"Drakon" by S. M. Stirling

[Lynn McGuire]

"Drakon" by S. M. Stirling
https://www.amazon.com/Drakon-S-M-Stirling/dp/0671877119/

Book number four of a five book science fiction series. I reread the
well printed and well bound MMPB published by Baen in 1996 that I bought
used on Amazon since I could not get a new copy, being out of print. I
have read all five books in the series. The series is probably finished
as the author has moved onto several new series.

On a parallel universe Earth, it is the year 2442 AD. On this Earth,
Europe lost WWII to the Drakons who used atomic weapons on all of the
capitols. Then World War III occurred in 1999 between the massively
bioengineered Homo Drakonsis and the Homo Sapiens. The Homo Drakonsis
won and carefully bioengineered the Homo Sapiens into Homo Servus.
Earth has less than a half billion population now with most industries
in space scattered around the Solar System.

In an FTL (faster than light) gateway experiment gone wrong, a 400 year
old female Drakon is transported to our universe and Earth in the year
1995 AD. She lands in New York City, takes her bearings, and sets out
to build a gateway back to her Earth so that the Drakon can invade and
convert our Earth to look like her Earth with the Domination. After
all, her 200+ IQ and warrior skills enable her to find scientists and
lead them also. But, a colony of Homo Sapiens from Alpha Centauri
detect the interuniverse wormhole and send an agent to follow her.

The author has a website at:
https://smstirling.com/

My rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (197 reviews)

Lynn

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Drakon" by S. M. Stirling
https://www.amazon.com/Drakon-S-M-Stirling/dp/0671877119/
Book number four of a five book science fiction series. I reread the
well printed and well bound MMPB published by Baen in 1996 that I bought
used on Amazon since I could not get a new copy, being out of print. I
have read all five books in the series. The series is probably finished
as the author has moved onto several new series.
On a parallel universe Earth, it is the year 2442 AD. On this Earth,
Europe lost WWII to the Drakons who used atomic weapons on all of the
capitols. Then World War III occurred in 1999 between the massively
bioengineered Homo Drakonsis and the Homo Sapiens. The Homo Drakonsis
won and carefully bioengineered the Homo Sapiens into Homo Servus.
Earth has less than a half billion population now with most industries
in space scattered around the Solar System.
In an FTL (faster than light) gateway experiment gone wrong, a 400 year
old female Drakon is transported to our universe and Earth in the year
1995 AD. She lands in New York City, takes her bearings, and sets out
to build a gateway back to her Earth so that the Drakon can invade and
convert our Earth to look like her Earth with the Domination. After
all, her 200+ IQ and warrior skills enable her to find scientists and
lead them also. But, a colony of Homo Sapiens from Alpha Centauri
detect the interuniverse wormhole and send an agent to follow her.
https://smstirling.com/
My rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (197 reviews)
Lynn

It was kind of a frustrating place to "end" the series. It *was* nice to
see the Draka get their comeuppance in one of the Raj Whitehall spinoffs.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Drakon" by S. M. Stirling
https://www.amazon.com/Drakon-S-M-Stirling/dp/0671877119/
Book number four of a five book science fiction series. I reread the
well printed and well bound MMPB published by Baen in 1996 that I bought
used on Amazon since I could not get a new copy, being out of print. I
have read all five books in the series. The series is probably finished
as the author has moved onto several new series.
On a parallel universe Earth, it is the year 2442 AD. On this Earth,
Europe lost WWII to the Drakons who used atomic weapons on all of the
capitols. Then World War III occurred in 1999 between the massively
bioengineered Homo Drakonsis and the Homo Sapiens. The Homo Drakonsis
won and carefully bioengineered the Homo Sapiens into Homo Servus.
Earth has less than a half billion population now with most industries
in space scattered around the Solar System.
In an FTL (faster than light) gateway experiment gone wrong, a 400 year
old female Drakon is transported to our universe and Earth in the year
1995 AD. She lands in New York City, takes her bearings, and sets out
to build a gateway back to her Earth so that the Drakon can invade and
convert our Earth to look like her Earth with the Domination. After
all, her 200+ IQ and warrior skills enable her to find scientists and
lead them also. But, a colony of Homo Sapiens from Alpha Centauri
detect the interuniverse wormhole and send an agent to follow her.
https://smstirling.com/
My rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (197 reviews)
Lynn

It was kind of a frustrating place to "end" the series. It *was* nice to
see the Draka get their comeuppance in one of the Raj Whitehall spinoffs.

The book was left hanging with a Draka baby sailing away on our Earth
with an AI chip in it's head, telling it what it is to be a Draka.

Lynn

[WolfFan]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Drakon" by S. M. Stirling
https://www.amazon.com/Drakon-S-M-Stirling/dp/0671877119/
Book number four of a five book science fiction series. I reread the
well printed and well bound MMPB published by Baen in 1996 that I bought
used on Amazon since I could not get a new copy, being out of print. I
have read all five books in the series. The series is probably finished
as the author has moved onto several new series.
On a parallel universe Earth, it is the year 2442 AD. On this Earth,
Europe lost WWII to the Drakons who used atomic weapons on all of the
capitols. Then World War III occurred in 1999 between the massively
bioengineered Homo Drakonsis and the Homo Sapiens. The Homo Drakonsis
won and carefully bioengineered the Homo Sapiens into Homo Servus.
Earth has less than a half billion population now with most industries
in space scattered around the Solar System.
In an FTL (faster than light) gateway experiment gone wrong, a 400 year
old female Drakon is transported to our universe and Earth in the year
1995 AD. She lands in New York City, takes her bearings, and sets out
to build a gateway back to her Earth so that the Drakon can invade and
convert our Earth to look like her Earth with the Domination. After
all, her 200+ IQ and warrior skills enable her to find scientists and
lead them also. But, a colony of Homo Sapiens from Alpha Centauri
detect the interuniverse wormhole and send an agent to follow her.
https://smstirling.com/
My rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (197 reviews)
Lynn

It was kind of a frustrating place to "end" the series. It *was* nice to
see the Draka get their comeuppance in one of the Raj Whitehall spinoffs.

Drakon was the last book in the series ()other than a collection of shorter
fiction) because:

1. Stirling is terrible at ending a series; see further the Sea of Time books
and the Emberverse books (I suspect that he’s still stringing the
Emberverse along; I stopped paying attention years ago.)

2. Stirling and Baen had an argument. Baen really hated the Sea of Time
books. Stirling insisted. The two parted ways. There were supposed to be at
least three more Draka books, two set before the main events of Marching
Through Georgia (one was to be titled “The Laughter of the Guns”, after
the sounds made by pneumatic Gatling guns mounted on steam-powered armored
cars) and one set after Drakon (“Unto Us A Child”). Possibly there might
have been a fourth, set between The Stone Dogs and Drakon. All were abandoned
due to the catfight between Stirling and Baen.

