Proud Eagle

I think every student has heard at least one horror story of some radical professor that turned their class into an indoctrination session. Students that hold apposing views are sometimes ridiculed for their beliefs. Other times professors will allow their idealogical bias to affect the grades they give students. So if a student sees a Che Guevara poster on the wall they will be inclined to think they may very well have such a biased teacher, and decide it is a good idea to suppress their real views in order to survive the coarse. (I would also note that for many people, being a Che Guevara fan would automatically qualify someone as irrational and closed minded, so that wouldn't exactly help either. Though that is more a case of a student bias against the position of the instructor.)

Oh, and I for one am all in favor of professional dress codes and codes for personal appearance for professionals. (That could potentially allow for clean, neat, well groomed long hair, or not.) If a professor is not a true professional, well I don't know who is. Maybe next year we can start having state dinners with the dress code being T-shirts and jeans. New presidential campaign promise "if elected I will not cut, comb, or wash my hair".

Thank you all for the replies. I knew someone would have some good information if I asked around.

I think I also got a good reply from my Lodge Adviser. He told me I needed to call the office in TX and talk to the OA secretary to find the information I am seeking. (Though I wonder if he is referring to the secretary in the office, or if he was thinking of the old term for the OA directer.) That does sound like it would be the most efficient method of inquiring about availability of slots in the programs.

Oh, and I did finally get the PM. Apparently Yahoo decided to dump it in the Bulk Mail folder with all the spam for some reason.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

While I thank you both for the links, I am afraid I have already checked both of those locations. I may have missed something, but I did not find what I was looking for.

What I really need is probably a telephone number (and a name to go with it), or perhaps an email address. I know I could contact the camps, but it is my understanding that registration is handled through the national OA office in Texas. While additional information on the programs themselves would also be very useful, it would be most helpful to determine if participation is still possible this year or not before seeking out the details on the program.

College students are more likely to vote than what other group? The average American perhaps, well that isn't anything to be proud of.

Most college students don't vote. Most college graduates don't vote. Most college drop outs don't vote. Most people don't vote.

So saying that college students vote more often than some other group, and therefore the outcome of national elections is a good gage of the presence, or absence, of a political bias on campus is beyond absurd.

Of coarse, I believe it was Churchill that said something along the lines that if a man wasn't a socialist at 20 he had no heart, and if he wasn't a conservative by 40, he had no brain.

Of coarse I converted from being a liberal to being a conservative at about the age of 13, so I wonder what that says about me?

Oh, I must note that I am a college student. I am majoring in political science. I must agree that there is a liberal bias in the general academic community. There are of coarse some conservative professors. Another factor is the degree to which the person injects their bias into their teaching, and the degree to which the students are aware of the bias. The really devious ones inject a truck load of bias before anyone starts to notice.

However, perhaps more worrisome is the droves of students that take anything spoken by someone with a PhD as gospel. Intellectual curiosity and free thinking is not something the universities are all that great at promoting. Of coarse the problems of that sort also are not helped by the primary and secondary education systems. Reminds me of something that happened in my high school physics class...(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

According to the OA website, they will continue accepting applications until all slots are filled. They begin notifying accepted applicants on May 14th, and continue on as long as slots remain available.

In the past I have talked with some people that have been involved with these programs, and generally they said there are at least some slots that are not filled at all. This is particularly true with Wilderness Voyage, as it seems to be less popular than Trail Crew.

Obviously it would be best to send in applications and deposits as early as possible to make certain there is space available and to allow the greatest possible amount of time to finalize arrangements for travel etc.

If any Scout honestly thinks that wearing the patch qualifies as actively serving, they are an idiot beyond any hope of self improvement.

If on the other hand they have seen other Scouts get away with doing nothing, and therefore think that justifies their own attempt at getting by without doing anything, then they posses a wide array of undesirable attributes, some of which are contrary to the Scout Oath and Law.

By the time some one is going up for a Star, Life, or Eagle BOR they must know that these positions require carrying out some responsibility of some sort. If they are uncertain of what exactly their position requires, they should be able to either ask someone with such knowledge, or seek it out in the vast array of BSA publications.

I know I was never formally trained in the position of SPL, but that didn't stop me from knowing what had to be done. I had seen previous SPLs. I also took the time to seek out some extra materials to read more about the job. If you don't know what the job is, the first step in getting it done is to find out. If you don't know how to do it once you know what it is, then your second step is to learn how. These are common sense things that everyone must learn.

