Happy War of 1812 Day.

[Oberon]

To be fair Tribesman, the other three chaps we nabbed from the Chesapeake were press-ganged into Royal Navy service. The legality of that, in hindsight, is somewhat debatable, and indeed was quite distasteful to Americans of the time.

Furthermore, the Leopard barely gave the Chesapeake notice to stand down before she gave a full broadside.

However, we did offer to return (and did return) all three of the American citizens and pay reparations.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

To be fair Tribesman, the other three chaps we nabbed from the Chesapeake were press-ganged into Royal Navy service. The legality of that, in hindsight, is somewhat debatable, and indeed was quite distasteful to Americans of the time.

Furthermore, the Leopard barely gave the Chesapeake notice to stand down before she gave a full broadside.

However, we did offer to return (and did return) all three of the American citizens and pay reparations.

That's one single incident among many Oberon. How about the Leander affair?

Blockading French ports is one thing, "confusion to boney" and all that, but anchoring frigates right in New York harbor and indiscriminately shooting cannonballs at civilian shipping while they stop, board and search everything afloat for stuff and people to steal is a bit over the top.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

That's one single incident among many Oberon. How about the Leander affair?

Blockading French ports is one thing, "confusion to boney" and all that, but anchoring frigates right in New York harbor and indiscriminately shooting cannonballs at civilian shipping while they stop, board and search everything afloat for stuff and people to steal is a bit over the top.

I defer to my earlier comment on 'British law'

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I defer to my earlier comment on 'British law'

Exactly, and that is ultimately what the war of 1812 was about. Proving to England and everyone else that bullying us would now come with a cost.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Oberon

To be fair Tribesman, the other three chaps we nabbed from the Chesapeake were press-ganged into Royal Navy service. The legality of that, in hindsight, is somewhat debatable, and indeed was quite distasteful to Americans of the time.

Furthermore, the Leopard barely gave the Chesapeake notice to stand down before she gave a full broadside.

However, we did offer to return (and did return) all three of the American citizens and pay reparations.

I did hear that as well, but I think with our rebellion being still somewhat fresh in the minds of both, the situation was escalated.

Britain thought they could push their will, and America thought we should teach them another lesson.

Enslavement is enslavement. Whether you did it to our sailors, or attempted to do it (again) to our nation.

We earned this, let us destroy ourselves accordingly.

Edit: But things always change, I like to think we are the best of friends now, and have no need to be hostile. We both got over it, and have bigger mutual fish to fry.

[Oberon]

I fully agree, it was a foolhardy endeavour, but at that point Britain was still in the frame of mind of about six or seven decades earlier. It needed taking down a peg or two, and it was systematically done so in South Africa, China and Afghanistan over the next century, and then came the Great War and the end of the Empire.
Every empire runs up against a brick wall eventually, be it expansion through hard or soft power.

[Sailor Steve]

Of course the American state of mind was varied and complicated at that point. Under President Washington we tried to stay out of the British-French conflicts. His Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, didn't exactly support the British, but he didn't trust the French. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson wasn't happy with the bloody turn the French Revolution took, but he didn't trust the British. They fought about it incessantly. After Jefferson resigned his post Hamilton convinced the president that Britain was the lesser evil, and could actually protect their convoys. Washington sent John Jay to negotiate a treaty that gave away more than it gained, and Jefferson wrote a letter to a friend that became public, causing a falling-out between him and Washington.

While John Adams was president and Jefferson vice-president French ships preyed on Amercan merchants in French waters. There was a large public outcry demanding that we go to war with France. Adams kept us out of war, but waged an undeclared 'quasi-war'. Hamilton wanted the war, seemingly because he would be the commanding general which would set him up as a candidate for president. When Adams prevented that from happening Hamilton reacted by withdrawing his support in the next election, which Jefferson won.

During Jefferson's presidency the 'Chesapeake Affair' took place, which Jefferson countered with an embargo which hurt the United States more than anyone else. British sailors jumped ship because conditions were much better in the US Navy and merchant service. This continued to 1812 and you know the rest. I just wanted to point out that conditions on both sides were confused politically and both sides went into the war with no clear objectives, and it was pretty much a mess for everybody.

