issue. Where the British could get away with enslaving the whites, they got away with enslaving the whites. When they could get away with enslaving the Africans, the enslaved the Africans. When the Muslims could get away with enslaving everyone, they enslaved everyone. When the Jews could profit from their participation in the slave trade, they did and could.

While it’s true that slavery in general wasn’t “a race issue” throughout most of history, Stefan goes to great lengths to try to show that American slavery in particular wasn’t racial, which is about as far from the truth as one can get. Its racial character is what made the “peculiar institution” so peculiar.

As Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens said in his famous Cornerstone Speech stating the casus belli of the Civil War (which Stefan claims “wasn’t about slavery”):

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization… Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

Molyneux’s claim that slavery wasn’t “a race issue” rests on two faulty premises:

There were black slave-owners.

In conflating the indentured servitude of whites with chattel slavery, he makes a number of statements that range from vaguely truth adjacent to flat-out false:

Now, not really known, very often up to one-half or more of the arrivals in the American colonies early on were white slaves—we'll get into that a little bit later. They were slaves for life. Generally, the slavery was hereditary. Some of them were called "indentured servants". So they would sign up or be kidnapped and sold into bondage, and yet these contracts were generally extended at will. Nobody was really there to enforce them.

So here we see what historians refer to as “lying.” Indentured servants were not slaves for life nor was their servitude hereditary. Most people learn the difference between slaves and indentured servants in high school history. I don’t know. Maybe it’s different in Canada. Maybe they replace the part about slavery with a unit on maple syrup. But someone like Stefan, who has a Master’s degree in history, should know better. I’m sure he actually does know better, but he prefers to chew historical facts up and regurgitate them into the mouths of rubes and racists eager for validation of their prejudices.

The majority of indentured service contracts were entered into voluntarily—as an anarcho-capitalist, Stefan should consider any voluntary arrangement to be sacrosanct and ethical—and their terms were t usually three to seven years, though the average was around four. Convicts sent to the new world generally had longer terms of seven years or if their crimes were serious, 14. Terms for skilled laborers were on average 20 percent shorter while terms for women were on average 1.5 years shorter due to the shortage of women. Contracts could be extended, but it wasn’t “at will.” Usually they were extended as a punishment for attempting to escape or some other infraction.

There were laws and regulations governing the institution and explicitly differentiating between it and slavery. For example, a Virginia statute passed in 1705 on servants and slaves obligated masters to provide servants with a “wholesome and competent diet, clothing, and lodging” and prohibits them from “immoderate correction” or whipping “a Christian white servant naked, without an order from a justice of the peace” for which the penalty is 40 shillings to be paid directly to the injured party.

It’s important to note that not all indentured servants came of their own free will. Some were kidnapped or became indentured because of debt or as a punishment for some petty crime. Still more were “Barbadosed,” which is a term for Cromwell’s mass deportation of Scots and the Irish mostly to the West Indies and Virginia.

Usually the contract entitled the servant to “freedom dues,” which varied from contract to contract but often included land, livestock, clothing, weapons and some money to start their new life, but it was not uncommon for planters to welch on this obligation, especially in Barbados.

And here it should also be noted that life expectancies were short, particularly in the unforgiving climate of the West Indies, where heat and tropical diseases conspired with harsh labor to shorten the lives of everyone—slaves, indentured servants and planters alike. So in many cases, indentured servants would die before they achieved freedom, but many more would not and a lucky few would ultimately enter the ranks of the colonial elite. Nevertheless, this has to be distinguished from chattel slavery, which was, barring an act of manumission, both lifelong and hereditary.

But instead of noting this difference, Molyneux appropriates the experience of black slave women to white women, indulging simultaneously in the fallacy of relative privation and outright falsehood.

And, the English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of the slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the merchant's workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her children would still be born as slaves to the master.

Hereditary slavery was governed by the legal doctrine of partus sequitur ventrem established in Virginia law in 1662. It stated that a child’s condition would be based on that of the mother, but it didn’t apply to indentured servants, who were legal persons bound by a contract. There was only one circumstance under which a white woman’s child would be born into any form of servitude and that was as punishment for miscegenation.

Under Virginia law, if a white woman bore a child by a black father, she was forced to pay a fine and if she could not pay, she would be indentured for five years. Either way, her child would be indentured until the age of 30. So the few white children who were born into anything remotely resembling slavery were actually evidence of the fundamental racial character of slavery.

As for “breeding” Irish women, there’s really no evidence that this was ever a thing. At the same time, sexual abuse of women with less power and social standing has pretty much been a constant throughout history, and most certainly occurred among female indentured servants, but there’s no indication it was more severe than the sexual abuse of slave women.

The important distinction between indentured servitude and slavery is the notion of legal personhood, or in colonial times, “subjecthood,” which was defined initially in terms of Christianity and blood relation to a subject of the crown. Indentured servants had rights—though not necessarily well enforced—and some form of legal recourse in the event they were mistreated whereas slaves did not. A master could be tried for murder for killing an indentured servant whereas one could kill a slave with impunity.

In his personal narrative of life as a slave, the black abolitionist Frederick Douglass tells of a time when an overseer shot a slave named Demby in the face for refusing a command. Douglass gives an account of his justification to the master:

His reply was—as well as I can remember—that Demby had become unmanageable. He was setting a dangerous example to the other slaves, one which, if suffered to pass without some such demonstration on his part, would finally lead to the total subversion of all rule and order upon the plantation… His horrid crime was not even submitted to judicial investigation. It was committed in the presence of slaves, and they, of course, could neither institute a suit nor testify against him. And thus the guilty perpetrator of one of the bloodiest and most foul murders goes unwhipped of justice, and uncensured by the community in which he lives.

Douglass names a series of similar killings to illustrate how common such wanton acts of cruelty were. In terms of indentured servitude, masters were to a certain extent limited by law in the punishments they could inflict on insubordinate workers, but more importantly, they had non-violent options at their disposal, namely extending the term of the contract.

A common tactic of those pushing the Irish slaves myth is to take an extreme example and portray it as typical while purposefully omitting crucial context. In his excellent series debunking the Irish slaves meme, Liam Hogan, a research librarian at the University of Limerick, addresses a claim that “Irish slaves” would be hung by their hands and have their hands and feet set on fire as punishment:

This refers to the case of John Thomas, an indentured servant in Barbados who in 1640 was hung from his wrists by Francis Leaver (his master) and Leaver’s brother-in-law Samuel Hodgskins. They placed matches between his fingers and set them alight…It is somewhat ironic that the meme claims that such a punishment was normal for Irish indentured servants. Thomas was likely from England…It is also arguably one of the worst recorded examples of servant abuse in the seventeenth century Anglo-Caribbean. More importantly, as John Thomas was a servant and not a slave, he had the right to complain about his treatment and to hopefully bring his torturers to trial. Both Leaver and Hodgkins were imprisoned and ordered to pay for Thomas’ medical treatment. Thomas was freed from his indenture and paid compensation that amounted to 5,000 pounds of cotton.

Hogan then goes on to catalogue the various atrocities visited upon slaves in the West Indies that were the rule rather than the exception. I recommend the reader refer to his page for more, but I’ll just mention one particularly cruel example he offers, which comes from historian Trevor Burnard who writes of master Thomas Thistlewood’s “willingness to subject his slaves to horrific punishments, which included savage whippings of up to 350 lashes and sadistic tortures of his own invention, such as Derby’s dose, in which a slave defecated into the mouth of another slave whose mouth was then wired shut.”

While these aren’t examples from Molyneux’s video, he adopts similar tactics by decontextualizing an account of “white” slave children to bolster his case that slavery “wasn’t a race thing.”

Dr. Alexander Milton Ross attended a slave auction in New Orleans where many of the slaves were much whiter than the white people who were buying them. In Lexington, Kentucky, Calvin Fairbank—that's the least hood name you'll find—described a woman who was going to be sold at slave auction as "one of the most beautiful and exquisite young girls one could expect to find in freedom or slavery…being only one sixty-fourth African.

But when told in full, the tale of these “white” children underscores the racial character of slavery. Here I place “white” in quotation marks because these children, who to the casual observer appear to be white, were considered black under the law. They were part of an abolitionist campaign to gin up Northern support for the cause and to demonstrate the absurdity of the One-Drop Rule, which Molyneux hints at but never really explores.

It speaks to the dehumanization of the black race that was central to slavery. Abolitionists had to resort to such propaganda in order to elicit sympathy from white Northerners who were otherwise unmoved by the plight of black slaves. The girls with the lightest skin used in this campaign had the greatest impact. Harper’s Weekly wrote of one girl named Rebecca: “to all appearance, she is perfectly white. Her complexion, hair, and features show not the slightest trace of negro blood.”

In the last post, I talked briefly about how the information in Molyneux’s videos often goes viral and can do great harm to public understanding. Mr. Hogan’s work on the Irish slaves myth seems to confirm this. One particular claim that Hogan documented almost certainly originated in “The Truth About Slavery:” the Irish were treated worse because they were less expensive than black slaves.

So, African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling), and this is partly because you could just grab them. You didn't have to pay the African warlords for the slaves, and they were cheaper and easier to transport. If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death would be a monetary setback, but much cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

Here is that same statement in meme form. In a delicious irony, the true story behind the image in the meme disproves its main claims. It uses a picture of Elizabeth Brownrigg, who actually did whip a servant girl to death—not an Irish slave but an orphan named Mary Clifford—and it most certainly was treated as a crime. It was a huge scandal that was still being talked about a century later and she was executed for it.

Back to that claim that “white slaves” were cheaper and were treated worse as a consequence. Putting the numbers aside for the moment, B does not necessarily follow from A. We know that slaves generally were treated worse than indentured servants. That’s not really up for debate.

Though some historians have acknowledged that the economic incentive of protecting one’s investment mitigated the cruelty of some slave masters to a degree, the key difference, as we’ve established, is legal personhood. Also, on larger plantations with many slaves, it made sense to use terror as a management tool. As we saw from Douglass’ account of the slave Demby, the death of a slave was considered an acceptable loss if it preserved order on the plantation.

During certain periods, indenture contracts may have been less expensive relative to the cost of a slave, but over time, the underlying economic factors changed the cost-benefit equation and prices, which ultimately prompted the shift to slave labor (also after events like Bacon’s Rebellion, rich planters grew fearful of the threat of a growing underclass of free labor and preferred permanent slaves, who were much more manageable.) There is an obvious reason why an indenture contract was less valuable than a slave that had nothing to do with overhead. One provided the owner four to seven years of labor the other, a lifetime (or more if you include offspring).

So let’s look at the numbers. Stefan says 5 pounds for indentured servants and 50 pounds for a slave in “the late 1600s.” This site has some historical estimates for slave prices, and for Virginia, it gives a range of 28-35 pounds from 1700-1750 and for Barbados, 16-23 pounds in the same period.

For indentured servants, the price of a contract was closely tied to the cost of passage and was nearly double. According to the source I could find, the cost of passage fell to 6 pounds in the 1700s and the cost of a contract was about 10-11 pounds, so we can safely assume that it was somewhat higher during the period Stefan is talking about. I think a reasonable guess would be somewhere around 14 or 15 pounds. So yes, slaves were more expensive for the aforementioned reason, but it was at most double rather than 10 times the price of an indentured servant.

Stefan tries to back his claim that the Irish were treated worse with a single piece of anecdotal evidence from Frederick Law Olmsted’s “Journey to the Seaboard Slave States.”

[Olmsted] was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship's hold. The men tossing down, somewhat recklessly into the hold, were Negros. The men in the hold were Irish. He said, "What's going on? Why is it this way?" "Oh," said the worker, "the nggrs are worth too much to be risked here. The Paddies are knocked overboard or get their back broke, nobody loses anything."