Here is a good "test" for the BOR to use:

Ask the Scout what his POR is.

Ask him what the responsibilities of that position are.

Ask him what needs to be done to fulfill those responsibilities.

Ask him how he did those things.

Then ask him if he did the job as well as he should have. Ask him if he did as well as the other members of the troop and patrol deserved for him to do.

If the Scout didn't do the job, he will come to that conclusion on his own. At that point, he will either tell you so, or he will decide to deliberately deceive you to advance himself.

I know I for one don't ever plan on affirming as truth something I know to be a lie by passing someone at a BOR or signing off the advancement form in such a case.

If an appeals board decides to do so, then the responsibility for that is with them, not with me.

Oh, one final note. If someone does somehow work their way up through the ranks in a unit where it is possible to think that doing nothing is all the service required for the position of responsibility, then they are not in fact a member of a Boy Scout Troop. The paper work may say so, but it wouldn't be so.

I know many counselors that won't give credit for old work after certain period of inactivity. If the person is actually taking that long to complete the badge, sure that is one thing. However, if they completely stop working on the badge, and then later decide to start again, I have heard of many people that will refuse to give credit for the old work. Most I have heard use either a six month or one year time period.

Is this official BSA policy? Most certainly not.

Is there any way to make a merit badge counselor sign off on something if they don't want to? Again, no.

Should these counselors be creating such standards? Probably not, but then again I think they can refuse to work with someone for whatever reason they choose.

I happen to know of some individuals that have recently become interested in these programs this year. However, there is some concern that by the time an application could be approved by the lodge adviser and scout executive, and then mailed to the national office, and then confirmation mailed back to the individuals, that it would be very difficult to make the various arrangements necessary to actually be able to attend. (Obviously this assumes all the slots are not yet taken. Though I have been told they usually operate bellow maximum capacity.)

My question then is who should be contacted to seek out additional information? The only method of contact provided on the applications or the associated on line materials is the mailing address for the Order of the Arrow in TX. There is one telephone number listed on the OA website, but it is listed as being available for answering immediate questions regarding policy. So the question is who (and by what method) can someone who knows something be contacted?

(Since it appears such information is closely guarded, you may wish to send the reply privately, if possible.)

I happen to know of some individuals that have recently become interested in these programs this year. However, there is some concern that by the time an application could be approved by the lodge adviser and scout executive, and then mailed to the national office, and then confirmation mailed back to the individuals, that it would be very difficult to make the various arrangements necessary to actually be able to attend. (Obviously this assumes all the slots are not yet taken. Though I have been told they usually operate bellow maximum capacity.)

My question then is who should be contacted to seek out additional information? The only method of contact provided on the applications or the associated on line materials is the mailing address for the Order of the Arrow in TX. There is one telephone number listed on the OA website, but it is listed as being available for answering immediate questions regarding policy. So the question is who (and by what method) can someone who knows something be contacted?

(Since it appears such information is closely guarded, you may wish to send the reply privately, if possible.)

Reminds me of the new priest using the palm pilot for his homily notes. It was a pretty good idea, especially since he moved around the congregation during the homily to keep everyone more engaged. The only problem was he would occasionally have to pause, pull out the stylus, and page down a bit. It killed the flow of it, but oh well.

I am afraid my troop doesn't sing or recite anything around the fire. We used to tell stories, but that has also died out. I don't even think I know anything to use any more. The best thing I know off hand I am afraid I couldn't use around a troop campfire, though I have told it around a fire during a different sort of Scouting event.

Adults don't wear patrol patches on the uniform for their troop/pack/district/crew/council/ect. uniform.

However, if an adult still has a uniform rigged as their Wood Badge uniform, it is perfectly fine to have a patrol patch on that. I know a couple of people in my council that never reconfigured their wood badge shirts, and instead keep them for periodic wear to wood badge reunions, or just for when the run out of other clean uniforms. This works particularly well in our council, since there is a Wood Badge council strip.

It would be far easier to ask them to print a copy of the records off of the Scout Net system. This will show what has been entered into each individuals records. If everything checks out on these, that means they almost certainly received the original advancement report, and likely still have it on file. If there is a problem, then you need to start using the paper records to sort them out. Just find out what the computer says before you ask someone to start digging through paper files.

Wouldn't that be a matter of how you define what constitutes the BSA?

What I am trying to say is, one person could consider the BSA to be only the national council, while another could define the BSA as being any part of the Boy Scouts of America, down to its individual members.