See https://leighkimmel.com/reading/essays/drakasequels.shtml for some info.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by WolfFan

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Drakon" by S. M. Stirling
https://www.amazon.com/Drakon-S-M-Stirling/dp/0671877119/
Book number four of a five book science fiction series. I reread the
well printed and well bound MMPB published by Baen in 1996 that I bought
used on Amazon since I could not get a new copy, being out of print. I
have read all five books in the series. The series is probably finished
as the author has moved onto several new series.
On a parallel universe Earth, it is the year 2442 AD. On this Earth,
Europe lost WWII to the Drakons who used atomic weapons on all of the
capitols. Then World War III occurred in 1999 between the massively
bioengineered Homo Drakonsis and the Homo Sapiens. The Homo Drakonsis
won and carefully bioengineered the Homo Sapiens into Homo Servus.
Earth has less than a half billion population now with most industries
in space scattered around the Solar System.
In an FTL (faster than light) gateway experiment gone wrong, a 400 year
old female Drakon is transported to our universe and Earth in the year
1995 AD. She lands in New York City, takes her bearings, and sets out
to build a gateway back to her Earth so that the Drakon can invade and
convert our Earth to look like her Earth with the Domination. After
all, her 200+ IQ and warrior skills enable her to find scientists and
lead them also. But, a colony of Homo Sapiens from Alpha Centauri
detect the interuniverse wormhole and send an agent to follow her.
https://smstirling.com/
My rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (197 reviews)
Lynn

It was kind of a frustrating place to "end" the series. It *was* nice to
see the Draka get their comeuppance in one of the Raj Whitehall spinoffs.

Drakon was the last book in the series ()other than a collection of shorter
1. Stirling is terrible at ending a series; see further the Sea of Time books
and the Emberverse books (I suspect that he’s still stringing the
Emberverse along; I stopped paying attention years ago.)

He actually did end the Emberverse some years ago. Let me check here...
Last book was 'The Sky-Blue Wolves', published 2019.

[WolfFan]

Post by WolfFan

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Drakon" by S. M. Stirling
https://www.amazon.com/Drakon-S-M-Stirling/dp/0671877119/
Book number four of a five book science fiction series. I reread the
well printed and well bound MMPB published by Baen in 1996 that I bought
used on Amazon since I could not get a new copy, being out of print. I
have read all five books in the series. The series is probably finished
as the author has moved onto several new series.
On a parallel universe Earth, it is the year 2442 AD. On this Earth,
Europe lost WWII to the Drakons who used atomic weapons on all of the
capitols. Then World War III occurred in 1999 between the massively
bioengineered Homo Drakonsis and the Homo Sapiens. The Homo Drakonsis
won and carefully bioengineered the Homo Sapiens into Homo Servus.
Earth has less than a half billion population now with most industries
in space scattered around the Solar System.
In an FTL (faster than light) gateway experiment gone wrong, a 400 year
old female Drakon is transported to our universe and Earth in the year
1995 AD. She lands in New York City, takes her bearings, and sets out
to build a gateway back to her Earth so that the Drakon can invade and
convert our Earth to look like her Earth with the Domination. After
all, her 200+ IQ and warrior skills enable her to find scientists and
lead them also. But, a colony of Homo Sapiens from Alpha Centauri
detect the interuniverse wormhole and send an agent to follow her.
https://smstirling.com/
My rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (197 reviews)
Lynn

It was kind of a frustrating place to "end" the series. It *was* nice to
see the Draka get their comeuppance in one of the Raj Whitehall spinoffs.

Drakon was the last book in the series ()other than a collection of shorter
1. Stirling is terrible at ending a series; see further the Sea of Time books
and the Emberverse books (I suspect that he’s still stringing the
Emberverse along; I stopped paying attention years ago.)

He actually did end the Emberverse some years ago. Let me check here...
Last book was 'The Sky-Blue Wolves', published 2019.

Ah. A check indicates that I haven’t read the last three. It’s been a
while.

[Robert Carnegie]

So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Robert Carnegie
So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

No. There is nobody (including the author) rooting for the Draka.
They are portrayed as awful and evil. However, sometimes evil wins.

The last one is a bit more optimistic, though as discussed here ends
with only a partial win for the good guys..

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Robert Carnegie
So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

No. There is nobody (including the author) rooting for the Draka.
They are portrayed as awful and evil. However, sometimes evil wins.

Except that the timeline in the appendix to the first novel, _Marching
Through Georgia_, contained many events that I consider to be
extraordinarily unlikely* (even assuming that the unlikely previous
events happened).

*For values of "extremely unlikely" equal to a successful Operation
Sealion (Nazi Germany invasion of Great Britain in 1940).

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Robert Carnegie
So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

No. There is nobody (including the author) rooting for the Draka.
They are portrayed as awful and evil. However, sometimes evil wins.

Except that the timeline in the appendix to the first novel, _Marching
Through Georgia_, contained many events that I consider to be
extraordinarily unlikely* (even assuming that the unlikely previous
events happened).
*For values of "extremely unlikely" equal to a successful Operation
Sealion (Nazi Germany invasion of Great Britain in 1940).

In partial mitigation extremely unlikely things have happened in
reality. Also the point of the books was a dystopia as horrible as the
author could manage so....

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Robert Carnegie
So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

No. There is nobody (including the author) rooting for the Draka.
They are portrayed as awful and evil. However, sometimes evil wins.

Except that the timeline in the appendix to the first novel, _Marching
Through Georgia_, contained many events that I consider to be
extraordinarily unlikely* (even assuming that the unlikely previous
events happened).
*For values of "extremely unlikely" equal to a successful Operation
Sealion (Nazi Germany invasion of Great Britain in 1940).

In partial mitigation extremely unlikely things have happened in
reality. Also the point of the books was a dystopia as horrible as the
author could manage so....

There is a difference between "improbable" and "implausible". IMHO, many
events in the Draka timeline look implausible.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Robert Carnegie
So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

No. There is nobody (including the author) rooting for the Draka.
They are portrayed as awful and evil. However, sometimes evil wins.

Except that the timeline in the appendix to the first novel, _Marching
Through Georgia_, contained many events that I consider to be
extraordinarily unlikely* (even assuming that the unlikely previous
events happened).
*For values of "extremely unlikely" equal to a successful Operation
Sealion (Nazi Germany invasion of Great Britain in 1940).

In partial mitigation extremely unlikely things have happened in
reality. Also the point of the books was a dystopia as horrible as the
author could manage so....