On the surface this seems to confirm Stefan’s thesis, but it’s misleading. There’s a certain economic rationale at work here. A slave is property whereas a hired hand is rented labor, and prior to laws on safety and employer liability, placing a wage laborer in a job that had higher risk of death and injury made perfect economic sense. Manual labor in the cotton fields was relatively low risk, so you could brutally whip a slave and otherwise treat them awfully without lasting damage to the slave as an investment. So this is hardly proof that “white slaves were treated worse.”

Also, it’s a single account, so there’s really no way of knowing how typical it was in reality, and you can weigh this against the brutality that was the common thread running through some 2,000 slave narratives collected by the Works Progress Administration

The economics of Irish slavery were pretty tragic. From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. You see, half a million blacks get to North America, 300,000 whites sold as slaves in a 10-year period.

Literally nothing in this paragraph is accurate. What I also find amusing is that Stefan is so goddamn lazy that he can’t even be bothered to find precise, accurate figures when doing so would actually help his argument. The highest estimate for the death toll of the Eleven Years’ War—from fighting, famine and disease—is actually around 600,000 based on the Down Survey taken shortly thereafter, and the best estimate for the number of black slaves transported to North America is significantly lower than “half a million” (388,000). You’re welcome, Stef. Learn to Google.

Hogan already addressed most of these figures in a response to the article that that Stefan is using, so I’ll mostly just quote him, but first I wanted to just call attention to what Molyneux is doing here.

He is not content to make a false equivalence between slaves and indentured servants qualitatively, he has to attempt to demonstrate that the two were were roughly the same quantitatively, even to the point of implying that there may have been more “Irish slaves” because only half a million black slaves were trafficked total while nearly that many “white slaves” were “sold” in just a decade.

His intellectual dishonesty is particularly egregious because his total figure for “white slaves” includes both North America and the West Indies, but he only cites the number of black slaves imported to North America, which accounts for less than a quarter of the slaves imported by Britain (2.2 million). He does this throughout the video to minimize the role of Europeans, particularly Britain, in the slave trade. Furthermore, it should be noted that focusing only on the number of slaves imported obscures the true scale of slavery since at the time of emancipation the slave population was nearly 4 million.

But even if we were doing an apples-to-apples comparison, Stefan’s numbers are way off the mark. Hogan looked into the 300,000 figure, which he traced back to the blurb on the jacket of White Cargo, and notes that from 1630 to 1775, the total migration from Ireland to the colonies was only 165,000. During the entire colonial period about 500,000 Europeans migrated, of which 350,000 were indentured servants, the vast majority of whom came voluntarily.

Cromwell did deport some Irish after the war, but here Stefan errs to the tune of 288,000. Around 10,000 to 12,000 Irish were deported during this period.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England.

Again, this is sourced directly from “White Cargo.” It’s totally baseless and wildly exaggerated, and since we’ve already established that 165,000 Irish came over a period of 140 years, I don’t feel the need to debunk this further. Next.

In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.

Of this figure, Hogan writes:

This exaggerated figure of around 52,000 has lineage. It can be traced back to Sean O’Callaghan’s “To Hell or Barbados.” O’Callaghan incorrectly attributes this number to Aubrey Gwynn. But he either misread Gwynn or has deliberately misled the reader because Gwynn took a guess at 16,000 sent to the West Indies and his total estimate of 50,000 includes the 34,000 that left Ireland for the continent.

Stefan again tries to play on the viewers’ sympathies with another story of exploited and kidnapped children

In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2,000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

The only vaguely accurate statement in the entire article. It was 1655 and it was Henry Cromwell (then Major General of the Parliamentarian army in Ireland) who made the suggestion, not his father Oliver. In the absence of any further evidence, historians are almost certain that this scheme did not proceed.

Hogan also goes on to note that kidnapping did occur but English and Irish alike fell victim. See his article for a more detailed exploration of the topic.

Now we come to the other half of Stefan’s non-argument that slavery wasn’t a “race issue” and it might be convincing on its face if one is totally ignorant of history—which accurately describes the majority of his viewership.

Blacks owned slaves even in America, according to the United States' census of 1830. In just the one town of Charleston, South Carolina, 407 black Americans owned slaves themselves. One study has concluded that 28% of free blacks owned slaves, which is far higher than the free whites who owned slaves. It was a lot of a class thing.

To refute this, I turn to the work of black historian Henry Louis Gates, whom the reader may remember as the Harvard professor arrested trying to enter his own house.

On the Root website, which Gates owns and operates, he took a sober and honest look at the question. He notes that, yes, there were black slave-owners, but the truth is more complicated than the “truth.” They collectively owned very few slaves and the overwhelming majority were family members or other slaves purchased as a means of emancipation. Still, a minority purchased slaves for the same reason anyone else did: exploitation.

Gates looks at the work of Carter G. Woodson who most extensively studied the year 1830 (the same year Stefan mentions, so we can assume we’re working with the same research). In that year, there were almost 320,000 free blacks, 3,800 of whom owned slaves, so that comes to about 1.2 percent, not 28 percent. They owned 12,900 of the more than 2,000,000 slaves at the time, which translates to 0.6 percent of the total.

Broken down by number of slaves owned, 94 percent owned from one to nine, while 42 percent owned only one, and Gates argues:

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves… Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. That's the good news.

Gates then spends the remainder of the article describing what he calls the “rogues gallery” of black slave-owners who didn’t fit this description, including some who matched their white counterparts in cruelty and avarice. I won’t really go into it here, but it’s a masterful work by an excellent historian who treats the subject with the nuance it deserves.

Finally, we turn to Stefan’s questionable estimate of the percentage of white slaveowners:

… so, if you include all the white people in the North at the very height of slavery, only 1.4% of white Americans owned black slaves. Monstrous, immoral… that was the truly evil 1% of the day

Politifact already did a great job of debunking this claim when it started circulating in meme form late last year, so I’ll just summarize its main points for the convenience of the reader.

First, Stefan dilutes the rate of slave ownership by including the population of states where slavery had already been outlawed. Second, a more accurate picture emerges of the pervasiveness of slavery in the South when it is calculated by household, which is the method historians prefer because it cuts down on statistical noise caused by counting slaves and children.

While around 5 percent of individuals in slave states owned slaves, nearly a quarter of households owned one or more slaves. In the states that were most dependent on the slave economy, the rate of ownership was nearly 50 percent. In Mississippi and South Carolina, the rates were 49 percent and 46 percent, respectively. Also, one didn’t have to own slaves to benefit from slavery as it was common for slaves to be rented out by their owner, especially if they had some kind of skill.

There’s a case to be made that the hardships of indentured servants, factory workers, child laborers and the millions of others who have undergone cruelty and exploitation deserve more attention in classrooms and history books. But this can be done without trivializing the experiences of those who endured the evils of what was indisputably the darkest chapter of our nation’s history.

It’s one thing to honestly portray the trials and tribulations of all of the oppressed in a sincere effort to recognize that suffering is the common heritage of humanity. But it’s another thing entirely to exaggerate the suffering of one’s own ancestors while simultaneously minimizing or virtually erasing that of others’.

It takes a special kind of sociopath to so heinously distort reality in pursuit of a transparently racist ideological agenda, and then apply to it the stamp of “truth.”

Dr. Martin Luther King once said “The truth, when crushed to earth, will rise again.” And looking at the world today, one can’t shake feeling that this is happening—that truth is being crushed, buried beneath fake news, bad memes and the lies of cheap hucksters with Patreon accounts.

Maybe I’m naïve, but I have faith that the truth—the real truth—will rise again, and its light will send cockroaches like Stefan Molyneux scurrying back to whatever dark hole they came from.

Thanks for reading. In part three, we’ll look at Molyneux’s claims about “Muslim slavery”


Capitol attack conjures American legacy of racial violence

Experts have likened it to mobs during the Reconstruction Era.

US Capitol riots: Tracking the insurrection

In the wake of the Capitol Hill attack by a mob of President Donald Trump's supporters -- including white supremacists -- some conservative lawmakers, especially those who broke with the president on overturning the election results, have expressed concerns about receiving death threats.

For many lawmakers of color, threats to their lives are par for the course, building on a well-documented history of threats and acts of racially motivated violence that coincide with people of color seeking and gaining political power.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., spoke about this in an interview with MSNBC shortly after the attack.

"Feeling unsafe is not new, and certainly being a Black woman and feeling unsafe is not new," said Pressley. "The experiences of Wednesday were harrowing and, unfortunately, very familiar in the deepest most ancestor ancestral way. And that includes for, you know, all Black Americans, all Black [Congressional] members."

Intelligence warnings of ongoing domestic terror threats have prompted an unprecedented security effort with as many as 25,000 National Guardsmen given the green light to descend on the nation's capital to protect the inauguration. Through it all, Harris has been adamant about going forward with a public swearing-in.

"I am very much looking forward to being sworn in as the next vice president of the United States, and I will walk there, to that moment, proudly with my head up and my shoulders back," Harris told reporters Monday.

Still, allies of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris have circulated concerns for her safety. In an interview with The Washington Post, Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., said she was "petrified" for Harris as she prepares to take the oath of office. Harris will be the first woman and woman of color to hold the office of vice president.

"Her big day, the big day for the nation, a crowning moment for America as she breaks through thousands of glass ceilings -- glass should be on every street throughout this nation -- and that's going to be shrouded by fear of a white mob of insurgents who are racist and hate-filled. That's the sad part about all this," Wilson told the newspaper.

"I am afraid for every Black public official," said Lateefah Simon, a mentee of Harris' and local elected official in the San Francisco Bay Area, in an interview with ABC News. She later added: "We just celebrated Dr. King's birthday in the last few days and we know so clearly, when folks are fighting unapologetically for the freedom of oppressed people, that folks are clinging on to the last gasp of white supremacy, we're seeing the desperation of white supremacist and their actions, both online, and both in the insurrection."

"What we saw in that attack on the Capitol is the sort of insistence on bringing down the latest mass democracy movement and it starts with the tea party and the backlash to Barack Obama," said Kidada Williams, a historian at Wayne State University who studies Black victims of racial violence.

When he ran for the nation's highest office in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama received Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate because of the threats. And during his eight years in office, Obama and his family received an unprecedented number of death threats.

Williams believes threats against Harris could be even more severe.

"It'll be worse because she's a Black woman, there's a different kind of hate for Black women than there is for Black men," Williams said. "I believe it's also because of the huge age gap, if anything happens to President Biden, she's next in line."

There is a grim legacy within the Black community of leaders being assassinated. The examples are numerous. Civil rights activist Medgar Evers was shot by a white supremacist while trying to integrate the University of Mississippi. Fred Hampton, a leader of the Black Panther Party, was killed by police in Chicago while he was sleeping and unarmed. Malcolm X was shot and killed by a member of the Nation of Islam after the FBI's Counterintelligence Program fomented tensions between him and the leaders of the movement. Most notably, civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot dead at the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1968.

Violence and threats of violence against Black leaders go well beyond Obama and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. A century prior, in the years after the Civil War, Black men began to exercise the rights of their newfound freedom. It created a wave of Black political organizing and with it came hundreds of Black men who were elected to public office in local, state and federal government.

In response, racial violence perpetrated at the hands of white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan was used as a means of intimidation against Blacks who sought to participate in government. According to Eric Foner, a historian at Columbia University who specializes in the Reconstruction Era, scores of Black leaders were victims of racial violence and more than 30 Black elected officials were murdered.

"You have to be pretty brave to be a Black elected official in a lot of the South during Reconstruction," said Foner. "It would be very hard to think of another group of public officials in American history of whom 10% would be direct victims of violence in one way or another."

Foner likened the mob that attacked the Capitol to white mobs during the Reconstruction Era. They invaded statehouses and city halls in attempts to strip Black people of political power. He also compared Trump's political rise through his spread of a racist birther lie about Obama to the racist rhetoric of President Andrew Johnson.

In his 1867 State of the Union address, Johnson used racist language to justify keeping Black people out of elected office.