Another possible point of contention would be the definition of "gets". Are we talking about currently receiving, or having received at some point in the past? After all, the Catholic Church once received $1000 from the federal government during the presidency of George Washington for the purpose of building a new church building. However, I don't think anyone would claim that as a current example of getting government money.

However, I do have to say, it appears that the government did give some money to a local council in this case. My guess would be the local council thought it was being truthful in the contract, but simply had a interpretation of what religious discrimination is that differed from that held by the ACLU, and perhaps by the courts, though that last part is still to be seen.

I seem to remember hearing of a local case where a local housing authority received a HUD grant. That grant was to fund a variety of local youth programs. One of the programs that benefited was Scout unit chartered in the housing project, because the housing authority purchased some camping gear which the unit members were then able to use. Here the government did not give money to BSA, yet BSA members benefited (along with others). I think arrangements of this sort are probably rather common, and almost certainly legal. Not that it would make too much difference if they were not completely legal. After all, there is no such thing as a law without a loop hole or exception or waiver of some sort. My home town was able to get a federal highway grant that specifically prohibits it from being used for historic preservation or roadside beautification, and used it to construct a replica of a historic fountain in a local park.

I went to the old museum in Murray once during an OA lodge event. I liked the museum, but the facilities it was in could have used some work, and there was little room for growth. Also, Murray isn't exactly the easiest place in the world to get to. I seem to recall one of the major reasons for the move being a lack of continuing support from Murray State University (the old museum location) and the local community. Also, there were essentially offers of large amounts of money that would only become available if the museum moved to some different location. I seem to recall hearing that St. Louis had been one of the stronger alternatives.

On the other hand, Texas is far from being the most traveled place in the nation, and it certainly isn't centrally located, particularly on the north/south axis.

I have yet to have any reason to travel to, or through Texas, and I can't think of any reason to do so in the near future. Maybe some day I will get to the new museum, but I won't be holding my breath.

I wonder if the collection is extensive and redundant enough to establish either a permanent traveling exhibition, or some sort of secondary location at some point in the future. I would think a secondary collection located some place like Washington D.C. would be a good idea if money ever became available for the purpose. After all, the Scouting museum will probably never really be an attraction that will draw people from the farthest states unless they have other reasons to travel to the area.

I personally like both campfires and shows. I don't generally define one as a program with a fire and the other as one without. Usually a show has a different sort of program from a campfire. SR-6N usually does a show for conclave. NOAC has shows. Jambo more or less uses shows.

When I think campfire I think of those attending actually participating in some portion of the program. I think of traditional stuff like camp songs, patrol skits, and things like that.

When I think of shows, I think of those attending more or less sitting back to enjoy the program with only minimal participation. I think of things like slide shows, a theme show, or some sort of guest entertainment.

Often you will see shows incorporating campfire type program elements and campfires incorporating show type program elements. Really they are both just ways of entertaining. Maybe some of the old camp songs are being forgotten and replaced by a power point presentation recapping the days events, but I certainly don't think the campfire has gone out, at least not in the figurative sense.

Everyone is politically biased. (OK, every adult that has full mental facilities.) If anyone says otherwise they are lying.

Now good journalists used to be the ones that were able to overcome their biases and report the news as completely, correctly, and fairly as possible. This also extended to editors and producers making the selections of what stories would be shown and how much time would be given to each. Did they always succeed? Certainly not, but they made the effort. However, things have changed quite a bit in journalism in the past few decades, just as they have in previous times changed in other ways.

Now the big news outlets are dominated by left leaning reporters, editors, producers, and the like. Most of them probably think they are doing a good job of unbiased reporting. However, what they are really doing is a good job of hiding their biases beneath the surface. Essentially, they are slanting the news to the left, but in ways that make it appear at first glance to be unbiased.

FOX news on the other hand, is far more open about their biases. Sure, the don't have a big banner that says, "America's Right Leaning Network" or anything like that, but they don't hide the biases either. Instead, everybody knows the leaning of the reporters, commentators, editors, and producers at Fox (including the left leaning ones). Yet, they still attempt to present the news in a reasonable way. If Fox was as biased as some think, the prisoner abuse scandal would immediately been taken off the air and replaced by non-stop 24/7 coverage of Iraqi children going to schools built with American money and things like that. Those that think Fox takes it news straight from the RNC have probably never bothered to actually look at the stuff the RNC does put out. If they did, they would know they are not written by the same people. Fox used that "we report, you decide" slogan for a while. It was much maligned as was "fair and balanced". Well, perhaps a more complete version would be, "we already decided, but we are still going to report and let you decide".