There is a difference between "improbable" and "implausible". IMHO, many
events in the Draka timeline look implausible.

Depends on how you feel about the Drakas unifying the continent of
Africa under their iron hand in the middle 1800s.

The single trigger event is when George Washington exiled the 120,000
Loyalists to South Africa instead of Canada after the USA Revolutionary
war.

In our reality, the 120,000 Loyalists were exiled to Canada from the
USA. I had no idea that this really happened in the late 1700s.

Lynn

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Robert Carnegie
So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

No. There is nobody (including the author) rooting for the Draka.
They are portrayed as awful and evil. However, sometimes evil wins.

Except that the timeline in the appendix to the first novel, _Marching
Through Georgia_, contained many events that I consider to be
extraordinarily unlikely* (even assuming that the unlikely previous
events happened).
*For values of "extremely unlikely" equal to a successful Operation
Sealion (Nazi Germany invasion of Great Britain in 1940).

In partial mitigation extremely unlikely things have happened in
reality. Also the point of the books was a dystopia as horrible as the
author could manage so....

There is a difference between "improbable" and "implausible". IMHO, many
events in the Draka timeline look implausible.

Depends on how you feel about the Drakas unifying the continent of
Africa under their iron hand in the middle 1800s.

Africa is a big place (it is bigger than North America). It was not
exactly lightly populated. There would had been about an order of
magnitude fewer Draka than Americans. The disease environment would work
in the Draka disfavor. In summary, no way, no how.

Post by Lynn McGuire
The single trigger event is when George Washington exiled the 120,000
Loyalists to South Africa instead of Canada after the USA Revolutionary
war.

I doubt that this could have occurred (who would pay for this? Not USA).

Post by Lynn McGuire
In our reality, the 120,000 Loyalists were exiled to Canada from the
USA. I had no idea that this really happened in the late 1700s.

In our timeline, the Loyalists (number is a bit uncertain), went to
numerous places. Some went to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; some went
to southern Ontario, some went back to the British Isles; some went to
the British possessions in the Caribbean. A significant fraction of the
above returned to the United States several years later (after passions
cooled, I suspect).

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Robert Carnegie
So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

No. There is nobody (including the author) rooting for the Draka.
They are portrayed as awful and evil. However, sometimes evil wins.

Except that the timeline in the appendix to the first novel, _Marching
Through Georgia_, contained many events that I consider to be
extraordinarily unlikely* (even assuming that the unlikely previous
events happened).
*For values of "extremely unlikely" equal to a successful Operation
Sealion (Nazi Germany invasion of Great Britain in 1940).

In partial mitigation extremely unlikely things have happened in
reality. Also the point of the books was a dystopia as horrible as the
author could manage so....

There is a difference between "improbable" and "implausible". IMHO, many
events in the Draka timeline look implausible.

Depends on how you feel about the Drakas unifying the continent of
Africa under their iron hand in the middle 1800s.

Africa is a big place (it is bigger than North America). It was not
exactly lightly populated. There would had been about an order of
magnitude fewer Draka than Americans. The disease environment would work
in the Draka disfavor. In summary, no way, no how.

Did you mean "an order of magnitude fewer Draka than" AFRICANS ?

S. M. Stirling seems to disagree with you about the Domination of
Africa. Remember, the Domination was all about the enslavement of every
other human on Earth for the purposes of the Draka.

And George Washington was one of the richest people on the planet in the
middle 1700s. He was 3% of the economy of the USA. I suspect that he
could have raised the funds to exile the Loyalists to any place that he
wanted to. He chose Canada for most of them.

Lynn

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Robert Carnegie
So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

No. There is nobody (including the author) rooting for the Draka.
They are portrayed as awful and evil. However, sometimes evil wins.

Except that the timeline in the appendix to the first novel, _Marching
Through Georgia_, contained many events that I consider to be
extraordinarily unlikely* (even assuming that the unlikely previous
events happened).
*For values of "extremely unlikely" equal to a successful Operation
Sealion (Nazi Germany invasion of Great Britain in 1940).

In partial mitigation extremely unlikely things have happened in
reality. Also the point of the books was a dystopia as horrible as the
author could manage so....

There is a difference between "improbable" and "implausible". IMHO, many
events in the Draka timeline look implausible.

Depends on how you feel about the Drakas unifying the continent of
Africa under their iron hand in the middle 1800s.

Africa is a big place (it is bigger than North America). It was not
exactly lightly populated. There would had been about an order of
magnitude fewer Draka than Americans. The disease environment would work
in the Draka disfavor. In summary, no way, no how.

Did you mean "an order of magnitude fewer Draka than" AFRICANS ?

No, I meant Americans. The Draka had to run rampant over a larger area
with drastically fewer people than USA did and had in the 19th century.

Post by Lynn McGuire
S. M. Stirling seems to disagree with you about the Domination of
Africa. Remember, the Domination was all about the enslavement of every
other human on Earth for the purposes of the Draka.

Since I am utterly unconvinced in the plausibility of the timeline he
offered on how this was done; I don't care about his opinion on the
matter. I am speaking of abrupt un-suspension of willing suspension of
disbelief.

Post by Lynn McGuire
And George Washington was one of the richest people on the planet in the
middle 1700s. He was 3% of the economy of the USA. I suspect that he
could have raised the funds to exile the Loyalists to any place that he
wanted to. He chose Canada for most of them.

Where is your source for the extent of George Washington's wealth? I
don't believe it. I don't think he was even 3% of Virgina's economy.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Robert Carnegie
So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

No. There is nobody (including the author) rooting for the Draka.
They are portrayed as awful and evil. However, sometimes evil wins.

Except that the timeline in the appendix to the first novel, _Marching
Through Georgia_, contained many events that I consider to be
extraordinarily unlikely* (even assuming that the unlikely previous
events happened).
*For values of "extremely unlikely" equal to a successful Operation
Sealion (Nazi Germany invasion of Great Britain in 1940).

In partial mitigation extremely unlikely things have happened in
reality. Also the point of the books was a dystopia as horrible as the
author could manage so....

There is a difference between "improbable" and "implausible". IMHO, many
events in the Draka timeline look implausible.

Depends on how you feel about the Drakas unifying the continent of
Africa under their iron hand in the middle 1800s.

Africa is a big place (it is bigger than North America). It was not
exactly lightly populated. There would had been about an order of
magnitude fewer Draka than Americans. The disease environment would work
in the Draka disfavor. In summary, no way, no how.

Did you mean "an order of magnitude fewer Draka than" AFRICANS ?

No, I meant Americans. The Draka had to run rampant over a larger area
with drastically fewer people than USA did and had in the 19th century.