"Negroes have shown less capacity for government than any other race of people. No independent government of any form has ever been successful in their hands," said Johnson. "On the contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices, they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism."

Johnson was a lifelong Democrat and former slave owner from Tennessee. He was widely viewed as lenient toward Confederate leaders, offering thousands of pardons to rebels and making way for the violence across the South that came after.

"That's the closest predecessor in American history to Trump, Johnson even helped to inspire riots," according to Foner, pointing to race riots in New Orleans and Memphis in 1866 in which white mobs killed 94 African Americans, wounded hundreds, and burned churches and schools.

Harris' swearing-in is the culmination of her historic election and she's moving forward fully aware of this history of brazen displays of white supremacy.


Fact Check: The ‘6 Million Wasn’t Enough’ shirt wasn’t from the Capitol siege

On a Jan. 7 episode of MSNBC’s “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell,” the anchor condemned some of the antisemitic fashion choices seen on the National Mall the day rioters stormed the Capitol, including the infamous “Camp Auschwitz” hoodie. But one of the images he used, and that was widely shared on Twitter, was not from that day.

“6MWE means ‘6 million were not enough,’ and you have to be very special to wear that on your shirt when you’re invading the Capitol building,” O’Donnell said, while showing an image of a man in a balaclava and a black T-shirt of an eagle, carrying a fasces, below the abbreviation.

“That means you believe that 6 million Jews exterminated in the Nazi death camps, including Auschwitz, was not enough,” O’Donnell said.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, that is indeed what the text means. They explained it on their website using the same image — on Dec. 24, 2020.

The ADL wrote the photo was taken at an earlier gathering of Proud Boys in Washington, D.C., and previously disseminated on social media. The image popped up again on Twitter in the aftermath of the Capitol siege on the Twitter feed of writer Roya Hakakian.

Hakakian’s tweet, which included the image in a collage of photos from Dec. 7, was retweeted more than 16,000 times and quote tweeted more than 3,000 times. O’Donnell retweeted it from another user’s quote tweet before his show.

Laura Adkins, the opinion editor at JTA, tagged O’Donnell and MSNBC, alerting him to the misinformation.

Guys. We HAVE to be SO careful with this. @msnbc, the photo @Lawrence had on his show and used to make a very important, true point about the rioters is from December.

Bad actors look for any opportunity to call us fake news and we can’t give it to them by not checking photos. https://t.co/RvSgcjuDin— Laura E. Adkins (@Laura_E_Adkins) January 8, 2021

“I assume you don’t check your own twitter mentions,” Adkins wrote to O’Donnell, “but it was heartbreaking to hear such true words and realize that anyone hoping to undermine them could use the fact it was an old image to try and do so.”


Contents

Indigenous warfare tended to be over tribal independence, resources, and personal and tribal honour—revenge for perceived wrongs committed against oneself or one's tribe. [1] Before European colonization, indigenous warfare tended to be formal and ritualistic, and entailed few casualties. [2] There is some evidence of much more violent warfare, even the complete genocide of some First Nations groups by others, such as the total displacement of the Dorset culture of Newfoundland by the Beothuk. [3] Warfare was also common among indigenous peoples of the Subarctic with sufficient population density. [4] Inuit groups of the northern Arctic extremes generally did not engage in direct warfare, primarily because of their small populations, relying instead on traditional law to resolve conflicts. [5]

Those captured in fights were not always killed tribes often adopted captives to replace warriors lost during raids and battles, [6] and captives were also used for prisoner exchanges. [7] [8] Slavery was hereditary, the slaves being prisoners of war and their descendants. [8] Slave-owning tribes of the fishing societies, such as the Tlingit and Haida, lived along the coast from what are now Alaska to California. [9] Among indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, about a quarter of the population were slaves. [8]

The first conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples may have occurred around 1003 CE, when parties of Norsemen attempted to establish permanent settlements along the northeastern coast of North America (see L'Anse aux Meadows). [10] According to Norse sagas, the Skrælings of Vinland responded so ferociously that the newcomers eventually withdrew and gave up their plans to settle the area. [11]

Prior to French settlements in the St. Lawrence River valley, the local Iroquoian peoples were almost completely displaced, probably because of warfare with their neighbours the Algonquin. [12] The Iroquois League was established prior to major European contact. Most archaeologists and anthropologists believe that the League was formed sometime between 1450 and 1600. [13] Existing indigenous alliances would become important to the colonial powers in the struggle for North American hegemony during the 17th and 18th centuries. [14]

After European arrival, fighting between indigenous groups tended to be bloodier and more decisive, especially as tribes became caught up in the economic and military rivalries of the European settlers. By the end of the 17th century, First Nations from the northeastern woodlands, eastern subarctic and the Métis (a people of joint First Nations and European descent [15] ) had rapidly adopted the use of firearms, supplanting the traditional bow. [16] The adoption of firearms significantly increased the number of fatalities. [17] The bloodshed during conflicts was also dramatically increased by the uneven distribution of firearms and horses among competing indigenous groups. [18]

Five years after the French founded Port Royal (see also Port-Royal (Acadia) and Annapolis Royal) in 1605, the English began their first settlement, at Cuper's Cove. [19] By 1706, the French population was around 16,000 and grew slowly due to a multitude of factors. [20] [21] [22] This lack of immigration resulted in New France having one-tenth of the British population of the Thirteen Colonies by the mid 1700s. [23]

La Salle's explorations had given France a claim to the Mississippi River valley, where fur trappers and a few colonists set up scattered settlements. [24] The colonies of New France: Acadia on the Bay of Fundy and Canada on the St. Lawrence River were based primarily on the fur trade and had only lukewarm support from the French monarchy. [25] The colonies of New France grew slowly given the difficult geographical and climatic circumstances. [26] The more favourably located New England Colonies to the south developed a diversified economy and flourished from immigration. [27] From 1670, through the Hudson's Bay Company, the English also laid claim to Hudson Bay and its drainage basin (known as Rupert's Land), and chartered several colonies and seasonal fishing settlements on Newfoundland. [28]

The early military of New France consisted of a mix of regular soldiers from the French Army (Carignan-Salières Regiment) and French Navy (Troupes de la marine and Compagnies Franches de la Marine) supported by small local volunteer militia units (Colonial militia). [29] Most early troops were sent from France, but localization after the growth of the colony meant that, by the 1690s, many were volunteers from the settlers of New France, and by the 1750s most troops were descendants of the original French inhabitants. [30] Additionally, many of the early troops and officers who were born in France remained in the colony after their service ended, contributing to generational service and a military elite. [30] [31] The French built a series of forts from Newfoundland to Louisiana and others captured from the British during the 1600s to the late 1700s. [32] Some were a mix of military post and trading forts. [32]

Anglo-Dutch Wars Edit

The Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665 – 1667) was a conflict between England and the Dutch Republic partly for control over the seas and trade routes. In 1664, a year before the Second Anglo-Dutch War began, Michiel de Ruyter received instructions at Málaga on 1 September 1664 to cross the Atlantic to attack English shipping in the West Indies and at the Newfoundland fisheries in reprisal for Robert Holmes capturing several Dutch West India Company trading posts and ships on the West African coast. [33] Sailing north from Martinique in June 1665, De Ruyter proceeded to Newfoundland, capturing English merchant ships and taking the town of St. John's before returning to Europe. [34] [35]

During the Third Anglo-Dutch War, the inhabitants of St. John's fended off a second Dutch attack in 1673. The city was defended by Christopher Martin, an English merchant captain. Martin landed six cannon from his vessel, Elias Andrews, and constructed an earthen breastwork and battery near Chain Rock commanding the Narrows leading into the harbour.

French and Iroquois Wars Edit

The Beaver Wars (also known as the French and Iroquois Wars) continued intermittently for nearly a century, ending with the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701. [36] The French under Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons founded settlements at Port Royal and Samuel de Champlain three years later at Quebec City, quickly joining pre-existing aboriginal alliances that brought them into conflict with other indigenous inhabitants. [37] Champlain joined a Huron–Algonquin alliance against the Iroquois Confederacy (Five/Six Nations). [38] In the first battle, superior French firepower rapidly dispersed a massed groups of aboriginals. The Iroquois changed tactics by integrating their hunting skills and intimate knowledge of the terrain with their use of firearms obtained from the Dutch [39] they developed a highly effective form of guerrilla warfare, and were soon a significant threat to all but the handful of fortified cities. Furthermore, the French gave few guns to their aboriginal allies. [40]

For the first century of the colony's existence, the chief threat to the inhabitants of New France came from the Iroquois Confederacy, and particularly from the easternmost Mohawks. [41] While the majority of tribes in the region were allies of the French, the tribes of the Iroquois confederacy were aligned first with the Dutch colonizers, then the British. [42] In response to the Iroquois threat, the French government dispatched the Carignan-Salières Regiment, the first group of uniformed professional soldiers to set foot on what is today Canadian soil. [43] After peace was attained, this regiment was disbanded in Canada. The soldiers settled in the St. Lawrence valley and, in the late 17th century, formed the core of the Compagnies Franches de la Marine, the local militia. Later militias were developed on the larger seigneuries land systems. [44]

Civil War in Acadia Edit

In the mid-17th century, Acadia was plunged into what some historians have described as a civil war. [45] The war was between Port Royal, where Governor of Acadia Charles de Menou d'Aulnay de Charnisay was stationed, and present-day Saint John, New Brunswick, home of Governor Charles de Saint-Étienne de la Tour. [46] During the conflict, there were four major battles. La Tour attacked d'Aulnay at Port Royal in 1640. [47] In response to the attack, d'Aulnay sailed out of Port Royal to establish a five-month blockade of La Tour's fort at Saint John, which La Tour eventually defeated in 1643. [48] La Tour attacked d'Aulnay again at Port Royal in 1643 [48] d'Aulnay and Port Royal ultimately won the war against La Tour with the 1645 siege of Saint John. [49] However, after d'Aulnay died in 1650, La Tour re-established himself in Acadia. [48]

King William's War Edit

During King William's War (1689–1697), the next most serious threat to Quebec in the 17th century came in 1690 when, alarmed by the attacks of the petite guerre, [50] the New England colonies sent an armed expedition north, under Sir William Phips, to capture Quebec itself. [51] This expedition was poorly organized and had little time to achieve its objective, having arrived in mid-October, shortly before the St. Lawrence would freeze over. [51] The expedition was responsible for eliciting one of the most famous pronouncements in Canadian military history. When called on by Phips to surrender, the aged Governor Frontenac replied, "I will answer . only with the mouths of my cannon and the shots of my muskets." [52] After a single abortive landing on the Beauport shore to the east of Quebec City, the English force withdrew down the icy waters of the St. Lawrence. [53]

During the war, the military conflicts in Acadia included: Battle at Chedabucto (Guysborough) Battle of Port Royal (1690) a naval battle in the Bay of Fundy (Action of 14 July 1696) Raid on Chignecto (1696) and Siege of Fort Nashwaak (1696). [54] The Maliseet from their headquarters at Meductic on the Saint John River participated in numerous raids and battles against New England during the war. [55]

In 1695, Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville was called upon to attack the English stations along the Atlantic coast of Newfoundland in the Avalon Peninsula Campaign. [56] Iberville sailed with his three vessels to Placentia (Plaisance), the French capital of Newfoundland. Both English and French fishermen exploited the Grand Banks fishery from their respective settlements on Newfoundland under the sanction of a 1687 treaty, but the purpose of the new French expedition of 1696 was nevertheless to expel the English from Newfoundland. [57] After setting fire to St John's, Iberville's Canadians almost totally destroyed the English fisheries along the eastern shore of Newfoundland. [58]

Small raiding parties attacked the hamlets in remote bays and inlets, burning, looting, and taking prisoners. [58] By the end of March 1697, only Bonavista and Carbonear remained in English hands. In four months of raids, Iberville was responsible for the destruction of 36 settlements. [59] At the end of the war England returned the territory to France in the Treaty of Ryswick. [60]

