If the crew of a British warship had muntinied and sailed their ship to a US harbor, would the US have given them sanctuary, or would mutineers (as opposed to individual deserters) been considered guilty of piracy under US law?
I should think Britain would have demanded them to be turned over. The two countries were already trade partners, why would America jepardize that for a handful of sailors whose biggest beef was probably with their officers as opposed to their country.
And if American wouldn`t turn them over, Britain would probably persuade the issue.
You understand, that kind of persuasion did in fact happen, and was one of the major causes of the War of 1812?
I’m no expert (other than reading the Aubrey/Maturin books), but my impression is that before 1812, U.S. society in general and shipowners in particular were generally fairly welcoming of individual deserting British sailors (and the British were annoyed by that), though without any real action by the U.S. government. However a whole ship would rise to a political matter and have to be dealt with officially somehow. My WAG is that it would depend a lot on how violent (and/or seemingly justified) the mutiny was and the exact date (at the height of tensions just before the war, versus a time of better U.S.-British relations).
For example, a brutal captain that’s already whipped a couple seamen to death, in 1811, where the crew just deserts the ship en masse when it’s docked in Boston, I could imagine the U.S. doing nothing (except bland promises to turn over the deserters if they’re ever found). On the other hand, a crew that murders the captain and all the officers, goes on a looting rampage in the Carribean, and only sails into a U.S. port when British warships are closing in would probably be seen as pirates and either jailed/hung or turned over to the British.
It might just end up in court, as did another celebrated mutiny case: United States v. The Amistad - Wikipedia
IIRC from the story Billy Budd, one of the causes of the War of 1812 was that the Britih thought it was logical and just for their ships to stop American ships on the high seas and check the crew one by one for deserters. In those days, before literacywas common and before official government documents were standard issue, some of the sailors could not even remember what year they were born or what place. The British gave them benefit of the doubt, and simply took them over to British ships to work instead of taking them in chains as deserters.
If the boarding officer thought any of the seamen were British citizens he would declare them deserters. Then he would and remove them from the ship they were on and take them back to the British ship.
This question probably can’t be definitively answered. My WAG is that it would depend on circumstances, but that most likely the warship would be returned to the Brits, along with any of the crew that didn’t want to desert, and that the rest would be, um, unable to be apprehended by authorities. So sorry.
-XT
Maybe the answer cannot be definitively answered, but only because we are imagining a fictional event 200 years ago that never happened.
However - the real answer is almost certainly as I said before. Outside of the years during the 1812 war, the US would not give them sanctuary, and they would not do anything with the mutineers other than turning them over to the British. From there they would all likely hang.
Why?
- Because the English sailers were foreigners and criminals. Probably about 1/4 of the crew would be Africans, Russions or other types of people who barely spoke english. Not worth much to America. As I mentioned - they would not have deserted to embrace democracy - but because their officers were sadistic a-holes that drove them to it.
- Because American and England were good trading partners.
- Because England’s navy could and would retaliate. An incident of America keeping the sailors and ship would likely have led to war.
Now, if it was during the War of 1812, I could definately see America keeping the ship. They might have found use for the sailers too. However, England would spare little expense to right this dishonor. A similar incident occured in 1783 where an English ship mutineedand fled to Spain (which was currently at war with England). The result was the English performed a daring cutting out of harbor operation and successfully retook the ship. Through spies and the offering of rewards, most of the crew was captured, tried and executed (although a few were pardoned).
Do not be so hasty to underestimate England’s sea power during this period. It was not to be trifled with, and American leaders knew this. The only reason they won their Independence was with French naval help.
Major differences being Spain’s navy was a joke by that time, it was a commercial vessel, and it was in clear violation of international shipping law.
But likewise if it was simply been a Spanish naval vessel that mutineed and showed up in an American harbor - I seriously doubt anyone would have bothered going to court.
Likewise, if tommorrow the crew of a Canadian destroyer mutinies and shows up in Seattle, what would America do about it? Why would it be any different in the 1800’s?
I agree with this. There were deserters all of the time, and certainly not just in American ports. Because of this, the ship kept a guard while in port, did not let normal seaman ashore (ever) and would not dock but rather anchor out somewhere in the harbor. Sometimes the ship would row a guard boat around their own ship. For supply, boats from the harbor would come out to them to bring supplies. So the ability of a crew to desert in mass just would not have been very likely without them first forcibly disabling all of the officers, marines and non-mutineers.
Ok, someone beat me to mentioning the Hermione.
And I think it is the best example of ‘what would have happened’ that we are going to find.