200 years is a fairly long time to Dominate the rest of Africa.

Lynn

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:47:10 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
No, I meant Americans. The Draka had to run rampant over a larger area
with drastically fewer people than USA did and had in the 19th century.

Post by Lynn McGuire
S. M. Stirling seems to disagree with you about the Domination of
Africa. Remember, the Domination was all about the enslavement of every
other human on Earth for the purposes of the Draka.

Since I am utterly unconvinced in the plausibility of the timeline he
offered on how this was done; I don't care about his opinion on the
matter. I am speaking of abrupt un-suspension of willing suspension of
disbelief.

No question I also thought a fair bit of "handwavium" was required to
set up what turned out to be a pretty good tale.

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire
And George Washington was one of the richest people on the planet in the
middle 1700s. He was 3% of the economy of the USA. I suspect that he
could have raised the funds to exile the Loyalists to any place that he
wanted to. He chose Canada for most of them.

Where is your source for the extent of George Washington's wealth? I
don't believe it. I don't think he was even 3% of Virgina's economy.

That does seem like an impressive stat which I wouldn't accept without
a readily available cite.

[Chris Buckley]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:47:10 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward
No, I meant Americans. The Draka had to run rampant over a larger area
with drastically fewer people than USA did and had in the 19th century.

Post by Lynn McGuire
S. M. Stirling seems to disagree with you about the Domination of
Africa. Remember, the Domination was all about the enslavement of every
other human on Earth for the purposes of the Draka.

Since I am utterly unconvinced in the plausibility of the timeline he
offered on how this was done; I don't care about his opinion on the
matter. I am speaking of abrupt un-suspension of willing suspension of
disbelief.

No question I also thought a fair bit of "handwavium" was required to
set up what turned out to be a pretty good tale.

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Lynn McGuire
And George Washington was one of the richest people on the planet in the
middle 1700s. He was 3% of the economy of the USA. I suspect that he
could have raised the funds to exile the Loyalists to any place that he
wanted to. He chose Canada for most of them.

Where is your source for the extent of George Washington's wealth? I
don't believe it. I don't think he was even 3% of Virgina's economy.

That does seem like an impressive stat which I wouldn't accept without
a readily available cite.

Indeed. According to Wikipedia, his estate was equivalent to 0.19% of
the gross domestic product, so he was rich. But that's his wealth, not
his income ("3% of the economy" is a claim of income.) His wealth was
all in property, he tended to be quite cash-poor, without a high income.

Chris

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Robert Woodward
Where is your source for the extent of George Washington's wealth? I
don't believe it. I don't think he was even 3% of Virgina's economy.

That does seem like an impressive stat which I wouldn't accept without
a readily available cite.

Indeed. According to Wikipedia, his estate was equivalent to 0.19% of
the gross domestic product, so he was rich. But that's his wealth, not
his income ("3% of the economy" is a claim of income.) His wealth was
all in property, he tended to be quite cash-poor, without a high income.

And what proportion of that was from his wife? (Which was Robert E
Lee's claim based on his relationship to the Washingtons)

[Robert Woodward]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Robert Woodward
Where is your source for the extent of George Washington's wealth? I
don't believe it. I don't think he was even 3% of Virgina's economy.

That does seem like an impressive stat which I wouldn't accept without
a readily available cite.

Indeed. According to Wikipedia, his estate was equivalent to 0.19% of
the gross domestic product, so he was rich. But that's his wealth, not
his income ("3% of the economy" is a claim of income.) His wealth was
all in property, he tended to be quite cash-poor, without a high income.

And what proportion of that was from his wife? (Which was Robert E
Lee's claim based on his relationship to the Washingtons)

IIRC, most of it.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Robert Woodward
Where is your source for the extent of George Washington's wealth? I
don't believe it. I don't think he was even 3% of Virgina's economy.

That does seem like an impressive stat which I wouldn't accept without
a readily available cite.

Indeed. According to Wikipedia, his estate was equivalent to 0.19% of
the gross domestic product, so he was rich. But that's his wealth, not
his income ("3% of the economy" is a claim of income.) His wealth was
all in property, he tended to be quite cash-poor, without a high income.

And what proportion of that was from his wife? (Which was Robert E
Lee's claim based on his relationship to the Washingtons)

IIRC, most of it.

Yup. Marrying a rich widow is an old tried and true way for a man to
become rich.

Robert E. Lee was married to Martha Washington's granddaughter. I have
been in their house at the edge of the Arlington National Cemetery.

Lynn

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:09:17 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by The Horny Goat
And what proportion of that was from his wife? (Which was Robert E
Lee's claim based on his relationship to the Washingtons)

IIRC, most of it.

Yup. Marrying a rich widow is an old tried and true way for a man to
become rich.
Robert E. Lee was married to Martha Washington's granddaughter. I have
been in their house at the edge of the Arlington National Cemetery.

Well no question being a war hero makes you a hot commodity on the
marriage market. (Which certainly applied to Washington, depending on
your point of view may or may not have applied to Lee - since he was
24 when he married in 1831 long before he came to prominence)

I've never been to Arlington (I'm a west coast Canadian) though my
daughter went there on a day trip when she was doing an exchange year
at the art school in Baltimore some 15 or so years ago. (She also made
the mistake of going to Gettysburg in February which was a huge
disappointment to her as the battlefield was covered in snow that day
- which certainly wasn't the case on July 1-3, 1863!

[William Hyde]

.

Post by Lynn McGuire
The single trigger event is when George Washington exiled the 120,000
Loyalists to South Africa instead of Canada after the USA Revolutionary
war.
In our reality, the 120,000 Loyalists were exiled to Canada from the
USA.

I assume here that the attribution to Washington is in the book only,
and that you know that in history he did nothing of the kind. Washington
was far smarter and more just than that.

Unfortunately, the citizenry at large and various state governments
were not.

But the vast majority of loyalists stayed behind, and played a role in
the politics of the new nation. The last laws against former loyalists
were repealed a few years after the war, though local prejudice lasted
much longer.

And Canada certainly did not receive 100k of loyalist immigrants.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I had no idea that this really happened in the late 1700s.

Not mentioned in high school history?

William Hyde

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by William Hyde
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
The single trigger event is when George Washington exiled the 120,000
Loyalists to South Africa instead of Canada after the USA
Revolutionary war.
In our reality, the 120,000 Loyalists were exiled to Canada from the USA.

I assume here that the attribution to Washington is in the book only,
and that you know that in history he did nothing of the kind. Washington
was far smarter and more just than that.
Unfortunately, the citizenry at large and various state governments were
not.
But the vast majority of loyalists stayed behind, and played a role in
the politics of the new nation.  The last laws against former loyalists
were repealed a few years after the war, though local prejudice lasted
much longer.
And Canada certainly did not receive 100k of loyalist immigrants.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I had no idea that this really happened in the late 1700s.