During the 18th century, the British–French struggle in Canada intensified as the rivalry worsened in Europe. [61] The French government poured more and more military spending into its North American colonies. Expensive garrisons were maintained at distant fur trading posts, the fortifications of Quebec City were improved and augmented, and a new fortified town was built on the east coast of Île Royale, or Cape Breton Island—the fortress of Louisbourg, called "Gibraltar of the North" or the "Dunkirk of America". [62]

New France and New England were at war with one another three times during the 18th century. [61] The second and third colonial wars, Queen Anne's War and King George's War, were local offshoots of larger European conflicts—the War of the Spanish Succession (1702–13), the War of the Austrian Succession (1744–48). The last, the French and Indian War (Seven Years' War), started in the Ohio Valley. The petite guerre of the Canadiens devastated the northern towns and villages of New England, sometimes reaching as far south as Virginia. [63] The war also spread to the forts along the Hudson Bay shore. [64]

Queen Anne's War Edit

During Queen Anne's War (1702–1713), the British conquered Acadia when a British force managed to capture Port-Royal (see also Annapolis Royal), the capital of Acadia in present-day Nova Scotia, in 1710. [65] On Newfoundland, the French attacked St. John's in 1705 (Siege of St. John's), and captured it in 1708 (Battle of St. John's), devastating civilian structures with fire on each instance. [66] As a result, France was forced to cede control of Newfoundland and mainland Nova Scotia to Britain in the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), leaving present-day New Brunswick as disputed territory and Île-St. Jean (Prince Edward Island), and Île-Royale (present day Cape Breton Island) in the hands of the French. British possession of Hudson Bay was guaranteed by the same treaty. [67] During Queen Anne's War, military conflicts in Nova Scotia included the Raid on Grand Pré, the Siege of Port Royal (1707), the Siege of Port Royal (1710) and the Battle of Bloody Creek (1711). [68]

Father Rale's War Edit

During the escalation that preceded Father Rale's War (also known as Dummer's War), the Mi'kmaq raided the new fort at Canso (1720). Under potential siege, in May 1722 Lieutenant Governor John Doucett took 22 Mi'kmaq hostage at Annapolis Royal to prevent the capital from being attacked. [69] In July 1722, the Abenaki and Mi'kmaq created a blockade of Annapolis Royal with the intent of starving the capital. [70] The Mi'kmaq captured 18 fishing vessels and prisoners in the area stretching from present-day Yarmouth to Canso. [71]

As a result of the escalating conflict, Massachusetts Governor Samuel Shute officially declared war on the Abenaki on July 22, 1722. [72] Early operations of Father Rale's War happened in the Nova Scotia theatre. [73] [74] In July 1724, a group of sixty Mi'kmaq and Maliseets raided Annapolis Royal. [75] The treaty that ended the war marked a significant shift in European relations with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet. For the first time, a European empire formally acknowledged that its dominion over Nova Scotia would have to be negotiated with the region's indigenous inhabitants. The treaty was invoked as recently as 1999 in the Donald Marshall case. [76]

King George's War Edit

During King George's War, also called the War of the Austrian Succession (1744–1748), a force of New England militia under William Pepperell and Commodore Peter Warren of the Royal Navy succeeded in capturing Louisbourg in 1745. [77] By the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle that ended the war in 1748, France resumed control of Louisbourg in exchange for some of its conquests in the Netherlands and India. The New Englanders were outraged, and as a counterweight to the continuing French strength at Louisbourg, the British founded the military settlement of Halifax in 1749. [78] During King George's War, military conflicts in Nova Scotia included: Raid on Canso Siege of Annapolis Royal (1744) the Siege of Louisbourg (1745) the Duc d'Anville expedition and the Battle of Grand Pré. [79]

Father Le Loutre’s War Edit

Father Le Loutre's War (1749–1755) was fought in Acadia and Nova Scotia by the British and New Englanders, primarily under the leadership of the New England Ranger John Gorham and the British officer Charles Lawrence, [80] against the Mi'kmaq and Acadians, who were led by French priest Jean-Louis Le Loutre. [81] The war began when the British established Halifax. As a result, Acadians and Mi'kmaq people orchestrated attacks at Chignecto, Grand-Pré, Dartmouth, Canso, Halifax and Country Harbour. [82] The French erected forts at present-day Saint John, Chignecto and Fort Gaspareaux. The British responded by attacking the Mi'kmaq and Acadians at Mirligueche (later known as Lunenburg), Chignecto and St. Croix. [83] The British also established communities in Lunenburg and Lawrencetown. Finally, the British erected forts in Acadian communities at Windsor, Grand-Pré and Chignecto. [84]

Throughout the war, the Mi’kmaq and Acadians attacked the British fortifications of Nova Scotia and the newly established Protestant settlements. They wanted to retard British settlement and buy time for France to implement its Acadian resettlement scheme. [85] The war ended after six years with the defeat of the Mi'kmaq, Acadians and French in the Battle of Fort Beauséjour. [84] During this war, Atlantic Canada witnessed more population movements, more fortification construction, and more troop allocations than ever before in the region. [81] The Acadians and Mi'kmaq left Nova Scotia during the Acadian Exodus for the French colonies of Île Saint-Jean (Prince Edward Island) and Île Royale (Cape Breton Island). [86]

French and Indian War Edit

The fourth and final colonial war of the 18th century was the French and Indian War (1754–1763). The British sought to neutralize any potential military threat and to interrupt the vital supply lines to Louisbourg by deporting the Acadians. [87] The British began the Expulsion of the Acadians with the Bay of Fundy Campaign (1755). During the next nine years, over 12,000 Acadians were removed from Nova Scotia. [88] In the maritime theatre, conflicts included: Battle of Fort Beauséjour Bay of Fundy Campaign (1755) the Battle of Petitcodiac the Raid on Lunenburg (1756) the Louisbourg Expedition (1757) Battle of Bloody Creek (1757) Siege of Louisbourg (1758), Petitcodiac River Campaign, Gulf of St. Lawrence Campaign (1758), St. John River Campaign, and Battle of Restigouche. [89]

In the St. Lawrence and Mohawk theatres of the conflict, the French had begun to challenge the claims of Anglo-American traders and land speculators for supremacy in the Ohio Country to the west of the Appalachian Mountains—land that was claimed by some of the British colonies in their royal charters. In 1753, the French started the military occupation of the Ohio Country by building a series of forts. [90] In 1755, the British sent two regiments to North America to drive the French from these forts, but these were destroyed by French Canadians and First Nations as they approached Fort Duquesne. [91] War was formally declared in 1756, and six French regiments of troupes de terre, or line infantry, came under the command of a newly arrived general, 44-year-old Marquis de Montcalm. [92]

Under their new commander, the French at first achieved a number of startling victories over the British, first at Fort William Henry to the south of Lake Champlain. [93] The following year saw an even greater victory when the British army—numbering about 15,000 under Major General James Abercrombie—was defeated in its attack on a French fortification at the Carillon. [94] In June 1758, a British force of 13,000 regulars under Major General Jeffrey Amherst, with James Wolfe as one of his brigadiers, landed and permanently captured the Fortress of Louisbourg. [95]

Wolfe decided the next year to attempt the capture of Quebec City. After several botched landing attempts, including particularly bloody defeats at the Battle of Beauport and the Battle of Montmorency Camp, Wolfe succeeded in getting his army ashore, forming ranks on the Plains of Abraham on September 12. [96] Montcalm, against the better judgment of his officers, came out with a numerically inferior force to meet the British. In the ensuing battle, Wolfe was killed, Montcalm mortally wounded, and 658 British and 644 French became casualties. [97] However, in the spring of 1760, the last French General, François Gaston de Lévis, marched back to Quebec from Montreal and defeated the British at the Battle of Sainte-Foy in a battle similar to that of the previous year now the situation was reversed, with the French laying siege to the Quebec fortifications behind which the British retreated. [98] However, the French were finally forced to concede, losing almost all of their North American possessions. [99] The French formally withdrew from much of North America in 1763 when they signed the Treaty of Paris.

American Revolutionary War Edit

With the French threat eliminated, Britain's American colonies became increasingly restive they resented paying taxes to support a large military establishment when there was no obvious enemy. [100] This resentment was augmented by further suspicions of British motives when the Ohio Valley and other western territories previously claimed by France were not annexed to the existing British colonies, especially Pennsylvania and Virginia, which had long-standing claims to the region. Instead, under the Quebec Act, this territory was set aside for the First Nations. The American Revolutionary War (1776–1783) saw the revolutionaries use force to break free from British rule and claim these western lands. [101]

In 1775, the Continental Army undertook its first military initiative of the war, the invasion of the British Province of Quebec. American forces took Montreal and the chain of forts in the Richelieu Valley, but attempts by the revolutionaries to take Quebec City were repelled. [102] During this time, most French Canadians stayed neutral. [103] After the British reinforced the province, a counter-offensive was launched pushing American forces back to Fort Ticonderoga. The counter-offensive brought an end to the military campaign in Quebec, and set the stage for the military campaign in upstate New York and Vermont in 1777.

Throughout the war, American privateers devastated the maritime economy by raiding many of the coastal communities. [104] There were constant attacks by American and French privateers, such as the Raid on Lunenburg (1782), numerous raids on Liverpool, Nova Scotia (October 1776, March 1777, September 1777, May 1778, September 1780) and a raid on Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia (1781). [105] Privateers also raided Canso in 1775, returning in 1779 to destroy the fisheries. [106]

To guard against such attacks, the 84th Regiment of Foot (Royal Highland Emigrants) was garrisoned at forts around Atlantic Canada. Fort Edward (Nova Scotia) in Windsor became the headquarters to prevent a possible American land assault on Halifax from the Bay of Fundy. There was an American attack on Nova Scotia by land, the Battle of Fort Cumberland followed by the Siege of Saint John (1777). [107]

During the war, American privateers captured 225 vessels either leaving or arriving at Nova Scotia ports. [108] In 1781, for example, as a result of the Franco-American alliance against Great Britain, there was a naval engagement with a French fleet at Sydney, Nova Scotia, near Spanish River, Cape Breton. [109] The British captured numerous American privateers, particularly in the naval battle off Halifax. The Royal Navy used Halifax as a base from which to launch attacks on New England, such as the Battle of Machias (1777). [110]

The revolutionaries' failure to achieve success in what is now Canada, and the continuing allegiance to Britain of some colonists, resulted in the split of Britain's North American empire. [111] Many Americans who remained loyal to the Crown, known as the United Empire Loyalists, moved north, greatly expanding the English-speaking population of what became known as British North America. [112] [113] The independent republic of the United States emerged to the south. [112]

French Revolutionary Wars Edit

During the War of the First Coalition, a series of fleet manoeuvres and amphibious landings took place on the coasts of the colony of Newfoundland. The French expedition included seven ships of the line and three frigates under Rear-Admiral Joseph de Richery and was accompanied by a Spanish squadron made up of 10 ships of the line under the command of General Jose Solano y Bote. The combined fleet sailed from Rota, Spain, with the Spanish squadron accompanying the French squadron in an effort to ward off the British that had blockaded the French in Rota earlier that year. The expedition to Newfoundland was the last portion of Richery's expedition before he returned to France.

Sighting of the combined naval squadron prompted defensives to be prepared at St. John's, Newfoundland in August 1796. [114] Seeing these defences, Richery opted to not attack the defended capital, instead moving south to raid the undefended settlements, fishing stations and vessels, and a garrison base at Placentia Bay. [114] After the raids on Newfoundland, the squadron was split up, with half moving on to raid neighbouring Saint Pierre and Miquelon, while the other half moved to intercept the seasonal fishing fleets off the coast of Labrador.