MSNBC is also a bit more transparent than the old networks in its coverage and commentary. It still suffers from some of the old problems, but usually you can tell which side the various MSNBC people are coming from.

CNN on the other hand, seems to think it is still the ultimate in journalism. Yet, it doesn't take much of an effort to find people slipping in ridicule of religious conviction in the middle of news reports. All while maintaining the-this-is-the-unbiased-truth-without-any-opinions-tone-of-voice. (It was a while back that I saw that happen. Essentially two of their news people denounced Pat Robertson, and millions of American Christians, as being nut jobs. It wasn't done in a OK, I think that is crazy sort of way, it was the it is a proven fact these people are crazy sort of way.)

NPR certainly has a left bias as well. They do have some good journalists, but they also have more than their fair share of left leaning programs and journalists. I seem to remember All Things Considered being one of the more amusingly biased programs they have.

Generally speaking, most of the media is left leaning. Only a small portion of it is far left. Generally, it is just a short distance to the left of center. However, it takes a few sources that lean a bit farther right to try to balance out the larger volume of the media that leans left. I think the success of these right leaning media sources validates the point. When alternatives became available, a large number of people decided to partake of them. The reason hard core left wing media (such as various attempts in recent years at liberal talk radio) don't work is because there is already an abundant supply of news for those that prefer a left slant. I think eventually the media situation will even out a bit. There will be moderate news sources and there will be fringe news sources, and there will be everything in between on both sides of the political spectrum (and perhaps even some off the tradition left/right axis). The more moderate providers with a larger appeal will end up dominating the TV news and newspapers. More extreme providers will continue to distribute the limited circulation means such as small talk radio programs at obscure ours of the night, and Internet blogs, and monthly newsletter and such things as this. However, the media is still in a state of flux adjusting to the proliferation of cable and satellite TV and the increase in channels broadcasting by those means, and it has only just begun to adjust to the still emerging on-line media sources.

This is funny... yet sad... and all because it is far too near to the truth.

Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan--Red

That was the post WWI/pre WWII plan for war with the United Kingdom. Since the US and UK were the two greatest naval powers of the time and one was a rising global power while the other was receding, it was not illogical, especially given differing political goals, that a scenario could occur that would lead to war between the US and UK.

As part of that larger plan, War Plan Crimson called for the invasion of Canada. (Red being the UK, Crimson being Canada, Orange being Japan, and other colors assigned to other possible threats.) This was thought to be the easiest way for the US to do damage to the UK, particularly on land.

Crimson was never really developed into a complete operational plan. It was really more of an outline, since other threats were given higher priority.

Really the only one of the color plans to be fully developed was War Plan Orange, which received a great deal of attention, particularly from naval planner, for the entire 20s and 30s, except for a few years in the late 20s/early 30s putting together the basic components of Red. Red was maintained well after it became both politically and militarily obsolete because it contained essentially the only plans for fighting a naval war in the Atlantic. As such it was thought it would make a good basis for any future such naval conflict.

Interestingly enough, War Plan Black (Germany) was far underdeveloped do to domestic political pressure. Had war been more likely prior to 1939 it would certainly have received more attention for practical reasons. Had it seemed more remote of a possibility, the politics would have allowed it to be developed more fully while still maintaining the cover of a purely academic exercise.

Other war plans:

White - domestic uprising

Green - Mexico

Gray - any Caribbean nation

Purple - Central America

Gold - France

also combined Red/Gold and Red/Orange plans existed at various times

Eventually in 1939 five new plans named Rainbow were developed for the possibility of fighting enemies on both oceans at once. It was Rainbow Five that was eventually used, more or less.

Also, there were older plans for war an invasion of Canada. It wouldn't surprise me if US and Canadian officers now do US-Canada war games just for the practice.

Do a search in any major search engine for any of the war plans and you will find some interesting stuff.

On a largely unrelated note, Canada is not a true socialist nation. It incorporates far more of the elements of socialism than the US does (which is already more socialist than I care for). However, it does not incorporate all of them. I find any long term move away from liberal/socialist policies to be unlikely in Canada. The conservative political forces are far too divided in Canada.

As for the US being fascist, I think we can quite easily refute that claim. About the most the US has in common with fascism are a hand full of essentially socialist policies, since after all fascism, like its cousins communism, Nazism, and democratic-socialism, are all variations on the basic socialist concept. In fact, I would say that both Canada and the UK, as well as most of the rest of the major western nations, have more in common with fascism than the US does, due to their closer ties with socialism, and in some cases legal traditions (partially rooted in the old monarchies) that favor control by the central goverment over either local or individual control.

