To: 
From: "Vern Humphrey" 
Reply-To: r_catholic-l{at}yahoogroups.com

To: seanmbrook{at}aol.com [mailto:seanmbrook{at}aol.com]
> > >
>  I recall.  In fact, Jamestown nearly failed more than
>  once in its early years.  If it had collapsed soon,
>  England might have again lost interest in colonies
>  for many more years.

Very likely, particularly when stood against the earlier failure at Roanoak.
>
>  All the same, tobacco is nasty stuff.  Too bad the
>  colonists hit on that means of making money.  AND
>  how tobacco farming encouraged slavery.

Well, slavery already existed.  The first slaves were brought to Virginia
by the Dutch, who had a rousing slave trade going.  The real impetus behind
the African slave trade was Bishop De Las Casa's idea that it was more
humane to enslave Blacks than Indians.  Of course, given the death rate
among the Indians, and the Spanish need for labor, it was probably
inevitable anyway.
> >
> > VH> Worthwhile for who?  The successful raiders became quite rich.
> > >
>  True. I had more in mind what Bessie thought.

Bessie owned shares in the pirate ventures, and the proceeds went into her purse.
> > >
>  Largely because England was no threat to France,
>  I assume.  SPAIN was the power France feared.

At that time, yes -- and England had not developed her later policy of
always backing the second-strongest continental power against the
strongest.
>
> > VH> Again, correct - there also would have been less need to
> use religion to
> > justify England's actions.
> > > >
>  E.g., no persecution of English and Irish Catholics.
>  Assuming France was an implacable enemy of
>  England in 1558, Bessie would have had a good
>  solid reason for keeping her promises to Queen
>  Mary that she would stay Catholic.

But Elizabeth was far too amoral to think much of promises.
> >
> > VH> It is an axiom of economics that people need not maximize
> their profits,
> > only that they TRY to do so.
> > > >
>  True.  And, it was really those of the gentry who
>  invested in piracy who profited long term, not the
>  Crown.

And there were fortunes founded in England on Pirate treasure.
> >
> > VH> Certainly -- along with quite a few other English
"heroes."
> > >
>  I had all pirates in mind.  Americans as well as the
>  English.

Most pirates were not American -- even Blackbeard was an Englishman, albeit
living in North Carolina.
> >
> > VH> The Spanish tried to USE the sea without controlling it.
> The operation
> > should have been carried out in phases, with gaining control of
> the Channel
> > being the first phase.  In other words, a pure fighting fleet
> should have
> > been used, with bases established or seized with the aim of
> forward-basing
> >
>
>  That does clarify matters.  Iow, a fighting fleet accom-
>  panied by several thousand infantry should have
>  seized a coastal town and harbor.

They should have aimed at defeating the English in the channel first, THEN
crossed.  The Duke of Parma's timing, always blamed for the failure, had
nothing to do with it.  Had the Armada aimed at defeating the English fleed
and succeeded, it wouldn't have mattered when the troops embarked.

The plan was too complex and too ambitious.  It should have been broken into phases.
>
> > VH> The King, however, had forbidden the Armada to seize
> islands rather than
> > strike at the main island itself.
> > > >
>  A bad mistake!  Was Philip II advised by some of his
>  military experts to do as you suggested above?  If
>  not, that does make the mistake more understandable.
>
>  And, by "islands," do you mean the Channel islands?
>  Aren't they too far from England to be good advance
>  bases?  They're only a few miles off the coast of
>  France!

Take a look at a map of south east England amd locate the Isle of Wight. 
It had served as a foothold for the Romans and the Danes as a stepping
stone to the rest of England.
>
> > VH> And had the Spanish gained control of the Channel, he could have
> > crossed in
>
>  Assuming the weather was good! 

Once in control of the Channel, they could afford to wait for good weather.
>
> > >
>  I could point out that other conquerors were accepted
>  by the English.  Canute the Great of Denmark, for
>  example.  And he had NO claim except conquest
>  for the crown.  The Infanta Isabel was at least a
>  descendant of Edward III.

The earlier conquerors did not face a united England -- they faced tribal
and local kingdoms only loosely allied.
>
>  But your suggestion about splitting Ireland and
>  England apart is interesting.  Albeit, it DOUBLES
>  the problem for Philip II.  Who would he set up as
>  king or queen for both if Bessie was disposed of?
>  The Tudors had pretty well wiped out all who had
>  an arguable claim to the throne.

Why not the old Irish aristocracy?  Some of them served in his forces.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Where Catholic Singles Go Online - StRaphael.net is the world's #1 website
for single Catholics. If you are looking for friendship, marriage or even a
religious vocation, StRaphael.cnet is the place to be. Join Today Free!
www.StRaphael.net
http://us.click.yahoo.com/r_NezC/1M1FAA/EDtLAA/28VolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Visit R_Catholic-L member homepages at: http://home.cox.rr.com/rraphael
http://rcatholic-l.freeservers.com
http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz
http://www.lisaslighthouse.org
http://members.aol.com/SisterNeri/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP