tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post5862067203782601345..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: Monarchist Profile: General Jose de la Serna e HinajosaMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-44509656552890989772015-05-07T17:43:10.878-05:002015-05-07T17:43:10.878-05:00Not really but it's a moot point as Britain ne...Not really but it's a moot point as Britain never tried to gain political control over any of these areas and Britain supported the Monroe Doctrine. Britain and at least a very small minority in America that were in the sort of business that caused them to care about such things, were happy to see Spanish rule end to open new markets to them. Far from being subservient, the handful of Americans engaged in this sort of trade benefited immensely from it as Britain provided the actual assistance to these rebels while they had just as much access to the new markets when the wars were won.<br /><br />The only time I recall US-UK tensions flaring up in the region was over a border dispute between Britain and Venezuela. The US took the side of Venezuela but the third-party arbitrator (possibly the King of Italy) gave the disputed territory to Britain.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-81524519627656333102015-05-07T05:24:59.567-05:002015-05-07T05:24:59.567-05:00Then this passage ...
"On the other hand, th...Then this passage ...<br /><br /><i>"On the other hand, the United States was quick to grant recognition and at least moral support to any colony that broke away from Europe and the British Empire did the same while also giving both official and unofficial support to such independence movements as a way of eliminating Spain as a colonial rival and breaking the Spanish monopoly on trade with Latin America."</i><br /><br />... basically means British Crown financed independence movements while US had nothing against that?<br /><br />Wouldn't that make Monroe doctrine kind of subservient to the Brits, though it was meant otherwise? Or meant to be taken by the audience otherwise?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-16722816947927205212015-05-05T18:21:26.113-05:002015-05-05T18:21:26.113-05:00There is rarely ever a single motivation for peopl...There is rarely ever a single motivation for people doing anything. I'm sure some of the British volunteers who fought for the South American rebels thought they were being noble and fighting for independence from Spanish rule, others were doubtless professional soldiers who just went where the action was for whoever was willing to pay them. As for the US Govt, in the 1820's they didn't have money to throw around, this was before the government had much of a role in the economy at all and only had income from service fees and import duties. The govt didn't get really rich until the income tax was passed.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-54190448076108600092015-05-05T07:45:46.334-05:002015-05-05T07:45:46.334-05:00If trade was so much on their minds as that, there...If trade was so much on their minds as that, there must have been lots of independent business men back then. Great grand parents of the guys who now do "Occupy", for instance, and who have not got their great grand parents business after grandparents or parents lost it.<br /><br />But even so, is it really possible that people go to wars (as distinct from governments declaring them) without noble motives?<br /><br />Imperial envy I leave to governments and not to peoples.<br /><br />Here we are dealing however with US Governemnt sending money to rebels.<br /><br />Monroe doctrine "practised in miniature", a bit like Jewry in Amsterdam attacked Catholicism by supporting its enemies by money.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-67608822044052782952015-05-04T15:47:35.166-05:002015-05-04T15:47:35.166-05:00I don't think the US was much on people's ...I don't think the US was much on people's minds, that had all happened decades earlier and despite the posturing about the Monroe Doctrine the US was still a fledgling country with no ability to enforce it. For Britain, there may have been some envy at work, probably some long-standing anti-Spanish prejudice going back to the "Black Legend" times but most of all I think it was trade. Spain had a monopoly on trade with the Spanish empire and that was almost all of America save for the US & Canada and British business wanted access to those markets. As independent countries they could buy goods from British manufacturers rather than being limited to buying only from Spain. I think that was the largest motivating factor.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-36520258882893285862015-05-04T03:36:26.181-05:002015-05-04T03:36:26.181-05:00Is my analysis correct here: US for moral support,...Is my analysis correct here: US for moral support, GB for envy of Spain not yet having lost as much colony?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com