War of 1812 Edit

After the cessation of hostilities at the end of the American Revolution, animosity and suspicion continued between the United States and the United Kingdom, [116] erupting in 1812 when the Americans declared war on the British. Among the reasons for the war was British harassment of US ships (including impressment of American seamen into the Royal Navy), a byproduct of British involvement in the ongoing Napoleonic Wars. The Americans did not possess a navy capable of challenging the Royal Navy, and so an invasion of Canada was proposed as the only feasible means of attacking the British Empire. [116] Americans on the western frontier also hoped an invasion would not only bring an end to British support of aboriginal resistance to the westward expansion of the United States, but also finalize their claim to the western territories. [116]

After the Americans launched an invasion in July 1812, [116] the war raged back and forth along the border of Upper Canada, on land as well as on the waters of the Great Lakes. The British succeeded in capturing Detroit in July, and again in October. On July 12, US General William Hull invaded Canada at Sandwich (later known as Windsor). [117] [ self-published source ] The invasion was quickly halted and Hull withdrew, giving General Isaac Brock the excuse he needed to abandon his previous orders and advance on Detroit, securing Shawnee chief Tecumseh's aid to do so. [118] At this point, even with his aboriginal allies, Brock was outnumbered approximately two to one. [119] However, Brock had gauged Hull as a timid man, and particularly as being afraid of Tecumseh's confederacy he was thus able to convince Hull to surrender. [120] The defeat of Detroit was utter and complete. [121] A major American thrust across the Niagara frontier was defeated at the Battle of Queenston Heights, where Sir Isaac Brock lost his life. [122]

In 1813, the US retook Detroit and had a string of successes along the western end of Lake Erie, culminating in the Battle of Lake Erie (September 10) and the Battle of Moraviantown or Battle of the Thames on October 5. [123] The naval battle secured US dominance of lakes Erie and Huron. At Moraviantown, the British lost one of their key commanders, Tecumseh. [124] Further east, the Americans succeeded in capturing and burning York (later Toronto) and taking Fort George at Niagara, which they held until the end of the year. However, in the same year, two American thrusts against Montreal were defeated—one by a force of mostly British regulars at the Battle of Crysler's Farm southwest of the city on the St. Lawrence the other, by a force of mostly French Canadian regular and militia units under the command of Charles de Salaberry, to the south of the city at the Battle of Châteauguay. [125]

After the capture of Washington, DC, in September at the Battle of Bladensburg, [126] the British troops burned down the White House and other government buildings, only to be repulsed as they moved north for the Battle of Baltimore, while the forces attacking during the Battle of New Orleans were routed after suffering severe casualties. [127]

During the War of 1812, Nova Scotia's contribution to the war effort was made by communities either purchasing or building various privateer ships to lay siege to American vessels. [128] Three members of the community of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia purchased a privateer schooner and named it Lunenburg on August 8, 1814. [129] The vessel captured seven American vessels. The Liverpool Packet from Liverpool, Nova Scotia, another privateer vessel, is credited with having captured fifty ships during the conflict. [130] Perhaps the most dramatic moment in the war for Nova Scotia was HMS Shannon's leading the captured American frigate USS Chesapeake into Halifax Harbour (1813). [131] Many of the captives were imprisoned and died at Deadman's Island, Halifax. [132]

Sir Isaac Brock became a martyred Canadian hero despite his British roots. [133] The successful defence of Canada relied on Canadian militia, British regular troops (including "Fencible" units recruited within North America), the Royal Navy and aboriginal allies. [134] Neither side of the war can claim total victory. [135]

Historians agree that the Native Americans were the main losers of the war. The British dropped plans to create a neutral Indian state in the Midwest, and the coalition that Tecumseh had built fell apart with his death in 1813. The Natives no longer represented a major threat to westward expansion of the American frontier. [136]

Construction of defences Edit

The fear that the Americans might again attempt to conquer Canada remained a serious concern for at least the next half century, and was the chief reason for the retention of a large British garrison in the colony. [137] From the 1820s to the 1840s, there was extensive construction of fortifications, as the British attempted to create strong points around which defending forces might centre in the event of an American invasion these include the Citadels at Quebec City and Citadel Hill in Halifax, and Fort Henry in Kingston. [137]

The Rideau Canal was built to allow ships in wartime to travel a more northerly route from Montreal to Kingston [138] the customary peacetime route was the St. Lawrence River, which constituted the northern edge of the American border, and thus was vulnerable to enemy attack and interference. [138]

Rebellions of 1837 Edit

One of the most important actions by the British forces and Canadian Militia during this period was the putting down of the Rebellions of 1837, two separate rebellions from 1837 to 1838 in Lower Canada, and Upper Canada. [139] As a result of the rebellion, the Canadas was merged into a single colony, the Province of Canada.

The Upper Canada Rebellion was quickly and decisively defeated by the British forces and Canadian Militia. [140] Attacks the next year by Hunters' Lodges, US irregulars who expected to be paid in Canadian land, were crushed in 1838 in the Battle of Pelee Island and the Battle of the Windmill. The Lower Canada Rebellion was a greater threat to the British, and the rebels were victorious at the Battle of St. Denis on November 23, 1837. [141] Two days later, the rebels were defeated at the Battle of Saint-Charles, and on December 14, they were finally routed at the Battle of Saint-Eustache. [142]

British withdrawal Edit

By the 1850s, fears of an American invasion had begun to diminish, and the British felt able to start reducing the size of their garrison. The Reciprocity Treaty, negotiated between Canada and the United States in 1854, further helped to alleviate concerns. [143] However, tensions picked up again during the American Civil War (1861–65), reaching a peak with the Trent Affair of late 1861 and early 1862, [144] touched off when the captain of a US gunboat stopped the RMS Trent and removed two Confederate officials who were bound for Britain. The British government was outraged and, with war appearing imminent, took steps to reinforce its North American garrison, increasing it from a strength of 4,000 to 18,000. [144] However, war was averted and the sense of crisis subsided. This incident proved to be the final major episode of Anglo-American military confrontation in North America, as both sides increasingly became persuaded of the benefits of amicable relations. At the same time, many Canadians went south to fight in the Civil War, with most joining the Union side, although some were sympathetic toward the Confederacy. [145]

Britain was at that time becoming concerned with military threats closer to home and disgruntled at paying to maintain a garrison in colonies that, after 1867, were united in the self-governing Dominion of Canada. [146] Consequently, in 1871, the troops of the British garrison were withdrawn from Canada completely, save for Halifax and Esquimalt, where British garrisons remained in place purely for reasons of imperial strategy. [147]

Enlistment in the British forces Edit

Prior to Canadian Confederation, several regiments were raised in the Canadian colonies by the British Army, including the 40th Regiment of Foot, and the 100th (Prince of Wales's Royal Canadian) Regiment of Foot. A number of Nova Scotians fought in the Crimean War, with the Welsford-Parker Monument in Halifax, Nova Scotia, being the only Crimean War monument in North America. The monument itself is also the fourth oldest war monument in Canada, erected in 1860. [148] It commemorates the Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855). The first Canadian Victoria Cross recipient, Alexander Roberts Dunn, served in the war. [149]

During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, William Nelson Hall, a descendant of former American slaves from Maryland, was the first black Canadian and first black Nova Scotian, to receive the Victoria Cross. [150] He received the medal for his actions in the Siege of Lucknow. [151]

Fenian raids Edit

It was during the period of re-examination of the British military presence in Canada and its ultimate withdrawal that the last invasion of Canada occurred. It was not carried out by any official US government force, but by an organization called the Fenians. [152] The Fenian raids (1866–1871) were carried out by groups of Irish Americans, mostly Union Army veterans from the American Civil War who believed that by seizing Canada, concessions could be wrung from the British government regarding their policy in Ireland. [152] The Fenians had also incorrectly assumed that Irish Canadians, who were quite numerous in Canada, would support their invasive efforts both politically and militarily. However, most Irish settlers in Upper Canada at that time were Protestant, and for the most part loyal to the British Crown. [152]

After the events of the Civil War, anti-British sentiment was high in the United States. [153] British-built Confederate warships had wreaked havoc on US commerce during the war. Irish-Americans were a large and politically important constituency, particularly in parts of the Northeastern States, and a large number of Irish American regiments had participated in the war. Thus, while deeply concerned about the Fenians, the US government, led by Secretary of State William H. Seward, [154] generally ignored their efforts: the Fenians were allowed to openly organize and arm themselves, and were even able to recruit in Union Army camps. [155] The Americans were not prepared to risk war with Britain and intervened when the Fenians threatened to endanger American neutrality. [156] The Fenians were a serious threat to Canada, as being veterans of the Union Army they were well-armed. [157] Despite failures, the raids had some impact on Canadian politicians who were then locked in negotiations leading up to the Confederation agreement of 1867. [158]

Canadian militia in the late–19th century Edit

With Confederation in place and the British garrison gone, Canada assumed full responsibility for its own defence. The Parliament of Canada passed the Militia Act of 1868, modelled after the earlier Militia Act of 1855, passed by the legislature of the Province of Canada. However, it was understood that the British would send aid in the event of a serious emergency and the Royal Navy continued to provide maritime defence. [159]

Small professional batteries of artillery were established at Quebec City and Kingston. [160] In 1883, a third battery of artillery was added, and small cavalry and infantry schools were created. [160] These were intended to provide the professional backbone of the Permanent Active Militia that was to form the bulk of the Canadian defence effort. In theory, every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 60 was liable to be conscripted for service in the militia, but in practice, the defence of the country rested on the services of volunteers who made up the Permanent Active Militia. [161] [162] Traditional sedentary militia regiments were retained as the Non-Permanent Active Militia.

The most important early tests of the militia were expeditions against the rebel forces of Louis Riel in the Canadian west. The Wolseley Expedition, containing a mix of British and militia forces, restored order after the Red River Rebellion in 1870. [163] The North-West Rebellion in 1885 saw the largest military effort undertaken on Canadian soil since the end of the War of 1812: [164] a series of battles between the Métis and their First Nations allies on one side against the Militia and North-West Mounted Police on the other. [164]

The government forces ultimately emerged victorious despite having suffered a number of early defeats and reversals at the Battle of Duck Lake, the Battle of Fish Creek and the Battle of Cut Knife Hill. [165] Outnumbered and out of ammunition, the Métis portion of the North-West Rebellion collapsed with the siege and Battle of Batoche. [166] The Battle of Loon Lake, which ended this conflict, is notable as the last battle to have been fought on Canadian soil. Government losses during the North-West Rebellion amounted to 58 killed and 93 wounded. [167]

In 1884, Britain for the first time asked Canada for aid in defending the empire, requesting experienced boatmen to help rescue Major-General Charles Gordon from the Mahdi uprising in the Sudan. [168] However, the government was reluctant to comply, and eventually Governor General Lord Lansdowne recruited a private force of 386 Voyageurs who were placed under the command of Canadian Militia officers. [169] This force, known as the Nile Voyageurs, served in the Sudan and became the first Canadian force to serve abroad. [170] Sixteen Voyageurs died during the campaign. [170]

Boer War Edit

The issue of Canadian military assistance for Britain arose again during the Second Boer War (1899–1902) in South Africa. [171] The British asked for Canadian help in the conflict, and the Conservative Party was adamantly in favour of raising 8,000 troops for service in South Africa. [172] English Canadian opinion was also overwhelmingly in favour of active Canadian participation in the war. [173] However, French Canadians almost universally opposed the war, as did several other groups. [173] This split the governing Liberal Party deeply, as it relied on both pro-imperial Anglo-Canadians and anti-imperial Franco-Canadians for support. Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a man of compromise. When deciding to send soldiers to South Africa, Laurier was worried about conflict between Anglo- and Franco-Canadians on the home front. [174] Intimidated by his imperial cabinet, [174] Laurier initially sent 1,000 soldiers of the 2nd (Special Service) Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment of Infantry. [175] Later, other contingents were sent, 1st Regiment, Canadian Mounted Rifles and 3rd Battalion of The Royal Canadian Regiment (as 2nd Canadian Contingent) and including the privately raised Strathcona's Horse (as Third Canadian Contingent). [176]