Not mentioned in high school history?
William Hyde

https://www.britannica.com/topic/loyalist

"Congress recommended repressive measures against the loyalists, and all
states passed severe laws against them, usually forbidding them from
holding office, disenfranchising them, and confiscating or heavily
taxing their property. Beginning in March 1776, approximately 100,000
loyalists fled into exile. (This was between 3 and 4 percent of the
total number of settlers in the colonies, which is estimated at
2,500,000–3,000,000 during the Revolutionary period.) The largest
portion of those who fled ultimately went to Canada, where the British
government provided them with asylum and offered some compensation for
losses in property and income; those who met certain criteria (based, in
part, on when they left America and their contribution to the British
war effort) were known as United Empire Loyalists in Canada."

Lynn

[William Hyde]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
The single trigger event is when George Washington exiled the 120,000
Loyalists to South Africa instead of Canada after the USA
Revolutionary war.
In our reality, the 120,000 Loyalists were exiled to Canada from the USA.

I assume here that the attribution to Washington is in the book only,
and that you know that in history he did nothing of the kind.
Washington was far smarter and more just than that.
Unfortunately, the citizenry at large and various state governments
were not.
But the vast majority of loyalists stayed behind, and played a role in
the politics of the new nation.  The last laws against former
loyalists were repealed a few years after the war, though local
prejudice lasted much longer.
And Canada certainly did not receive 100k of loyalist immigrants.
 > I had no idea that this really happened in the late 1700s.
Not mentioned in high school history?
William Hyde

https://www.britannica.com/topic/loyalist
"Congress recommended repressive measures against the loyalists, and all
states passed severe laws against them, usually forbidding them from
holding office, disenfranchising them, and confiscating or heavily
taxing their property. Beginning in March 1776, approximately 100,000
loyalists fled into exile. (This was between 3 and 4 percent of the
total number of settlers in the colonies, which is estimated at
2,500,000–3,000,000 during the Revolutionary period.) The largest
portion of those who fled ultimately went to Canada, where the British
government provided them with asylum and offered some compensation for
losses in property and income; those who met certain criteria (based, in
part, on when they left America and their contribution to the British
war effort) were known as United Empire Loyalists in Canada."

I assumed you meant Washington the person, not the Capital, as it didn't
exist yet.

Yes, there was legislation, as I mentioned, and those laws were part of
the reason that loyalists formed voting blocs in the last years of the
century.

But we didn't get 100k. After all, if you are a loyalist from Georgia,
do you really want to grow turnips in Upper Canada, or sugar in Jamaica?
And if you're a urban type from NY, do you chose Montreal or London?

When I was a kid there were still people who added "UE" to their names
as descendants of the loyalists. It's been a long while since I've seen
that, though.


William Hyde

[Robert Woodward]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
The single trigger event is when George Washington exiled the 120,000
Loyalists to South Africa instead of Canada after the USA
Revolutionary war.

<Snip>

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde
But the vast majority of loyalists stayed behind, and played a role in
the politics of the new nation.  The last laws against former
loyalists were repealed a few years after the war, though local
prejudice lasted much longer.
And Canada certainly did not receive 100k of loyalist immigrants.
 > I had no idea that this really happened in the late 1700s.
Not mentioned in high school history?
William Hyde

https://www.britannica.com/topic/loyalist

<Snip>

Post by William Hyde
But we didn't get 100k. After all, if you are a loyalist from Georgia,
do you really want to grow turnips in Upper Canada, or sugar in Jamaica?
And if you're a urban type from NY, do you chose Montreal or London?
When I was a kid there were still people who added "UE" to their names
as descendants of the loyalists. It's been a long while since I've seen
that, though.

My paternal grandmother denied it, but my late father believed that she
had Loyalist ancestors because she had ancestors born in the regions of
Canada that had Loyalist settlements (IIRC, initially settled by
Loyalists).

[James Nicoll]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
The single trigger event is when George Washington exiled the 120,000
Loyalists to South Africa instead of Canada after the USA
Revolutionary war.

<Snip>

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde
But the vast majority of loyalists stayed behind, and played a role in
the politics of the new nation.  The last laws against former
loyalists were repealed a few years after the war, though local
prejudice lasted much longer.
And Canada certainly did not receive 100k of loyalist immigrants.
 > I had no idea that this really happened in the late 1700s.
Not mentioned in high school history?
William Hyde

https://www.britannica.com/topic/loyalist

<Snip>

Post by William Hyde
But we didn't get 100k. After all, if you are a loyalist from Georgia,
do you really want to grow turnips in Upper Canada, or sugar in Jamaica?
And if you're a urban type from NY, do you chose Montreal or London?
When I was a kid there were still people who added "UE" to their names
as descendants of the loyalists. It's been a long while since I've seen
that, though.

My paternal grandmother denied it, but my late father believed that she
had Loyalist ancestors because she had ancestors born in the regions of
Canada that had Loyalist settlements (IIRC, initially settled by
Loyalists).

UE's were well enough remembered when I went to school in the 1960s
that one of my teachers, presumable not a UE, carefully explained
UEs were terribly inbred. I doubt that was on the curriculum and
I'd love to know the backstory to why she felt the need to say
that.

Somone being proudly UEL comes up in a Davies novel set in the ...
1940s? 1950s? Not on a complementary context.

[William Hyde]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
The single trigger event is when George Washington exiled the 120,000
Loyalists to South Africa instead of Canada after the USA
Revolutionary war.

<Snip>

Post by William Hyde

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by William Hyde
But the vast majority of loyalists stayed behind, and played a role in
the politics of the new nation.  The last laws against former
loyalists were repealed a few years after the war, though local
prejudice lasted much longer.
And Canada certainly did not receive 100k of loyalist immigrants.
 > I had no idea that this really happened in the late 1700s.
Not mentioned in high school history?
William Hyde

https://www.britannica.com/topic/loyalist

<Snip>

Post by William Hyde
But we didn't get 100k. After all, if you are a loyalist from Georgia,
do you really want to grow turnips in Upper Canada, or sugar in Jamaica?
And if you're a urban type from NY, do you chose Montreal or London?
When I was a kid there were still people who added "UE" to their names
as descendants of the loyalists. It's been a long while since I've seen
that, though.

My paternal grandmother denied it, but my late father believed that she
had Loyalist ancestors because she had ancestors born in the regions of
Canada that had Loyalist settlements (IIRC, initially settled by
Loyalists).