Also, the state of the sailing nation being what it was in those days, I’m sure there was a tit-for-tat understanding. We don’t want to encourage the low-life to think they can mutiny and then get away by skipping to another country.
Consider, too, the reaction of the English to the Metis rebellion in the Canadian Manitoba and north-west Territories. Louis Riel might have negotiated a settlement to the first rebellion if they hadn’t “executed” some prisoners. When an Englishman was murdered by non-whites, that meant war. (Well, half-indian, half french- same thing).
The USA, coincidentally, let the British march troops through Minnesota to get to Manitoba provided they were unarmed and out of uniform.
It would be different because the U.S. and Canada aren’t right now getting over a war with each other 25 years ago, and more importantly because Canadian ships aren’t regularly stopping U.S. ships by force, and forcibly removing sailors from those ships, claiming they’re deserters, causing so much resentment that the U.S. is about to go to war with Canada again.
Example (maybe the most extreme, but shows what was happening): Chesapeake–Leopard affair - Wikipedia
You’re right in that those are valid differences. However, another key difference and the reason the English were able to board and search those ships with impunity was because the American military was still incredibly weak. While America was straining resources to build her first few frigates England had around 100 ships of the line and more than that in frigates. Granted most of them were not sailing off the American coast - but they didn’t need too.
So again, the most likely scenario where America seizes a ship (even a mutineed one) would be events leading to war. The sailors might have managed to get ashore and hide in the populace - but I bet Americans would have recaptured most of them soon enough and turned them over - if for no other reason than to maintain diplomacy with a trading partner. And if this was not enough the English would likely have offered rewards for them (as evidenced by what they did with the Hermione in Spain). The capitalist American spirit would have seized on turning in the English criminals for ready cash.
Again, I’m no expert, but I disagree. There’s no question that unless actual war was in progress the U.S. would have turned back over to Britain any actual ship itself - that’s both a big valuable piece of equipment, impossible to hide, and huge national prestige involved in ships.
But I think, if the sailors could be seen as more deserters from an intolerable situation than bloodthirsty pirates, there would have been support from both individuals and the U.S. government for not doing a whole lot to return the sailors. After all, look at the Leopard incident: there were (at least by British claims) four deserters serving on board the U.S. ship. Clearly, the U.S. wasn’t straining every nerve to find and return British deserters. I could imagine the U.S. government saying something like "Here’s your ship back. Gee, must have been embarrassing to lose a ship like that, huh? Anyway, we of course respect the rule of law and would return any mutineers, but sadly some of them are actually free men by U.S. law, and we can’t seem to find the rest of them. " Again, I’m assuming a peaceful incident, here.
It’s true, Britain had a much larger fleet, but at that point it was kind of occupied with some unpleasantness on the continent. The Hermione incident happened during an actual war, you know. Plus the U.S. was generally more inclined to support Britain’s enemies in that unpleasantess, anyway.
But under the hypothetical situation - they were not deserters and they were not pirates. They are mutineers. Common naval sailors who forcibly kill/remove their officers, warrant officers, fellow non-mutineering sailors and if the ship was a frigate or bigger than marines as well to seize the ship.
There were not that many instances of mutiny in the 1800’s. Lots of reasons but one of them is that after committing their deed where would they go? Usually resorting to a life of piracy would be their only means of further survival. There were not many empty Pitcairn Islands in the world to hide at. And I didn’t know Tom Jefferson proclaimed foreign mutineers were welcome.
Just think of it in term of today. Take a nation the US isn’t at good terms with - Country X. Assume somehow a Country X ship went to an America harbor and a sailor jumps off his ship and swims to shore undetected. That is desertion. During the early 1800’s this was a very common problem and not a big deal.
Now say 40% of the crew grab guns and forcibly kill/remove everyone else on board. That is mutiny. This was a big deal. It rarely happens and when it does a Navy needs to act swiftly to put it down or it is more likely to happen again.
So by trying to justify a mutiny by equating with a desertion just would work out in the 1800’s - or anytime that I’m aware of.
Yes I know when the Hermione incident happened. That is why I posted that it is the most likely scenerio if it had occured during the war of 1812. In any case, Britain always had a number of ships of the line as well as many frigates, brigs and sloops to secure the western Atlantic - stationed out of the Caribeans and in Halifax. Their local might seriously outweighed the American navy.
Also regarding the Hermione - England got that ship out of a Spanish harbor and recaptured most of the crew from Spain - during war. 1812 America was far weaker than 1780-1800 Spain and if England could accomplish that against them I have little doubt they could/would try the same against America.