There is some evidence that having the American colonies come to their senses and rejoin the Empire they rightfully belonged to was a real hope, fondly cherished by some influential people in Whitehall. It was never well fleshed out as either a political or military strategy, of course.
I have considered what history would have been like without an American revolution. Would Hitler have even considered attacking Great Britain with the wealth and muscle of North America behind it? I think that there would have been no Westward expansion. Napoleon would not have sold the Louisiana Purchase to Britain, and if it were captured in the Napoleonic Wars, Britain would have been more protective of the Indians that to allow settlement willy nilly. There may not have been war with Spain to capture the area that became some of the Western states.
But I digress.
Barbara Tuchman’s The First Salute points out that Britain’s strategy in the Revolutionary War (and she would probably include the War of 1812 as well) was always formulated with an eye towards France. It’s a good read, and demonstrates the extent to which the British primarily considered the American war as one aspect of their global struggle against the French.
For that matter, the casus belli of the War of 1812 was American trade with France.
As much as it might hurt our pride, we were always a sidelight to the Brits. That’s why they always sent in the B team.
The Brits stopped the practice of boarding any American ship they felt like, taking whoever they felt like and either enslaving them (for all intents & purposes) or torturing them to death by calling them “deserters”*. True, this wasn’t part of the treaty, *but they did stop. * (Yes, they Royal Navy no longer needed as many men, but many Captains boarded US ships because they thought they had a right to do it, and they wanted to find any deserters.)
They also stopped supporting the Indians, which allowed for peace.
It allowed the USA to grab Florida. (wiki)*Thus indirectly the War of 1812 brought about the acquisition of Florida… To both the Northwest and the South, therefore, the War of 1812 brought substantial benefits. It broke the power of the Creek Confederacy and opened to settlement a great province of the future Cotton Kingdom.[223]
*
also:
*The nation also gained a psychological sense of complete independence as people celebrated their “second war of independence”.[215] Nationalism soared after the victory at the Battle of New Orleans. The opposition Federalist Party collapsed, and the Era of Good Feelings ensued.[216]
No longer questioning the need for a strong Navy, the U.S. built three new 74-gun ships of the line and two new 44-gun frigates shortly after the end of the war*
- for all intents and purpose, “flogging around the fleet” was torturing a man to death, even tho a few survived for a while after.
Naval Ceremonies, Customs, and Traditions - Royal W. Connell, William P. Mack - Google Books
They did find deserters that way. Some were willing to claim that anyone they needed had run from the RN, though.
How so?
Wasnt much there, then.
True, some really were deserters. But taking anyone you think is a deserter, giving them a drumhead trial and then executing them in a variety of horrible ways- wasnt really the right way to go about it. The USA didnt have a chance to defend it’s citizens or to have a hearing about extradition. Some men were convicted based on their tattoos.
After the decisive defeat of the Creek Indians at the battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814, some warriors escaped to join the Seminoles in Florida. The remaining Creek chiefs signed away about half their lands, comprising 23,000,000 acres, covering much of southern Georgia and two thirds of modern Alabama. The Creeks were now separated from any future help from the Spanish in Florida, or from the Choctaw and Chickasaw to the west. During the war the United States seized Mobile, Alabama, which was a strategic location providing oceanic outlet to the cotton lands to the north. Gen. Jackson invaded Florida in 1818, demonstrating to Spain that could no longer control that territory with a small force. Spain sold Florida to the United States in 1819. Pratt concludes:
Thanks.
… you left out the bit about how this stopped before the war really got started. It’s a trifle difficult to argue that this was a successful outcome of the war!
Of course it was not even mentioned in the peace treaty. Why should it have been? It was irrelevant by that time.
Not so. In fact, the notion that the Brits were busy stirring up the Indians to attack America was a fabrication. In reality, the Brits were attempting to damp down the anger of Indians caused by the Americans attacking them. In short, it was not “British support” that was the impediment to peace.
It is true that the Americans gained significant advantages over the Indians. The Indians in what is now the US clearly “lost” the war. In other respects, so did the US: this was not a war that the British wanted - to them it was a purely defensive war, and they succeeded in that defence.
Too remote. One could equally well thank the Brits for the Louisiana Purchase.
If we are counting purely psychological factors, then the War of 1812 was clearly a Canadian victory. It cemented Canadian nationalism, which before that had hardly existed.
The Straight Dope article put it best, in quoting a historian:
That’s a good plan if you never want to drink the best bet on the world.