The loyalists formed a larger percentage of the anglophone settlers in
what would become Ontario than in the rest of the British colonies,
though more on an absolute basis went elsewhere. So I would imagine that
was the location she was referring to.


However, Ontario also received a number of "delayed loyalists", i.e.
Americans attracted by free land, well after the war(1). As these
proved far from loyal to the British in the war of 1812(2), perhaps your
grandmother had a point.

Of course, most Americans who have roots back to 1780 have some loyalist
ancestors.

(1) Horace Greeley hadn't yet gotten around to telling young men which
way to go.

(2) Alas, they got it from both sides.


William Hyde

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:36:21 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
However, Ontario also received a number of "delayed loyalists", i.e.
Americans attracted by free land, well after the war(1). As these
proved far from loyal to the British in the war of 1812(2), perhaps your
grandmother had a point.

I've never seen a source that suggested land in modern day southern
Ontario was free though it was a fraction (I've read 1/3) of what the
US was selling land for in what is now the Midwest.

Again - in British eyes there were enough of them that it was felt to
be a security threat in the region between London (ON) and York (now
Toronto) though in the event these settlers chose loyalty to their
land rather than to their former country.

[James Nicoll]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:36:21 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
However, Ontario also received a number of "delayed loyalists", i.e.
Americans attracted by free land, well after the war(1). As these
proved far from loyal to the British in the war of 1812(2), perhaps your
grandmother had a point.

I've never seen a source that suggested land in modern day southern
Ontario was free though it was a fraction (I've read 1/3) of what the
US was selling land for in what is now the Midwest.
Again - in British eyes there were enough of them that it was felt to
be a security threat in the region between London (ON) and York (now
Toronto) though in the event these settlers chose loyalty to their
land rather than to their former country.

Yeah, to the 1812 invaders' enormous surprise, you can't win hearts
and minds by setting fire to people's homes.

[James Nicoll]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:36:21 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
However, Ontario also received a number of "delayed loyalists", i.e.
Americans attracted by free land, well after the war(1). As these
proved far from loyal to the British in the war of 1812(2), perhaps your
grandmother had a point.

I've never seen a source that suggested land in modern day southern
Ontario was free though it was a fraction (I've read 1/3) of what the
US was selling land for in what is now the Midwest.
Again - in British eyes there were enough of them that it was felt to
be a security threat in the region between London (ON) and York (now
Toronto) though in the event these settlers chose loyalty to their
land rather than to their former country.

Yeah, to the 1812 invaders' enormous surprise, you can't win hearts
and minds by setting fire to people's homes.

So, while there's no UE or American Invasion of 1812 About Which
They Would Later Lie Shamelessly stories in the Canadian side of
my family, my aunt had a rather astonishing claim that we were
related to Upper Canada's Bishop Strachan, a stalwart figure who
played a central role in the Upper Canada Rebellion... by being
such a consumate dick (along with the rest of the Family Compact
that ran Upper Canada back then) that he helped provoke it.

Well, you can't have heroes without villains.

What makes the claim eye-brow-raising is that Bishop Strachan
was very very Anglican, whereas my mother's family were very
very Catholic. How you bridge godless heretics to Catholics,
I don't know.

One answer is maybe my grandfather wasn't a Catholic but I
cannot imagine that would have escaped comment. There was
certainly commentary when my father (Unitarian atheist)
married my mother (fugitive ex-nun atheist), from both
sides.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by James Nicoll

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:36:21 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
However, Ontario also received a number of "delayed loyalists", i.e.
Americans attracted by free land, well after the war(1). As these
proved far from loyal to the British in the war of 1812(2), perhaps your
grandmother had a point.

I've never seen a source that suggested land in modern day southern
Ontario was free though it was a fraction (I've read 1/3) of what the
US was selling land for in what is now the Midwest.
Again - in British eyes there were enough of them that it was felt to
be a security threat in the region between London (ON) and York (now
Toronto) though in the event these settlers chose loyalty to their
land rather than to their former country.

Yeah, to the 1812 invaders' enormous surprise, you can't win hearts
and minds by setting fire to people's homes.

So, while there's no UE or American Invasion of 1812 About Which
They Would Later Lie Shamelessly stories in the Canadian side of
my family, my aunt had a rather astonishing claim that we were
related to Upper Canada's Bishop Strachan, a stalwart figure who
played a central role in the Upper Canada Rebellion... by being
such a consumate dick (along with the rest of the Family Compact
that ran Upper Canada back then) that he helped provoke it.
Well, you can't have heroes without villains.
What makes the claim eye-brow-raising is that Bishop Strachan
was very very Anglican, whereas my mother's family were very
very Catholic. How you bridge godless heretics to Catholics,
I don't know.

By setting fire to all the Anglicans' homes? ;)

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by James Nicoll

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:36:21 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
However, Ontario also received a number of "delayed loyalists", i.e.
Americans attracted by free land, well after the war(1).  As these
proved far from loyal to the British in the war of 1812(2), perhaps your
grandmother had a point.

I've never seen a source that suggested land in modern day southern
Ontario was free though it was a fraction (I've read 1/3) of what the
US was selling land for in what is now the Midwest.
Again - in British eyes there were enough of them that it was felt to
be a security threat in the region between London (ON) and York (now
Toronto) though in the event these settlers chose loyalty to their
land rather than to their former country.

Yeah, to the 1812 invaders' enormous surprise, you can't win hearts
and minds by setting fire to people's homes.

So, while there's no UE or American Invasion of 1812 About Which
They Would Later Lie Shamelessly stories in the Canadian side of
my family, my aunt had a rather astonishing claim that we were
related to Upper Canada's Bishop Strachan, a stalwart figure who
played a central role in the Upper Canada Rebellion... by being
such a consumate dick (along with the rest of the Family Compact
that ran Upper Canada back then) that he helped provoke it.
Well, you can't have heroes without villains.
What makes the claim eye-brow-raising is that Bishop Strachan
was very very Anglican, whereas my mother's family were very
very Catholic. How you bridge godless heretics to Catholics,
I don't know.

By setting fire to all the Anglicans' homes?  ;)

Sufficiently High Anglican is doctrinally only slightly different to
Roman Catholic.

Simply replace all uses of the word "Pope" with "Monarch of England" and
add in the bit about divorce being allowed. ;-)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:25:58 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"

Post by Gary R. Schmidt

Post by James Nicoll
What makes the claim eye-brow-raising is that Bishop Strachan
was very very Anglican, whereas my mother's family were very
very Catholic. How you bridge godless heretics to Catholics,
I don't know.