While I may not think it is a good idea to carry a sheath knife at all times, this is because I believe it is not usually the best tool for the job. However, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with carrying a sheath knife. I might comment that those folding multi-tools with pliers are often far more of a tool than is needed for common camp tasks, such as cutting a piece of twine or string. Yet no one seems to care if someone has one of those.

Sheath knives work just as well as a knife as any other knife. At times they are even better. The only down side is there is a slightly increased risk to the person carrying it. However, using proper sheaths and carrying the knife in a good location largely mitigates that concern.

Now if these boys don't know how to properly use a large sheath knife, or if they are breaking any laws by carrying them, or if they are carrying them for some mischievous reason such as intimidating others, then that is not acceptable. If they simply prefer a sheath knife to a folding knife, I would simply make certain they understand the benefits and drawbacks of both.

Oh, and while some have ridiculed the idea of self defense a legitimate reason for carrying a knife, I would suggest there are some occasions where this may be the prudent thing to do. For example, if hiking in the back country in a small group in an area that contains a significant population of dangerous animals, it wouldn't be the worst idea to have a plan C in case plan A (avoiding close contact) and plan B (scarring the animal away) both fail. I don't mean to suggest every Philmont group should carry an allotment of machetes, but there are times that dangerous animals are a significant enough risk to warrant taking precautions (though simply choosing another destination might also be a good way to mitigate the risk, that isn't always a viable option).

As to taking away someone's card, I would say there are certainly times that is justified. If this Scout was doing something that was grossly unsafe, then they have demonstrated that they are not willing to abide by the safety rules they have already been taught. Such a blatant disregard for their own safety and the safety of others cannot be tolerated.

Finally, I would hope most troops have access to sheath knives and axes. Both of these (but most particularly axes) are quite necessary to teach the proper and safe use of the full range of woods tools. If a Scout can't handle a sheath knife or an axe, I don't think I would feel too comfortable signing a Totin Chip card for them, that is for sure.

The SPL should have a nice friendly chat with his assistant. The two of them should discuss who is in charge, what each is responisble for, and such. If at the end of the chat the ASPL still isn't part of the solution, then he is part of the problem and must be asked to step down.

The SPL should have a nice friendly chat with his assistant. The two of them should discuss who is in charge, what each is responisble for, and such. If at the end of the chat the ASPL still isn't part of the solution, then he is part of the problem and must be asked to step down.

The fact that it is on a military base has little to do with the 50 mile rule. If they can't have visitors, then they can't have visitors, it doesn't matter how far from the base they are camped.

As to visitors being in activity areas, I agree, they need to stay out of those that are for participants only. That being said, they don't really do a very good job of indicating what activities and areas are participant only and which ones are open to anyone.

I still think visiting Jambo should be encouraged, not discouraged (provided that Jambo is open to visitors in the first place). Heck visitors even help recruit participants and staff for future. If I hadn't gone as a visitor in 1997 I wouldn't have decided to go as a participant in 2001.

However, the 50 mile rule is not a major problem. It just requires a very early start and a somewhat late night in order to make up for the extra travel time. (Also, I really wonder how well the councils actually check the distances.) I seem to remember something like a 4:00a.m. wake up the day we visited in 97 so that we could drive in and be some of the first visitors through the gate. We stayed for the show that night so I don't think we got back to our campsite until something like midnight, though I could be wrong. Also, touring is no problem during that week. Since all the participants are at AP Hill, there aren't any big crouds in DC. On the other hand, the days just before and after the Jamborree (mostly before) are totally nuts in and around DC.

Often times you will find at least a few activities that don't bother checking to see if everyone is a participant. Really it comes down to how diligent and observant the staff is in that area. I must say I wish the staff would do a better job of keeping visitors out of the participant only activities. The lines for many activities can easily be such that you spend many times longer waiting than in actually doing the activity.

Some areas are supposed to be open to visitors. It would be easy to spend one day doing just those things, particularly if it is the day of one of the shows.

I attended one day of the 1997 Jambo with my home troop as a visitor. I believe it was opening ceremony day, or whichever day Clinton came to speak.

I also attended the 2001 Jambo as a member of the council contingent.