The Canadian forces missed the early period of the war and the great British defeats of Black Week. The Canadians in South Africa won much acclaim for leading the charge at the Second Battle of Paardeberg, one of the first decisive victories of the war. [177] At the Battle of Leliefontein on November 7, 1900, three Canadians, Lieutenant Turner, Lieutenant Cockburn, Sergeant Holland and Arthur Richardson of the Royal Canadian Dragoons were awarded the Victoria Cross for protecting the rear of a retreating force. [178] Ultimately, over 8,600 Canadians volunteered to fight. [179] Lieutenant Harold Lothrop Borden, however, became the most famous Canadian casualty of the Second Boer War. [180] About 7,400 Canadians, [181] including many female nurses, served in South Africa. [182] Of these, 224 died, 252 were wounded, and several were decorated with the Victoria Cross. [183] Canadian forces also participated in the British-led concentration camp programs that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Boer civilians. [184]

Expansion of the Militia Edit

From 1763 to prior to the Confederation of Canada in 1867, the British Army provided the main defence of Canada, although many Canadians served with the British in various conflicts. [185] As British troops left Canada in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the importance of the Militia (comprising various cavalry, artillery, infantry and engineer units) became more pronounced. In 1883, the Government of Canada established its first permanent military forces. [186] Shortly after Canada entered the Second Boer War, a debate developed over whether or not Canada should have its own army. [187] As a result, the last Officer Commanding the Forces (Canada), Lord Dundonald, instituted a series of reforms in which Canada gained its own technical and support branches. [188] In 1904, the Officer Commanding the Forces was replaced with a Canadian Chief of the General Staff. The new various "corps" included the Engineer Corps (1903), Signalling Corps (1903), Service Corps (1903), Ordnance Stores Corps (1903), Corps of Guides (1903), Medical Corps (1904), Staff Clerks (1905), and Army Pay Corps (1906). [189] Additional corps would be created in the years before and during the First World War, including the first separate military dental corps. [190]

Creation of a Canadian navy Edit

Canada had long had a small fishing protection force attached to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but relied on Britain for maritime protection. Britain was increasingly engaged in an arms race with Germany, and in 1908, asked the colonies for help with the navy. [191] The Conservative Party argued that Canada should merely contribute money to the purchase and upkeep of some British Royal Navy vessels. [191] Some French-Canadian nationalists felt that no aid should be sent others advocated an independent Canadian navy that could aid the British in times of need. [191]

Eventually, Prime Minister Laurier decided to follow this compromise position, and the Canadian Naval Service was created in 1910 and designated as the Royal Canadian Navy in August 1911. [192] To appease imperialists, the Naval Service Act included a provision that in case of emergency, the fleet could be turned over to the British. [193] This provision led to the strenuous opposition to the bill by Quebec nationalist Henri Bourassa. [194] The bill set a goal of building a navy composed of five cruisers and six destroyers. [194] The first two ships were Niobe and Rainbow, somewhat aged and outdated vessels purchased from the British. [195] With the election of the Conservatives in 1911, in part because the Liberals had lost support in Quebec, the navy was starved for funds, but it was greatly expanded during the First World War. [196]

First World War Edit

On August 4, 1914, Britain entered the First World War (1914–1918) by declaring war on Germany. The British declaration of war automatically brought Canada into the war, because of Canada's legal status as subservient to Britain. [197] However, the Canadian government had the freedom to determine the country's level of involvement in the war. [197] The Militia was not mobilized and instead an independent Canadian Expeditionary Force was raised. [198] The highpoints of Canadian military achievement during the First World War came during the Somme, Vimy, and Passchendaele battles and what later became known as "Canada's Hundred Days". [199]

The Canadian Corps was formed from the Canadian Expeditionary Force in September 1915 after the arrival of the 2nd Canadian Division in France. [200] The corps was expanded by the addition of the 3rd Canadian Division in December 1915 and the 4th Canadian Division in August 1916. [200] The organization of a 5th Canadian Division began in February 1917, but it was still not fully formed when it was broken up in February 1918 and its men used to reinforce the other four divisions. [200] Although the corps was under the command of the British Army, there was considerable pressure among Canadian leaders, especially following the Battle of the Somme, for the corps to fight as a single unit rather than spreading the divisions. [200] Plans for a second Canadian corps and two additional divisions were scrapped, and a divisive national dialogue on conscription for overseas service was begun. [201]

Most of the other major combatants had introduced conscription to replace the massive casualties they were suffering. Spearheaded by Sir Robert Borden, who wished to maintain the continuity of Canada's military contribution, and with a burgeoning pressure to introduce and enforce conscription, the Military Service Act was ratified. [202] Although reaction to conscription was favourable in English Canada the idea was deeply unpopular in Quebec. [203] The Conscription Crisis of 1917 did much to highlight the divisions between French and English-speaking Canadians in Canada. [204] In June 1918, HMHS Llandovery Castle was sunk by a U-boat. In terms of the number of dead, the sinking was the most significant Canadian naval disaster of the war. [205] In the later stages of the war, the Canadian Corps were among the most effective and respected of the military formations on the Western Front. [187]

For a nation of eight million people, Canada's war effort was widely regarded as remarkable. A total of 619,636 men and women served in the Canadian forces in the First World War, and of these 59,544 were killed and another 154,361 were wounded. [187] Canadian sacrifices are commemorated at eight memorials in France and Belgium. [206] Two of the eight are unique in design: the giant white Vimy Memorial and the distinctive brooding soldier at the Saint Julien Memorial. The other six follow a standard pattern of granite monuments surrounded by a circular path: the Hill 62 Memorial and Passchendaele Memorial in Belgium, and the Bourlon Wood Memorial, Courcelette Memorial, Dury Memorial, and Le Quesnel Memorial in France. There are also separate war memorials to commemorate the actions of the soldiers of Newfoundland (which did not join Confederation until 1949) in the Great War. The largest are the Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial and the Newfoundland National War Memorial in St. John's. [207] The war's impact on Canadian society also led to the construction of a number of war memorials in Canada to commemorate the dead. Proposals to create a national memorial were first suggested in 1923 although work on the casts were not complete until 1933, with Canadian National War Memorial being unveiled in Ottawa in 1939. [208] The monument currently commemorates Canadian war dead for several conflicts in the 20th– and 21st century. [208]

In 1919, Canada sent a Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force to aid the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. [209] The vast majority of these troops were based in Vladivostok and saw little combat before they withdrew, along with other foreign forces. [210]

Creation of a Canadian air force Edit

The First World War was the catalyst for the formation of Canada's air force. At the outbreak of war, there was no independent Canadian air force, although many Canadians flew with the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. [211] In 1914 the Canadian government authorized the formation of the Canadian Aviation Corps. [212] The corps was to accompany the Canadian Expeditionary Force to Europe and consisted of one aircraft, a Burgess-Dunne, that was never used. [213] The Canadian Aviation Corps was disbanded in 1915. [214] A second attempt at forming a Canadian air force was made in 1918 when two Canadian squadrons (one bomber and one fighter) were formed by the British Air Ministry in Europe. The Canadian government took control of the two squadrons by forming the Canadian Air Force. [215] This air force, however, never saw service and was completely disbanded by 1921. [215]

During the 1920s the British government encouraged Canada to institute a peacetime air force by providing several surplus aircraft. In 1920 a new Canadian Air Force (CAF) directed by the Air Board was formed as a part-time or militia service providing flying refresher training. [216] After a reorganization the CAF became responsible for all flying operations in Canada, including civil aviation. Air Board and CAF civil flying responsibilities were handled by the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) after its creation in April 1924. [212] The Second World War would see the RCAF become a truly military service. [212]

Spanish Civil War Edit

The Mackenzie–Papineau Battalion (a volunteer unit not authorized or supported by the Canadian government) fought on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939). [217] The first Canadians in the conflict were dispatched mainly with the US Abraham Lincoln Battalion and later the North American George Washington Battalion, with about forty Canadians serving in each group. By the summer of 1937 some 1,200 Canadians were involved in the conflict. [218] They first engaged the fascists at the Battle of Jarama near Madrid, between February and June 1937, followed by the Battle of Brunete in July. [219] Over the next year, Canadians fought in three major battles: the Battle of Teruel, the Aragon Offensive, and the Battle of the Ebro. [219] In the battles in which they fought, 721 of the 1,546 Canadians known to have fought in Spain were killed. [220] According to a speech given by Michaëlle Jean while unveiling the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion Monument, "No other country gave a greater proportion of its population as volunteers in Spain than Canada". [221]

Second World War Edit

The Second World War (1939–1945) began following Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. Canada's parliament supported the government's decision to declare war on Germany on September 10, one week after the United Kingdom and France. [222] Canadian airmen played a small but significant role in the Battle of Britain, [223] and the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian merchant marine played a crucial role in the Battle of the Atlantic. [224] C Force, two Canadian infantry battalions, [225] were involved in the failed defence of Hong Kong. [226] Troops of the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division also played a leading role in the disastrous Dieppe Raid in August 1942. [227] The 1st Canadian Infantry Division and tanks of the independent 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade landed on Sicily in July 1943 and after a 38-day campaign took part in the successful Allied invasion of Italy. [228] Canadian forces played an important role in the long advance north through Italy, eventually coming under their own corps headquarters in early 1944 after the costly battles on the Moro River and at Ortona. [229]

On June 6, 1944, the 3rd Canadian Division (supported by tanks of the independent 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade) landed on Juno Beach in the Battle of Normandy. [230] Canadian airborne troops had also landed earlier in the day behind the beaches. [231] By day's end, the Canadians had made the deepest penetrations inland of any of the five seaborne invasion forces. Canada went on to play an important role in the subsequent fighting in Normandy, with the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division coming ashore in July and the 4th Canadian Armoured Division in August. Both a corps headquarters (II Canadian Corps) and eventually an army headquarters—for the first time in Canadian military history—were activated. In the Battle of the Scheldt, the First Canadian Army defeated an entrenched German force at great cost to help open Antwerp to Allied shipping. [232] The First Canadian Army fought in two more large campaigns the Rhineland in February and March 1945, clearing a path to the Rhine River in anticipation of the assault crossing, and the subsequent battles on the far side of the Rhine in the last weeks of the war. [233] The I Canadian Corps returned to northwest Europe from Italy in early 1945, and as part of a reunited First Canadian Army assisted in the liberation of The Netherlands (including the rescue of many Dutch from near-starvation conditions) and the invasion of Germany. [234]

RCAF airmen served with RAF fighter and bomber squadrons, and played key roles in the Battle of Britain, antisubmarine warfare during the Battle of the Atlantic, and the bombing campaigns against Germany. [235] Even though many RCAF personnel served with the RAF, No. 6 Group RAF Bomber Command was formed entirely of RCAF squadrons. Canadian air force personnel also provided close support to Allied forces during the Battle of Normandy and subsequent land campaigns in Europe. To free up male RCAF personnel who were needed on active operational or training duties, the RCAF Women's Division was formed in 1941. By the end of the war, the RCAF would be the fourth largest allied air force. [236] In line with other Commonwealth countries, a women's corps entitled the Canadian Women's Army Corps, similar to the RCAF Women's Division, was established to release men for front-line duties. The corps existed from 1941 to 1946, was re-raised in 1948 and finally disbanded in 1964 (see Canadian women during the World Wars). [237]

In addition to the army and air units, many thousands of Canadians also served with the Canadian Merchant Navy. [238] Of a population of approximately 11.5 million, 1.1 million Canadians served in the armed forces during the Second World War. In all, more than 45,000 died, and another 55,000 were wounded. [239] The Conscription Crisis of 1944 greatly affected unity between French and English-speaking Canadians on the home front, however it was not as politically intrusive as the conscription crisis of the First World War. [240] Canada operated a benefits program similar to the American G.I. Bill for its Second World War veterans, with a strong economic impact similar to the American case. [241]