By setting fire to all the Anglicans' homes?  ;)

Sufficiently High Anglican is doctrinally only slightly different to
Roman Catholic.
Simply replace all uses of the word "Pope" with "Monarch of England" and
add in the bit about divorce being allowed. ;-)

Last time I attended a Catholic church was for a mass in honor of my
late wife (organized by my very very Catholic mother-in-law). I was
astonished how much of the liturgy I knew from memory since I know the
Anglican prayer book somewhat well.

(It's been suggested that when the Catholic church put the liturgy
from Latin to English - which was around the time of Vatican II - they
used the Book of Common Prayer as a model...since they admired the
"flow" of the Anglican liturgy if not the content)

[Paul S Person]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:25:58 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"

Post by Gary R. Schmidt

Post by James Nicoll
What makes the claim eye-brow-raising is that Bishop Strachan
was very very Anglican, whereas my mother's family were very
very Catholic. How you bridge godless heretics to Catholics,
I don't know.

By setting fire to all the Anglicans' homes?  ;)

Sufficiently High Anglican is doctrinally only slightly different to
Roman Catholic.
Simply replace all uses of the word "Pope" with "Monarch of England" and
add in the bit about divorce being allowed. ;-)

Last time I attended a Catholic church was for a mass in honor of my
late wife (organized by my very very Catholic mother-in-law). I was
astonished how much of the liturgy I knew from memory since I know the
Anglican prayer book somewhat well.

Unless something has radically changed, the Lutheran liturgy might
also be oddly familiar.

After all, it was originally the "German Mass". Which was basically
the Latin Mass with the objectionable (to Luther) bits removed.

Post by The Horny Goat
(It's been suggested that when the Catholic church put the liturgy
from Latin to English - which was around the time of Vatican II - they
used the Book of Common Prayer as a model...since they admired the
"flow" of the Anglican liturgy if not the content)

Most of the content was probably pretty familiar to them. It was,
after all, an English translation of the Latin Mass, purged of any
elements deemed objectionable.

The liturgy has been around a long long time.

Non-liturgical groups, of course, rolled their own.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:23:14 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by James Nicoll

Post by James Nicoll

Post by The Horny Goat
Again - in British eyes there were enough of them that it was felt to
be a security threat in the region between London (ON) and York (now
Toronto) though in the event these settlers chose loyalty to their
land rather than to their former country.

Yeah, to the 1812 invaders' enormous surprise, you can't win hearts
and minds by setting fire to people's homes.

So, while there's no UE or American Invasion of 1812 About Which
They Would Later Lie Shamelessly stories in the Canadian side of
my family, my aunt had a rather astonishing claim that we were
related to Upper Canada's Bishop Strachan, a stalwart figure who
played a central role in the Upper Canada Rebellion... by being
such a consumate dick (along with the rest of the Family Compact
that ran Upper Canada back then) that he helped provoke it.
Well, you can't have heroes without villains.

So even if we agree many of the colonial Canadian powers that be are
"consumate dicks" how does that create a right by Americans to
"liberate" them.

(Mind you who am I to speak - while I'm a Canadian my only ancestors
who fought in the War of 1812 were New Yorkers who fought in the NY
state militia - and were part of the invasion of Upper Canada -
today's Ontario)

[James Nicoll]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:23:14 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by James Nicoll

Post by James Nicoll

Post by The Horny Goat
Again - in British eyes there were enough of them that it was felt to
be a security threat in the region between London (ON) and York (now
Toronto) though in the event these settlers chose loyalty to their
land rather than to their former country.

Yeah, to the 1812 invaders' enormous surprise, you can't win hearts
and minds by setting fire to people's homes.

So, while there's no UE or American Invasion of 1812 About Which
They Would Later Lie Shamelessly stories in the Canadian side of
my family, my aunt had a rather astonishing claim that we were
related to Upper Canada's Bishop Strachan, a stalwart figure who
played a central role in the Upper Canada Rebellion... by being
such a consumate dick (along with the rest of the Family Compact
that ran Upper Canada back then) that he helped provoke it.
Well, you can't have heroes without villains.

So even if we agree many of the colonial Canadian powers that be are
"consumate dicks" how does that create a right by Americans to
"liberate" them.

In this case, the US attempt steal Canada _led_ the rise of the
Family Compact.

[William Hyde]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by James Nicoll

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:36:21 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
However, Ontario also received a number of "delayed loyalists", i.e.
Americans attracted by free land, well after the war(1). As these
proved far from loyal to the British in the war of 1812(2), perhaps your
grandmother had a point.

I've never seen a source that suggested land in modern day southern
Ontario was free though it was a fraction (I've read 1/3) of what the
US was selling land for in what is now the Midwest.
Again - in British eyes there were enough of them that it was felt to
be a security threat in the region between London (ON) and York (now
Toronto) though in the event these settlers chose loyalty to their
land rather than to their former country.

Yeah, to the 1812 invaders' enormous surprise, you can't win hearts
and minds by setting fire to people's homes.

So, while there's no UE or American Invasion of 1812 About Which
They Would Later Lie Shamelessly stories in the Canadian side of
my family, my aunt had a rather astonishing claim that we were
related to Upper Canada's Bishop Strachan, a stalwart figure who
played a central role in the Upper Canada Rebellion... by being
such a consumate dick (along with the rest of the Family Compact
that ran Upper Canada back then) that he helped provoke it.
Well, you can't have heroes without villains.
What makes the claim eye-brow-raising is that Bishop Strachan
was very very Anglican, whereas my mother's family were very
very Catholic. How you bridge godless heretics to Catholics,
I don't know.

In the mid-1800s there was a tendency among conservative Anglicans to
pull a Newman. Perhaps one of Bishop S's descendants did so.

As it happens I know a great-great nephew of the Cardinal. The family
is not Catholic.

I have reason to believe that one of my great-grandfathers, about as
pro-Catholic as Torquemada was pro-Jewish, to have been born Catholic.


People change. And then deny that they did so, as often as not.


William Hyde

[William Hyde]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:36:21 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
However, Ontario also received a number of "delayed loyalists", i.e.
Americans attracted by free land, well after the war(1). As these
proved far from loyal to the British in the war of 1812(2), perhaps your
grandmother had a point.

I've never seen a source that suggested land in modern day southern
Ontario was free though it was a fraction (I've read 1/3) of what the
US was selling land for in what is now the Midwest.
Again - in British eyes there were enough of them that it was felt to
be a security threat in the region between London (ON) and York (now
Toronto) though in the event these settlers chose loyalty to their
land rather than to their former country.

My sense of it is that most of them hunkered down and were content to go
with whoever won. Any pro-American action they might have been tempted
to take was nipped in the bud by the Americans themselves, as James
mentioned.