I had more fun going as a visitor, but that was largely because the opportunities for touring are much better with a small group. The troop only had to find places that could take 15 or so at a time. The council could only send the contingent to places that could handle groups of 120 or larger. Also, the troop actually planned its touring schedule and made advance reservations. The council contingent didn't have any touring planned in advance. Instead, we just drove into down town DC with 3 tour buses and started looking for places to go.

Also, it was far cheaper to go with the home troop.

In both 1997 and 2001 the troop stayed in Fairfax County VA. There are locations there for low cost camping that allows for easy access to both DC and to Jambo.

As for wearing the patches, only those who are registered participants or staff members may wear the Jambo patch. I happen to agree with this rule. Perhaps they should create a visitor patch.

I would also note I think the 50 mile rule is moronic at best. If the Jambo was open to as many people as could pay, that would be one thing. However, there are a limited number of slots in each contingent. As such, there are many who would like to go and could even afford to that are not able to do so. I think any troop that wishes to travel to the DC area and visit Jambo should be encouraged to do so.

All that being said, I would strongly encourage everyone that has the opportunity to go do Jambo as either a participant or as staff. It is a unique experience. There are many opportunities to go to DC and the surrounding area, but few to experience Scouting on the magnitude of Jambo.

Oh, and can anyone explain why Jambo costs so much?

NOAC this year the Lodge contingent fee, including NOAC registration fee, hats, shirts, patches, transportation, and some sight seeing, is less than the registration fee for Jambo. Yet at NOAC the program is just as intense, and the housing is better (air conditioned dorm rooms) and the food is better (or at least more expensive, cafeteria style meals). Yet Jambo, which should have added advantages from economy of scale, and reduced costs in housing and food, is actually far more expensive. It doesn't make sense to me.

Nuremberg proved that just following orders is no excuse. It didn't work for the Nazis, and it shouldn't work for some American prison guards either.

In any case, I am willing to bet we won't find orders telling these guards to do this, because there were probably never any written orders. There may or may not have been verbal orders, but I would be willing to bet there were never any true orders.

There may have been suggestions, or hints, or other means used to communicate to these guards that certain actions might be useful, but the persons making those suggestions were probably smart enough not to leave a paper trail.

Now these soldiers should have known these were unlawful actions and refused to participate. Anyone wittnessing these actions should have acted to stop them.

These soldiers should also have noticed there was something odd about the way they were being told to do these things (if they in fact were told to do them). Being told to do something this unusual by some CIA person outsider their chain of command should have raised some eyebrows. They certainly should have sought guidance from some place before proceeding.

Those who committed the acts of abuse must be held fully accountable. Orders or no orders they committed crimes and must be punished for them.

Anyone who knew of the abuse and did not act to stop it must also be punished.

Anyone in the chain of command that failed to put in place proper means of supervision must be punished. Anyone in the chain of command that failed to hold soldiers to proper standards and failed to conduct sufficient training must be punished.

Anyone who suggested/ordered these abuses must also be punished.

However, we currently have only enough evidence to prove that the abuse took place, and that those in the photos committed the abuse. Other evidence may exist and some it may already be in the hands of investigaters. The truth must be found, the guilty punished, and steps taken to see that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

Not to further muddle the issue, but investigations have shown that the Maine probably exploded due to an on board accident, involving a fire in a coal bunker if I remember correctly. While it isn't really possible to prove this beyond any doubt, it now appears to be the most likely cause of the explosion.

As to the War of 1812, that was a bit of a mess to say the least. The US claim was that the British were responsible because of various policies including the impression of US sailors (the British even refused to acknowledge that most of them were in fact US citizens), and the occasional theft of ships and cargo. I seem to recall the British were again fighting the French and the US got stuck in the middle to a certain extent. At the time some actually supported war with France since they were doing things much the same as the British. In the end the US decided to invade Canada since that would serve a dual purpose. The invasion of Canada turned into a disaster (due to a combination of poor leadership, some bad luck, inaccurate intelligence, and the use of a mostly defensive force in an offensive role), but in an odd twist, the US Navy actually managed some significant victories against the British Royal Navy. In the end both countries realized the war was of no benefit to either, and so a treaty was hammered out. Then Jackson managed to beat the British attempting to take New Orleans and made it look like the US had won the war.

Of coarse the Canadians had reason to worry in the late 1860s. The US could have easily raised the most powerful army in the world, drawing on both northern and southern strengths. Though the British would likely have had an advantage on the high seas, since most of the US warships built during the Civil War were designed for blockade duties near the coast or for work in inland water ways. In any case, the victorious northerners were too busy "reconstructing" the south to go "reconstruct" Canada.