Cold War years Edit

Soon after the end of the Second World War, the Cold War (1946–1991) began. The formal onset of the Cold War, is usually credited to the 1945 defection of a Soviet cipher clerk working in Ottawa, Igor Gouzenko. [242] This was the first event that led to "PROFUNC", a Government of Canada top secret plan to identify and detain communist sympathizers during the height of the Cold War. [243] As a founding member of NATO and a signatory to the NORAD treaty with the US, Canada committed itself to the alliance against the Communist bloc. [244] Canadian troops were stationed in Germany throughout the Cold War, and Canada joined with the Americans to erect defences against Soviet attack, such as the DEW Line. [245] As a middle power, Canadian policy makers realized that Canada could do little militarily on its own, and thus a policy of multilateralism was adopted whereby Canada's international military efforts would be a part of a larger coalition. [246] This led to Canada choosing to stay out of several wars despite the participation of close allies, most notably the Vietnam War and the Second Iraq War, although Canada lent indirect support and Canadian citizens served in foreign armies in both conflicts. [247] [248]

Forces in Europe Edit

Canada maintained a mechanized infantry brigade in West Germany from the 1950s (originally the 27th Canadian Infantry Brigade, later named 4 Combat Group and 4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade) to the 1990s as part of Canada's NATO commitments. [249] This brigade was maintained at close to full strength and was equipped with Canada's most advanced vehicles and weapons systems as it was anticipated the brigade might have to move quickly in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion of the west. The Royal Canadian Air Force established No. 1 Air Division in the early 1950s to meet Canada's NATO air defence commitments in Europe. [250]

Korean War Edit

After the Second World War, Canada rapidly demobilized. [251] When the Korean War (1950–1953) broke out, Canada needed several months to bring its military forces up to strength, and eventually formed part of British Commonwealth Forces Korea. [252] Canadian land forces thus missed most of the early back-and-forth campaigns because they did not arrive until 1951, when the attrition phase of the war had largely started. [253]

Canadian troops fought as part of the 1st Commonwealth Division, and distinguished themselves at the Battle of Kapyong and in other land engagements. HMCS Haida and other ships of the Royal Canadian Navy were in active service in the Korean War. Although the Royal Canadian Air force did not have a combat role in Korea, twenty-two RCAF fighter pilots flew on exchange duty with the USAF in Korea. [254] The RCAF was also involved with the transportation of personnel and supplies in support of the Korean War. [255]

Canada sent 26,791 troops to fight in Korea. [256] There were 1,558 Canadian casualties, including 516 dead. [257] Korea has often been described as "The Forgotten War", because for most Canadians it is overshadowed by the Canadian contributions to the two world wars. [258] Canada is a signatory to the original 1953 armistice, but did not keep a garrison in South Korea after 1955. [259]

Unification Edit

In 1964 the Canadian government decided to merge the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Army to form the Canadian Armed Forces. The aim of the merger was to reduce costs and increase operating efficiency. [260] Minister of National Defence Paul Hellyer argued in 1966 that "the amalgamation . will provide the flexibility to enable Canada to meet in the most effective manner the military requirements of the future. It will also establish Canada as an unquestionable leader in the field of military organization." [261] On February 1, 1968, unification was completed. [260]

October Crisis Edit

The October Crisis was a series of events triggered by two kidnappings of government officials by members of the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) during October 1970 in the province of Quebec, mainly in the Montreal metropolitan area. During the domestic terrorist crisis Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, when asked how far he was willing to go to resolving the problem, responded "Just watch me", a phrase that has become famous in Canadian lore. [262] Three days later, on October 16, the circumstances ultimately culminated in the only peacetime use of the War Measures Act in Canada's history. [263] The invocation of the act resulted in widespread deployment of 12,500 Canadian Forces troops throughout Quebec, with 7,500 troops stationed within the Montreal area. [264] [265]

Vietnam War Edit

Canada did not fight in the Vietnam War (1955–1975) and officially had the status of a "non-belligerent". [266] Canadian Forces involvement was limited to a small contingent in 1973 to help enforce the Paris Peace Accords. [267] The war nevertheless had a considerable impact on Canadians. [266] In a counter-current to the movement of American draft-dodgers and deserters to Canada, about 30,000 Canadians volunteered to fight in southeast Asia. [268] Among the volunteers were fifty Mohawks from the Kahnawake reserve near Montreal. [269] 110 Canadians died in Vietnam, and seven remain listed as Missing in Action. [270]

Post–Cold War era Edit

Oka Crisis Edit

The Oka Crisis was a land dispute between a group of Mohawk people and the town of Oka in southern Quebec, which began on July 11, 1990, and lasted until September 26, 1990. On August 8, Quebec premier Robert Bourassa had announced at a press conference that he had invoked Section 275 of the National Defence Act to requisition military support in "aid of the civil power". [271] A right available to provincial governments that was enacted after one police officer and two Mohawk were killed during the conflict. [272] The Chief of the Defence Staff, General John de Chastelain placed Federal, Quebec-based troops in support of the provincial authorities. During Operation Salon some 2,500 regular and reserve troops were mobilized. [273] Troops and mechanized equipment mobilized at staging areas around Oka and Montreal, while reconnaissance aircraft staged air photo missions over Mohawk territory to gather intelligence. [272] Despite high tensions between military and First Nations forces, no shots were exchanged. On September 1, 1990, freelance photographer Shaney Komulainen took a photograph of men staring each other down, dubbed by the media Face to Face, it has become one of Canada's most famous images. [274]

Gulf War Edit

Canada was one of the first nations to condemn Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and quickly agreed to join the US-led coalition. In August 1990, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney committed the Canadian Forces to deploy a Naval Task Group. [275] The destroyers HMCS Terra Nova and HMCS Athabaskan joined the maritime interdiction force supported by the supply ship HMCS Protecteur. The Canadian Task Group led the coalition maritime logistics forces in the Persian Gulf. A fourth ship, HMCS Huron, arrived in-theatre after hostilities had ceased and was the first allied ship to visit Kuwait. [276]

Following the UN authorized use of force against Iraq, the Canadian Forces deployed a CF-18 Hornet and Sikorsky CH-124 Sea King squadron with support personnel, as well as a field hospital to deal with casualties from the ground war. [277] When the air war began, Canada's CF-18s were integrated into the coalition force and were tasked with providing air cover and attacking ground targets. This was the first time since the Korean War that the Canadian military had participated in offensive combat operations. [278] The only CF-18 Hornet to record an official victory during the conflict was an aircraft involved in the beginning of the Battle of Bubiyan against the Iraqi Navy. [278] A Canadian combat engineer regiment was investigated following the release of 1991 photographs which showed members posing with the dismembered bodies in a Kuwaiti minefield. [279]

Yugoslav wars Edit

Canada's forces were part of UNPROFOR, a UN peacekeeping force in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. [280] Operation Medak pocket during that conflict was the largest battle fought by Canadian forces since the Korean War. [281] The Canadian government claims that Canadian forces within the UN contingent clashed with the Croatian Army, where 27 Croatian soldiers were reported to have been killed. [282] In 2002, the 2nd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group were awarded the Commander-in-Chief Unit Commendation "for a heroic and professional mission during the Medak Pocket Operation". [283]

Somali civil war Edit

During the Somali Civil War, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney committed Canada to UNOSOM I after United Nations Security Council Resolution 751. [284] UNOSOM I was the first part of the UN's response effort to provide security and humanitarian relief in Somalia, while monitoring UN-brokered ceasefires. [285] Canadian forces, under the name Operation Deliverance, participated in the American-led Operation Restore Hope. In May 1993 the operation came under UN command and was renamed UNOSOM II. [286] By its end, the mission had turned into a political disaster for the Canadian Forces. [287] During the humanitarian mission Canadian soldiers tortured a Somali teenager to death, leading to the Somalia Affair. [288] Following an inquiry, the elite Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded and the reputation of the Canadian Forces suffered within Canada. [289]

Red River flood Edit

The 1997 Red River flood was the most severe flood of the Red River of the North since 1826, affecting North Dakota and Manitoba. A "public welfare emergency" was declared in the flood zone. During what was termed the "flood of the century", over 8,500 military personnel were sent to Manitoba to help with evacuation, building dikes, and other flood-fighting efforts, the largest single Canadian troop deployment since the Korean War. [290] Operation Assistance was termed a "public relations bonanza" for the military: when a military convoy departed through Winnipeg in mid-May, thousands of civilians lined the streets to cheer for them. [291] [292] [293]

North American ice storm Edit

"Operation Recuperation" was in response to the North American ice storm of 1998, a massive combination of successive ice storms which combined to strike a relatively narrow swath of land from Lake Huron to southern Quebec to Nova Scotia, and bordering areas from northern New York to central Maine in the United States. Roads were impassable due to heavy snowfall or fallen trees, broken power lines and coated with a heavy layer of ice, emergency vehicles could hardly move. On January 7, the provinces of New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec requested aid from the Canadian Forces, and Operation Recuperation began on January 8 with 16,000 troops deployed. [294] It was the largest deployment of troops ever to serve on Canadian soil in response to a natural disaster, [292] and the largest operational deployment of Canadian military personnel since the Korean War. [295]

Afghanistan War Edit

Canada joined a US-led coalition in the 2001 attack on Afghanistan. The war was a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and was intended to defeat the Taliban government and rout Al-Qaeda. Canada sent special forces and ground troops to the conflict. In this war, a Canadian sniper set the world record for the longest-distance kill. [296] In early 2002, Canadian JTF2 troops were photographed handing shackled Taliban prisoners over to U.S. forces, sparking a debate of the Geneva Convention. [297] In November 2005, Canadian military participation shifted from ISAF in Kabul to Operation Archer, a part of Operation Enduring Freedom in and around Kandahar. [298] On May 17, 2006, Captain Nichola Goddard of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery became Canada's first female combat casualty. [299]

One of the most notable operations of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan thus far was the Canadian-led Operation Medusa, during which the second Battle of Panjwaii was fought. [300] At the end of 2006, the Canadian soldier was selected by the Canadian Press as the Canadian Newsmaker of the Year because of the war in Afghanistan. [301] On November 27, 2010, the 1st Battalion of the Royal 22 e Régiment took over operations in Kandahar, marking the final rotation before Canada's withdrawal from Afghanistan. [302] In July 2011, a small contingent of Canadian troops was transferred to the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan to continue the training of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police, until 2014. [303]

British Columbia forest fires Edit

"Operation Peregrine" was a domestic military operation that took place between August 3 and September 16, 2003. [304] In early August 2003, British Columbia was overwhelmed by over 800 separate forest fires. [304] Provincial fire services were stretched to the breaking point, and tens of thousands of people were forced to evacuate their homes. The provincial government requested federal aid, and within days, over 2,200 Canadian Forces personnel had been mobilized. The operation lasted 45 days, and at its height more than 2,600 military personnel were in action. [304] It was the Canadian Forces third-largest recent domestic deployment, after "Operation Recuperation" in response to the 1998 ice storm, and "Operation Assistance" in response to the 1997 Red River flood. [304]

Iraq War Edit

The Iraq War (2003–2011) began with the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The government of Canada did not at any time officially declare war against Iraq. Nevertheless, the country's participation and relationship with the US was redefined at various points in that war. [305] The Canadian Forces were involved in ship escort duties, and expanded their participation in Task Force 151 to free up American naval assets. [306] About a hundred Canadian exchange officers, on exchange to American units, participated in the invasion of Iraq. [307] There were numerous protests and counter-protests related to the conflict in Canada, [308] and some United States Military members sought refuge in the country after deserting their posts to avoid deployment to Iraq. [309]