Some did join the militia, however. So they were not all as neutral as I
implied above. Some Canadian army units include battle honours from
this war in their record which I believe descend from contemporary
militia units.

But the inhabitants of Quebec and the Maritimes did far better. The
defenders of this province were largely British regulars and native forces.

You are quite right about the Berton, though I confess it's been a long
time since I read it. I gave it and "Vimy" to an American friend who
wondered if Canada had been in the world wars.

William Hyde

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:33:31 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
You are quite right about the Berton, though I confess it's been a long
time since I read it. I gave it and "Vimy" to an American friend who
wondered if Canada had been in the world wars.

Could be worse - I know Americans who confused the Canadian Vimy
memorial with a memorial honoring the victims of 9/11. (Which is
rather unusual for a Canadian memorial in France)

In case you don't know what it looks like:
https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/an-aerial-picture-taken-on-july-6-2018-in-vimy-northern-news-photo/992659604?adppopup=true

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 21:52:02 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by William Hyde
But we didn't get 100k. After all, if you are a loyalist from Georgia,
do you really want to grow turnips in Upper Canada, or sugar in Jamaica?
And if you're a urban type from NY, do you chose Montreal or London?
When I was a kid there were still people who added "UE" to their names
as descendants of the loyalists. It's been a long while since I've seen
that, though.

My paternal grandmother denied it, but my late father believed that she
had Loyalist ancestors because she had ancestors born in the regions of
Canada that had Loyalist settlements (IIRC, initially settled by
Loyalists).

Whereas while I'm a Canadian my only ancestors who fought in the war
of 1812 who fought in the NY state militia who were part of the
invasion of Canada....(as opposed to my American father who met my
Canadian mother while they were college students in Seattle long ago)

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 21:04:58 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
Yes, there was legislation, as I mentioned, and those laws were part of
the reason that loyalists formed voting blocs in the last years of the
century.
But we didn't get 100k. After all, if you are a loyalist from Georgia,
do you really want to grow turnips in Upper Canada, or sugar in Jamaica?
And if you're a urban type from NY, do you chose Montreal or London?
When I was a kid there were still people who added "UE" to their names
as descendants of the loyalists. It's been a long while since I've seen
that, though.
William Hyde

Hmmm. I grew up in BC and went to university in Ontario and never saw
that suffix to anybody's name or in print.

Though I >DID< get whacked by my late wife for telling her I had just
read Pierre Berton's 2 volume history of the War of 1812 which
included a reference to the last execution by hanging drawing +
quartering in the British Empire (in 1816 - of 4 Canadians who acted
as guides to US troops marching from Niagara to York - modern day
Toronto - on their way to burn the city of York and who later were
captured by British forces. It happened to be the old town square in
her home town - and the old town square still exists and was a mile
from her parents' home and was a popular tourist trap though they
definitely didn't mention THAT piece of history!)

(Given your nationality I assume you've heard of Berton - many
Americans wouldn't have)

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:21:57 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
In our reality, the 120,000 Loyalists were exiled to Canada from the
USA. I had no idea that this really happened in the late 1700s.

How many of the Loyalists were actually pro-British during the
Revolution vs those who bought land in Canada after the Revolutionary
War when Canada was selling land in southern Ontario for about 1/3 the
cost per acre that the US government was selling land for at the time?

(At the beginning of the war of 1812 Canadian colonial governors were
in a state of panic coucerning whether the ex-Americans would show
more loyalty to America or their own land - in the event 95+%
preferred their land)

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Robert Carnegie
So is this series basically Nazi fanfiction?
I can do without that.

The Drakas defeated the Nazis and the Russians in "Marching Through
Georgia" by invasion from a united Africa with a four million ??? man
army (mostly enslaved blacks) and using XXXXXXX bombs in Berlin and Moscow.

https://www.amazon.com/Marching-Through-Georgia-Draka-Novels/dp/0671654071/

The USA did not enter WWII in this alternate reality. The USA got their
asses kicked in a later book, "The Stone Dogs", in the space war around
Earth in the 1990s using space launched fighters armed with nuclear weapons.
https://www.amazon.com/Stone-Dogs-Draka-S-M-Stirling/dp/0671720090/

The series of four books is a horrifying alternate reality about the
entity known as the Domination.

Lynn

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Drakon" by S. M. Stirling
https://www.amazon.com/Drakon-S-M-Stirling/dp/0671877119/
Book number four of a five book science fiction series. I reread the
well printed and well bound MMPB published by Baen in 1996 that I bought
used on Amazon since I could not get a new copy, being out of print. I
have read all five books in the series. The series is probably finished
as the author has moved onto several new series.
On a parallel universe Earth, it is the year 2442 AD. On this Earth,
Europe lost WWII to the Drakons who used atomic weapons on all of the
capitols. Then World War III occurred in 1999 between the massively
bioengineered Homo Drakonsis and the Homo Sapiens. The Homo Drakonsis
won and carefully bioengineered the Homo Sapiens into Homo Servus.
Earth has less than a half billion population now with most industries
in space scattered around the Solar System.
In an FTL (faster than light) gateway experiment gone wrong, a 400 year
old female Drakon is transported to our universe and Earth in the year
1995 AD. She lands in New York City, takes her bearings, and sets out
to build a gateway back to her Earth so that the Drakon can invade and
convert our Earth to look like her Earth with the Domination. After
all, her 200+ IQ and warrior skills enable her to find scientists and
lead them also. But, a colony of Homo Sapiens from Alpha Centauri
detect the interuniverse wormhole and send an agent to follow her.
https://smstirling.com/
My rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars (197 reviews)
Lynn

It was kind of a frustrating place to "end" the series. It *was* nice to
see the Draka get their comeuppance in one of the Raj Whitehall spinoffs.

The Chosen were Draka wanna-bees, not quite the real thing.

[Jon Leech]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
see the Draka get their comeuppance in one of the Raj Whitehall spinoffs.

The Chosen were Draka wanna-bees, not quite the real thing.

I talked briefly with David Drake once and he said he had specifically setup that book
for the Chosen to fail, with some implication of using it as a corrective for his
co-author (it has been about 30 years since that conversation so my ability to parse
the sidebands has decayed).

Jon
__@/

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Drakon" by S. M. Stirling
My rating: 5 out of 5 stars

I found this a lot more memorable than the preceding three Draka
books, about which I recall very little.

There is a nice scene were a bunch of law enforcement types compare
notes about the early trail of destruction that Gwen has wrought
and the seemingly impossible evidence left behind, and in very
Sherlock Holmesian fashion they cooly conclude that they must be
dealing with a time traveler from the future. Which is not quite
correct, but close enough. And everybody in the room is in agreement.