[Oberon]

The entire era was a mess, when you look at Europe and the fracturing and rebuilding of nations that took place, and then onwards to the American Civil War and eventually the tensions that broke into World War One.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The entire era was a mess, when you look at Europe and the fracturing and rebuilding of nations that took place, and then onwards to the American Civil War and eventually the tensions that broke into World War One.

One war leads to another then by what you say because the way WWI ended it only lead into WWII.As long as nations or even groups feel a threat to their hegemony they will wind up in a war sooner or later seems to me.How many wars occur in just one life time too many to count on all your fingers and toes.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

One war leads to another then by what you say because the way WWI ended it only lead into WWII.As long as nations or even groups feel a threat to their hegemony they will wind up in a war sooner or later seems to me.How many wars occur in just one life time too many to count on all your fingers and toes.

Spot on, if you want to nail the actual start of it all...well...you'd probably have to go back to Roman times, if not earlier. Start of human history perhaps, war is something we excel at, and is a double edged sword (pardon the pun).

Britain and France were at war. That makes it okay to poach on neutral shipping? No wonder we wanted to get away from you jackwagons!

Would you like to run through the issues of neutrality and shipping during that conflict?
Would you like to run through modern issues of neutrality and shipping during conflicts to get a gauge of consistancy through history?

Only one was a British deserter:

Read what I wrote about the 4.

That makes it legal to open fire on a neutral warship without warning or provocation?

I wasn't without warning.

Maybe it's a good thing you lost your empire.

Steve, would you like to join soopaman in a geography lesson?

Neutral. No warning. Not impunity in the long run, but as far as Commodore Barron was concerned there were no consequences involved

1&2 already done, impunity is impunity or it isn't impunity.

What law? British law? "I'm bigger than you and there's nothing you can do about it." law?

Last time we dealt with this topic the details were brought up.

And some people only see what they want to, and conveniently miss the rest. I'm perfectly happy with a draw. My comments are only to Anglophiles who keep insisting we "lost". Nothing more, nothing less.

That wasn't you being quoted, have you made claims like those quoted?

Now you're using the same tactics as those you so often deride in this forum. Those examples have nothing to do with this discussion. But, since you brought it up, no,

Those examples are pure nonsense to measure the level of nonsense in the specific claim they were directed at.

The details and ramifications are many, but the simple fact is that while the Americans failed in their attempts to get Canada to join us or to take it by force, the British completely failed in their attempts to subjugate America. Reread my William Cobbett quote if you believe otherwise.

Both failed and no one won, so who are you directing that at?

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The entire era was a mess, when you look at Europe and the fracturing and rebuilding of nations that took place, and then onwards to the American Civil War and eventually the tensions that broke into World War One.

Very good point. This was the age of enlightenment! We got better at blowing each other up, and republics was the new fad.

With gentlemen philosophers, came improved artillery and ironclads.

Britain was fooling around with Napoleon, and we saw an opening, with valid pretense mind you. Many men died in Europe with Nappys wars.

Then the American Civil War came about. 600k paid the price. But a good price (albeit sad, I find it pathetic many people would still go for slavery today), we in America are still fighting it. Some folks in the southern states still refuse to let it go 160-170 years later. And us in the northern states still make fun of them (tease) for it. (at least you know how the indians felt, maybe you can get casino funds too) Joking, it's crude, I know!
(you all know I am a jerk, it is mostly unintentional though)
WW1 seemed to be the last throes of Empire (Kaiser=Ceasar), and the point where the monarchist system began to die.

All these troubles seemed to have ended when monarchist families were minimized by the more people/vote oriented democratic systems that came about after WW1. (or at least became more common)

Go ahead and blast me about WW2, I blame Neville, and a brutal France on the treaty of Versaille. for that farce. Not monarchists, or republics.

Where are we today? Hand in hand. As time went on we realized we had alot in common despite out differences.

Very late edit: Me and Steves Geography is fine, maybe your viewpoint is the one that needs adjusting?
(Funny an Irishman, taking a Brits side, at least to me, they were way worse to you guys, than us)