Libyan civil war Edit

On March 19, 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 [310] in response to the 2011 Libyan civil war. [311] Canada's contribution included the deployment of a number of naval and air assets, which were grouped together as part of Operation Mobile. [312] NATO assumed control of military actions on March 25, with RCAF Lieutenant General, Charles Bouchard in command. [313] A no-fly zone was put into effect during the civil war to prevent government forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi from carrying out air attacks on anti-Gaddafi forces and civilians. [311] The military intervention was enforced by NATO's Operation Unified Protector and included an arms embargo, a no-fly zone and a mandate to use all means necessary, short of foreign occupation, to protect Libyan civilians and civilian-populated areas. [310] [314] On October 28, 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that the NATO military mission had ended successfully. [315]

Mali conflict Edit

Starting in early 2012 several insurgent groups in Mali started to take over the country. In January 2013 Mali asked for assistance from France to aid in ridding the country of the rebel insurgents. In December, the UN authorized an African intervention with the approval of the Economic Community of West African States. France then proceeded to ask its NATO allies to get involved, with Canada joining the effort by helping with the transportation of troops with a C-17 Globemaster. [316] This was followed by twenty four Joint Task Force 2 members who entered the country to secure the Canadian embassy in the capital Bamako. [317] A ceasefire agreement was signed on February 19, 2015 in Algiers, Algeria but sporadic terrorist attacks still occur. [318]

Military intervention against ISIL Edit

Operation Impact is the name of Canada's contribution to the military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that began in September 2014. [319] The first Canadian airstrike against an Islamic State target occurred on 2 November. It was reported that CF-18s successfully destroyed heavy engineering equipment used to divert the Euphrates River near the city of Fallujah. [320] In October, then Prime Minister designate Justin Trudeau informed President Barack Obama that Canada intended to withdraw its fighter aircraft, while keeping its ground forces in Iraq and Syria. [321]

Recent expenditures Edit

The Constitution of Canada gives the federal government exclusive responsibility for national defence, and expenditures are thus outlined in the federal budget. For the 2007–2010 fiscal year, the amount allocated for defence spending was CA$6.15 billion which is 1.4 percent of the country's GDP. [322] [323] This regular funding was augmented in 2005 with an additional CA$12.5 billion over five years, as well as a commitment to increasing regular force troop levels by 5,000 persons, and the primary reserve by 4,500 over the same period. [324] In 2010, a further CA$5.3 billion over five years was provided to allow for 13,000 more regular force members, and 10,000 more primary reserve personnel, as well as CA$17.1 billion for the purchase of new trucks for the Canadian Army, transport aircraft and helicopters for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and joint support ships for the Royal Canadian Navy. [325] In July 2010, the largest purchase in Canadian military history, totalling CA$9 billion for the acquisition of 65 F-35 fighters, was announced by the federal government. [326] Canada is one of several nations that assisted in the development of the F-35 and has invested over CA$168 million in the program. [327] In 2010, Canada's military expenditure totaled approximately CA$122.5 billion. [328]

The Canadian Forces have derived many of their traditions and symbols from the military, navy and air force of the United Kingdom, including those with royal elements. Contemporary icons and rituals, however, have evolved to include elements reflective of Canada and the Canadian monarchy. Members of the country's Royal Family also continue their two-century-old practice of maintaining personal relationships with the forces' divisions and regiments, around which the military has developed complex protocols. [329] [330] The role of the Canadian Crown in the Canadian Forces is established through both constitutional and statutory law the National Defence Act states that "the Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada", [331] and the Constitution Act, 1867 vests Command-in-Chief of those forces in the sovereign. [332] [333] [334]

All honours in Canada emanate from the country's monarch, [335] who is regarded as the fount of honour. [336] [337] A complex system of orders, decorations, and medals by which Canadians are honoured has evolved. [338] The Victoria Cross, Order of Military Merit, Cross of Valour, Star of Courage, Medal of Bravery are some of the military awards that have been created for Canadians serving in a military capacity. [339] The Victoria Cross has been presented to 94 Canadians and 2 Newfoundlanders [340] between its creation in 1856 and 1993, when the Canadian Victoria Cross was instituted. [339] However, no Canadian has received either honour since 1945. [341]

During unification of the forces in the 1960s, a renaming of the branches took place, resulting in the "royal designations" of the navy and air force being abandoned. [260] On August 16, 2011, the Government of Canada announced that the name "Air Command" was re-assuming the air force's original historic name, Royal Canadian Air Force, "Land Command" was re-assuming the name Canadian Army, and "Maritime Command" was re-assuming the name Royal Canadian Navy. [342] The change was made to better reflect Canada's military heritage and align Canada with other key Commonwealth of Nations whose militaries use the royal designation. [342]

Closely related to Canada's commitment to multi-lateralism has been its strong support for peacekeeping efforts. [343] Canada's peacekeeping role during the 20th and 21st centuries has played a major part in its global image. [344] Prior to Canada's role in the Suez Crisis, Canada was viewed by many as insignificant in global issues. Canada's successful role in the conflict gave Canada credibility and established it as a nation fighting for the "common good" of all nations. [345] Canada participated in every UN peacekeeping effort from its inception until 1989. [346] Since 1995, however, Canadian direct participation in UN peacekeeping efforts has greatly declined. [346] In July 2006, for instance, Canada ranked 51st on the list of UN peacekeepers, contributing 130 peacekeepers out of a total UN deployment of over 70,000. [347] Where in November 1990 Canada had 1,002 troops out of a total UN deployment of 10,304, [348] that number decreased largely because Canada began to direct its participation to UN-sanctioned military operations through NATO, rather than directly to the UN. [349]

Canadian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lester B. Pearson is considered to be the father of modern peacekeeping. [350] Pearson had become a very prominent figure in the United Nations during its infancy, and found himself in a peculiar position in 1956 during the Suez Crisis: [351] Pearson and Canada found themselves stuck between a conflict of their closest allies, being looked upon to find a solution. [352] During United Nations meetings Lester B. Pearson proposed to the security council that a United Nations police force be established to prevent further conflict in the region, allowing the countries involved an opportunity to sort out a resolution. [353] Pearson's proposal and offer to dedicate 1,000 Canadian soldiers to that cause was seen as a brilliant political move that prevented another war. [352]

The first Canadian peacekeeping mission, even before the creation of the formal UN system, was a 1948 mission to the second Kashmir conflict. [354] Other important missions include those in Cyprus, Congo, Somalia, Yugoslav, and observation missions in the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. [355] The loss of nine Canadian peacekeepers when their Buffalo 461 was shot down over Syria in 1974 remains the largest single loss of life in Canadian peacekeeping history. [356] In 1988, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United Nations peacekeepers, inspiring the creation of the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal to recognize Canadians, including serving and former members of the Canadian Forces, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, other police services, and civilians, who contributed to peace on certain missions. [357]


What did Biden say?

The Democrat, who defeated the Republican president in November's White House election, said the protesters' activity "borders on sedition".

Speaking from Wilmington, Delaware, he also said democracy was "under unprecedented assault".

"I call on President Trump to go on national television now to fulfil his oath and defend the Constitution and demand an end to this siege," he said.

"To storm the Capitol, to smash windows, to occupy offices on the floor of the United States Senate, rummaging through desks, on the House of Representatives, threatening the safety of duly elected officials.


United States role [ edit | edit source ]

CNS Adm Noman Bashir shakes hand with General David Petraeus to strengthen the partnership with the United States.

The military involvement of the United States in this conflict came at a bad juncture whose image and credibility in the country was already defamed and maligned, due to their constant pressure on Musharraf, to keep the military debriefings of a senior scientist suspected in proliferation matters since 2004. The US Ambassador Cameron Munter found it difficult to counter the Anti-American sentiment in the country, especially after the Raymond Davis incident. 𖑲] The Anti-Americanism sentiment in Pakistan is one of the strongest in the world. 𖑳] The Anti-Americanism has risen as a result of U.S. military drone strikes introduced by President George W. Bush 𖑴] and continued by President Barack Obama as his counter-terrorism policy. 𖑵] In the aftermath of the 2010 Pakistan floods, the Pakistani civil society was further frustrated with the United States for not doing enough not to deal with the humanitarian crisis, 𖑶] noting that the US spends $5 billion every month in the war in Afghanistan. These sentiments were further intensified due to the killing of Osama Bin Laden by American forces. 𖑷] As of present, almost 60%-80% of Pakistanis consider the United States as an enemy combatant state. 𖑸] The Anti-Americanism has been provoked mainly as a reaction from those who are critical of American CIA activities in Pakistan, such as the infamous break-out of the Raymond Allen Davis incident and American intrusions from Afghanistan border such as the 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan. It has often confronted expatriate Americans in Pakistan too. According to a recent reports of Gallup Pakistan, approximately 3 in 4 Pakistanis now consider the United States as an enemy state. 𖑹] The polls show increasing hostility towards the United States and new lows in the already strained relationship between the two countries. 𖑹] The credibility of Obama administration was undermined in the country and, furthermore, approximately 4 in 10 Pakistanis believe that U.S. military and economic aid is having a negative impact on their country only 1 in 10 believes the impact has been positive. 𖑹]

According to the Dawn media report, the Pakistani civil society views India as the "perpetual enemy" and the United States as an "unfaithful ally". 𖑺]

Economics and Cost of war [ edit | edit source ]

Studies and research conducted by Pakistan's leading economists and the financial experts, the war hit Pakistan's national economy "very hard", and the outcomes produced by the war on country's national economy, were surprising and unexpected to Pakistan's military and economic planners. 𖑻] The government economic institutions of Pakistan referred the conflict as "economic terrorism" and according to the one Pakistani economist, the indirect and direct cost of the war was around $2.67 billion in 2001-02, which raised up to $13.6 billion by 2009-10, projected to rise to $17.8 billion in the current financial year (2010–11). 𖑆] The country's national investment-to-GDP ratio has nosedived from 22.5% in 2006-07 which went down to 13.4% in 2010-11 with serious consequences for job Creating ability of the economy. 𖑆] The leading English language newspaper, The Nation gave great criticism to United States, and called U.S. role as "economic terrorism" in South Asia. 𖑼]

Economic decay during the time of conflict. Exponentially rising the GDP to 8.96% (2004), it decayed to 1.21% (2008-9).

Until July 2009 the conflict, as well as terrorism in Pakistan, had cost Pakistan $35 billion. 𖑽] According to US Congress and the Pakistani media, Pakistan has received about $18 billion from the United States for the logistical support it provided for the counter-terrorism operations from 2001 to 2010, and for its own military operation mainly in Waziristan and other tribal areas along the Durand Line. 𖑾] The Bush administration also offered an additional $3 billion five-year aid package to Pakistan for becoming a frontline ally in its 'War on Terror'. Annual installments of $600 million each split evenly between military and economic aid, began in 2005. 𖑿]

Socioeconomic graph: The war hit Pakistan's national economy very hard, generally effecting 65 million people.

In 2009, President Barack Obama pledged to continue supporting Pakistan and has said Pakistan would be provided economic aid of $1.5 billion each year for the next five years. Unfolding a new US strategy to defeat Taliban and Al-Qaeda, Obama said Pakistan must be a 'stronger partner' in destroying Al-Qaeda safe havens. 𖒀] In addition, President Obama has also planned to propose an extra $2.8 billion in aid for the Pakistani military to intensify the US-led 'War on Terror' along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The military aid would be in addition to the civilian aid of $1.5 billion a year for the next five years from 2009 onwards. 𖒁]

In his autobiography, President Musharraf wrote that the United States had paid millions of dollars to the Pakistan government as bounty money for capturing al-Qaeda operators from tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. About 359 of them were handed over to the US for prosecution. 𖑿]

Pakistan has purchased 1,000 laser-guided bomb kits and 18 F-16 fighter jets from USA. 𖒂] Amongst Pakistanis opinion about the role of the US is generally negative. ⎪] Incidents of terrorism cause rage and anger against the terrorist organizations but they also cause frustration with the United States. According to Pew Global Polls only 17% of Pakistanis have a positive view of the US and only 11% see it as a useful partner in the 'War on Terror'.


Watch the video: 4:3 AP pictures of blast site in Bajour that killed 43 (May 2022).