I tend to find German lagers to be very good, but American ales and stouts are the best anywhere, imo.
The Americans didn’t bring it up in case the treaty would be rejected, and the British were ready to concede it if need be.
One usually doesn’t go about impressing enemy sailors.
It didn’t need to be conceded (or brought up), because the Brits weren’t in fact doing it anymore. They had stopped, not because of the US, but because of events in the real war. Moreover, it had stopped before the War of 1812 really got underway.
The notion that the US “won” because they “achieved their aims” loses sight of the reality that their “aims” would have been “achieved” just as well if they had … done nothing. The “achievement” was not causally connected to the War of 1812, but with the War with Napoleon.
Yup.
That was more of a Service Upgrade.
*During the wars with France (1793 to 1815), the Royal Navy aggressively reclaimed British deserters on board ships of other nations, both by halting and searching merchant ships, and, in many cases, by searching American port cities. …British impressment ended, in practice but not law after 1814, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars *
So, The War of 1812 ended during the same year Impressment stopped.* Of course,* Impressment of US sailors stopped the second USA declared war, since they’d just be POWs, but some POW’s were executed for being deserters.
But even tho the Royal navy no longer needed men for the Napoleonic wars, many RN captains were zealous in boarding ships to reclaim deserters. The end of the Napoleonic Wars didnt stop this, but the fact that it was both illegal and that the USA would fight to stop it ended it.
Your own cite, that you quoted to support your position, supports mine: what ended “impressment” was the real war - the one with Napoleon - not the American side-show.
From your quote:
So far, there has been no evidence that impressment ended (in practice) because of the War of 1812 (which lasted until 1815), and not because the British beat Nappy, and so no longer needed impressment at all.
The notion that it was “illegal” is bit of an anachronism, there being little in the way of binding international law at the time. It wasn’t “illegal” under British law - as again, you quote confirms.
The issue that actually lead to war, though, was the blockade, not impressment. According to President Madison himself, if he’d known the Blockade had ended before the war begain, he’d not have declared it. From the Straight Dope article:
The obvious conclusion from this is that Madison would not have gone to war over impressment alone.
What ended impressment was the end of the real war - the one with Napoleon . Which ended in 1815, not 1812. You claim the practice ended* before* 1812.
The RN would have happily gone on taking US Seamen until 1815, had not the US declared war. And, after that, occasional captains and Admirals would have gone ahead and boarded and attacked US Navy vessels when they thought there were deserters on board. After all, it’s their right as the biggest fucking navy in the world, isnt it? :rolleyes:
Even the Brits didnt think it was actually legal to enter another nations territorial waters and take men at gunpoint. Sure, they thought that Naturalized Americans were still British citizens, but that didnt give them the legal right to attack US vessels in US waters. That was illegal.
What ended in 1812 was not impressment, by the blockade system. Which, as the cites provided demonstrates, was the real ‘cause’ of the war, from the US perspective - at least as far as Madison was concerned.
There is no proof provided so far that the US declaring war had anything to do with the RN giving up impressment, rather than (say) the fact that the RN no longer needed impressment.
As for “legality”, this is an anachronism. “Illegal” according to what law? “International law” at the time basically amounted to treaties that were actually honoured. The notion that there may exist a positive “international law” binding on states that actually had an existance aside from treaties - particularly in the middle of a major war - was basically one that was bandied about by philosophers, not something that actually, you know, existed.
As for treaties, your link has this to say:
The Jay Treaty simply neglected to address impressment, so the “law” actually on point (namely, the treaty) by implication, allowed the Brits to impress from US ships.
That treaty lasted 10 years. The replacement was signed specifically to address impressment - but the Brits made no concessions and the Americans refused to ratify it.
So I ask again - what “law” were the Brits breaking? It wasn’t a treaty (as none existed that prohibited the practice) and it wasn’t binding general international law (which did not yet exist).
That’s a good idea, and would’ve actually been true on that occasion.
I think it was the summer, and they were on their 50th wedding anniversary trip. The invite was immediate (or the next day or two). They like everything planned so dad doesn’t have to climb stairs or walk too far as he has mobility (and breathing) problems, and living in the UK they aren’t too familiar with hot weather! He could’ve been more tactful but he was probably jetlagged/tired/embarrassed and put his foot in it.
It wasn’t a big deal, they still had a great holiday in the States and a cruise in the Caribbean, but it was a shame as it’s probably the only time they could’ve experienced American hospitality on a Texas ranch.