Happy War of 1812 Day.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

He's got a point.

Taking advantage of our weak navy is so manly. (edit: Best navy in the world versus the newest nation with one maybe 2 shipyards) We did great IMHO

You do realize that Royal Navy was much more heavily concerned with the French Navy during this time period and the time period leading up to The War of 1812.So it was not as David vs. Goliath as you claim.The US Navy was not facing the entire Royal Navy.The US Navy won some naval battles but also got soundly stomped in others and generally speaking both navies performed fairly well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Third_Coalition Edit: I meant this link;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars

Of 41ish naval battles the US won 24 the UK won 13 though if you read of the numbers involved in each battle several where very much in one side or the others favor(no wonder they won) many where a single ship vs. a single ship as well.Both sides also won battles in which the odds where greatly stacked against them as well. I would say that both the US Navy and the Royal Navy gave pretty good account of themselves all things considered.

Read about each one here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...he_War_of_1812

What is your opinion?after you read about each battle of course.

[August]

The Canadians like to display a lot of national pride for repelling the Yankee hordes but the truth is that we didn't go to war over Canada. If the British weren't kidnapping our citizens and pushing the Indians into raiding our frontier we never would have invaded. That was just a way of waging war against England. A military excursion against assets that we could get at. We certainly weren't going to land an army in Liverpool. Not like we could have held either if we had though.

No, we won the war of 1812 by surviving it intact. We bloodied the nose of the premier military power of the age and we got away with it. We forced them to respect our flag and our sovereignty. That is victory.

I would refer you back to the 'Chesapeake Incident' which started the thread I refered to. A British warship attacked an inferior American warship in peacetime and took four sailor off. One of them was a British runaway. The other three were Americans. Was that legal? The British took sailors off of American merchants with impunity. Was that legal?

Peacetime?
This was during the naploleonic wars, was it in the brief period between the 2nd and 3rd coilition?

One Runaway?
wasn't it 4 of them, were they deserters from British ships and was one of them also a British citizen as well as a deserter?

Legal?
Had the US authorities in port and the US authorities on the USS Chesapeake both been served with legal papers over the matter?

Impunity?
It wasn't with impunity was it?

Legal?
When it was within the law it was wasn't it?

No, we won the war of 1812 by surviving it intact. We bloodied the nose of the premier military power of the age and we got away with it. We forced them to respect our flag and our sovereignty. That is victory.

Some people just can't be happy with a draw
So North korea won the war as it is intact. America won in Vietnam as it is intact Britain lost WW1&2 because it broke up parts of it.
The flag and soveriegnty issue relates to maritime matters, these were not even addressed in the peace treaty.
After the war when these same issues arose America said Oh OK you can still do that to American ships under the American flag, but you can't also do it in that other place as that port has a dutch flag and is under their jurisdiction.....comes back nicely to legality and impunity doesn't it

[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.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by August

No, we won the war of 1812 by surviving it intact. We bloodied the nose of the premier military power of the age and we got away with it. We forced them to respect our flag and our sovereignty. That is victory.

ex post facto rationalisations. Whatever grievances the US had against Britain, the US declared war and planned to seize Canada. Not only did they not succeed, they wound up fighting defensive battles just to avoid losing chunks of their own territory. Only Americans would see this as a victory.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Peacetime?
This was during the naploleonic wars, was it in the brief period between the 2nd and 3rd coilition?

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!

One Runaway?
wasn't it 4 of them, were they deserters from British ships and was one of them also a British citizen as well as a deserter?

Only one was a British deserter:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Affidavits were produced which proved that two of them, William Ware and John Strahan, were born in Delaware. The third, Daniel Martin, had been brought from South America as an indentured servant. Martin and Ware were both of African descent. Madison finally contested to Erskine that it was against American law for US citizens to enlist in a foreign belligerent service while America was neutral, so they had to remain in US custody. There was also a real British deserter aboard the Chesapeake, Jenkin Ratford, alias John Wilson, who had deserted from HMS Halifax. Wilson was known to have laughed at his former officers on the streets of Norfolk, and dared them to try to get him back

Legal?
Had the US authorities in port and the US authorities on the USS Chesapeake both been served with legal papers over the matter?

That makes it legal to open fire on a neutral warship without warning or provocation? Maybe it's a good thing you lost your empire.

Impunity?
It wasn't with impunity was it?

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

Legal?
When it was within the law it was wasn't it?

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

Some people just can't be happy with a draw

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.

So North korea won the war as it is intact. America won in Vietnam as it is intact Britain lost WW1&2 because it broke up parts of it.

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, I don't believe America "won" in Vietnam, and for exactly the same reasons Britain didn't "win" in America. First, it was a bad war in the first place, and we should never have been there. Second, sustaining a war in a country where even the so-called "friendlies" don't want you is close to impossible. The parallels are striking. In both cases even if the invader had won they would have been shackled with the impossiblilty of managing a people who hated them. In Iraq we won the war in a matter of weeks, and we've been losing the "peace" for more than a decade. We taught the British a lesson in 1812 that we failed to learn ourselves 150 years later.

The flag and soveriegnty issue relates to maritime matters, these were not even addressed in the peace treaty.
After the war when these same issues arose America said Oh OK you can still do that to American ships under the American flag, but you can't also do it in that other place as that port has a dutch flag and is under their jurisdiction.....comes back nicely to legality and impunity doesn't it

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.

[Oberon]

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

I believe that was common British law at the time, yes...

Then again, that's the common law of just about all large empires from the beginning of time to the present day. However, sometimes those large empires get a bloody nose from an unexpected corner. Most times, in fact.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

ex post facto rationalisations. Whatever grievances the US had against Britain, the US declared war and planned to seize Canada. Not only did they not succeed, they wound up fighting defensive battles just to avoid losing chunks of their own territory. Only Americans would see this as a victory.

Hmm, well the US's reasons for going to war against England in 1812 are well documented and existed long before the fact. Canada was an ancillary objective at best. Heck William Hull invaded with less than a 1000 untrained militia. That's hardly a serious attempt at capturing and holding such a huge territory. The Brits took almost 5000 professional troops to burn Washington and even then they had to beat feet back to their ships before we bumbled our way into cutting them off.

[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.