Napoleonic France brutally stamped out many uprisings against its rule in many of the places it had invaded and subjugated.
Napoleon would have done the same to any Irish uprising against French rule had he managed to conquer it.
Napoleonic France would not have treated the Irish any better than Britain had done.
Have you got any evidence to back up your absurd claim that Castlereagh killed himself over some supposed guilt he felt at the way the Irish were treated? This was the early 19th Century, not the wishy-washy, PC, guilt-ridden early 21st Century.
Castlereagh killed himself because he went mad from gout.
The Six Acts was merely a nervous government responding to the scenes of revolution it had seen in some other places in Europe around that time and not long before, which was scared that the same would happen in Britain.
Alf, you are indeed the 'Master of Deflection'.
Castlereagh went mad for a 'number o' reasons'- the growing social ostracism against him post 1814 was one of them. Wolfe Tone's rebellion was not for independence , Originally, - it was for the VOTE and civil rights for the 'soulless bestial Papists".:roll:
Pressing stopped before the end of the war in practice and was made law in 1814.
The pressing had already stopped so it was achieved by force.
Yet true! I know it hurts bad to hear that the Brits lost... but face it.
British demands...
As the peace talks opened, the British demanded the creation of an Indian barrier state in the American Northwest Territory (the area from Ohio to Wisconsin), and they demanded that Americans not have any naval forces on the Great Lakes. The U.S. rejected the demands and there was an impasse.
A barrier state was not created...the US maintained naval forces on the Great Lakes.
I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America ... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power ... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any- Duke of Wellington
The Brits wanted concessions but they failed to get any... and ...
Expansionist interests in the American Northwest were better served, since all British-held territory in this area was surrendered to the United States. This severance of British–American Indian ties led in 1814 and 1815 to a number of treaties of allegiance and land transfer between the Indians and the United States and thus opened the way to American settlement of the Northwest.
So say the embarrassed Brits.
Coming from you! That is hilarious.
The War of 1812 was sparsely mentioned in the US. However I can see why the Brits ignored it. It was yet another embarrassing defeat to the US.
BL's history texts, have, I suspect, pages in which you can colour with crayons.
Wellington recognised the reality - without effective British cavalry and fast horse drawn mobile artillery, in 'the new war' Andrew Jackson would have swept into Canada in 1815. Better make peace while you can. The Battle of the Thames was a harbinger of what Mounted infantry with flintlocks and tomahawks could do against a strung out thin red line- on foot.
