Elvis has left…his mind. "Sorry, couldn’t resist there "
A flag on the end of a boat means not a lot at the best of times but, assuming it’s legitimate, it does identify the port of registration. Doesn’t have the first thing to do with the crew’s nationality, though
sewalk - Agreed, it may well have been “a draw” but the colonies expanded, trade became ‘normalised’, Britain beat France and continued to build the Empire - the primary goals of both nations.
The degree to which the blockade of the colonies aided the cause against Napoleon (by preventing trade) is, IMHO, not easily quantifiable but relationships between the US and Britain recovered so I’d suggest neither got all they wanted but, in the wider context, both won. Oh ! happy days.
London_Calling, those types of boardings are permissible when the ship in question a) is trying to enter the ports of the inspecting country; or b) is within the territorial jurisdiction of the inspecting country.
That’s quite different from the naval ships of one country stopping the merchant ships of another country on the high seas, seizing crew members from the merchant ships, and impressing them. That can be considered an act of war.
Complicating the impressment issue is that a number of American merchant sailors were deserters from or veterans of the Royal Navy. British sailors were seen as some of the best in the world, and American captains were often eager to sign them on, not spending that much time caring about how they seperated from the Navy. Combine that with the fact that, at that time, there wasn’t much of a difference in accent in the British Isles, Canada, and the U.S., that a deserter would likely claim to be American anyway, and that the navy REALLY needed men, most captains doing the impressment tended not to give sailors the benefit of the doubt.
Let’s look at the aims of the antagonists and see which aims were accomplished:
Britain wished to hinder commerce between the West Indies and the Continent (Essex case, Rules in Council of 1807, etc.)
In this, the aims of the British were quite successfully met. Initial success by American naval forces was overcome during the course of 1813 by naval victories over among others the Chesapeake, forcing many American ships to stay bottled-up in American ports. This eventually led to the New England states considering seccession at the Hartford Convention. Given that the threat of Napoleon was effectively ended in May of 1814, British economic aims appear to have been met by the war’s end.
America wished to put an end to violations of its naval “sovereignity” (e.g., impressments of naturalized American sailors)
In this, the America failed miserably. The Treaty of Ghent doesn’t address impressments, neutrality rights on the sea weren’t established until the Declaration of Paris in 1856, and Britain continued its use of impressment on the high seas until about 1835. The only reason that tension over the concept died out was because the end of the Napoleonic wars ended the British need to impress large numbers of sailors and the need to significantly restrict economic intercourse with the Continent.
America wanted to expand settlement westward into its purchased territory; Britain wanted to contain American population expansion (British aid to Native American resistance to expansion, Tippecanoe, etc.)
America achieved its aims here. Although the military actions along the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes front were indecisive as a whole, two results from the war and the Treaty of Ghent were that the Native American confederation was forced to end its military resistance in the Ohio-Illinois area and accept treaties allowing population expansion of whites into the American “west”, and Britain no longer attempted to resist this westward expansion. Of course, the military results also showed to America that any thought of conquering the Canadian territories was silliness, ending any true effort on the part of the US to expand northward across the St. Lawrence or the Great Lakes (which didn’t stop Americans from silly later claims regarding westward territories like Alberta, etc.). Thus, British interests were protected, and American interests were liberated (Mississippi River opened to economic navigation, military threat limited, etc.).
America wanted to be treated by Britain like it was a real country.
This, of course, has been pointed out by many already as the dominant theme of the reasons for declaring war. I liken it to the attempt of a teenager to declare his/her independence from the parents after having moved out of the house. In this, the Americans were successful. Prior to the war, Britain generally treated the United States as a barely recognizable entity, a straying family member who could be expected any day to return to the fold, and who had to be punished as needed when she didn’t do quite what she should. Of course, the War did nothing to convince the British that the Americans were militarily equal to them (let’s face it, folks, we didn’t reach that level until we geared up for WWI). But the British were forced to negotiate with us again, and subsequently were able to start realizing substantial economic and political gains by treating the US as an international partner, rather than as a spoiled brat that didn’t know better.
Who, then, “won” the war? No one “won” the war; militarily it was a stalemate (with the possible exception of New Orleans) and the territorial aims of each country were unrealized. But in terms of accomplishing goals, directly or indirectly, both countries got some of what they wanted. Most commentators appear to agree that westward expansion of whites was facilitated by the cessation of British attempts to hinder it, so in that, if for no other reason, it is perhaps justified for Americans to view the war as having had a positive result. As has been pointed out by those from the east side of the Atlantic, once again our efforts to attract attention from the Great Powers through military action barely rate us a paragraph in the history of the Napoleonic Wars.
London, you may be interested in reading the details of the Leopard-Chesapeake Affair. The incident took place just outside of American territorial waters. Three people who were claimed to be deserters were taken by the Leopard, and a fourth person was taken for no apparent reason.
When I was a kid in school, we were taught that the fourth man was a Mohawk Indian, a subject to nobody except the U.S. Navy and his tribe. That story reeks of freshly cut cherry trees and flying silver dollars.
Another source I saw estimated that 10,000 American sailors were impressed by the Royal Navy between 1803-1812. What I have not seen is how many RN sailors were estimated to have deserted to the US flag. IIRC, the American merchant fleet generally offered better pay, more relaxed discipline, and a significantly lower chance of getting killed in combat. I think the fact that the RN was willing to go as far as it did is indicative of how widespread the problem of desertion was.
A slight quibble on the “freedom of the seas” issue as a factor in bringing on the War of 1812, while the impressment of seamen from US vessels has lots of human interest appeal, the root problem was Britain’s insistence that it had the right to stop neutral (read American) trade with France. Impressment of seaman was a constant but relatively minor annoyance. The Royal Navy routinely impressed seaman from merchant ships of all flags. The matter became an affront to national sovereignty when the Royal Navy, at gun point, impressed seamen from warships. This is what happened in 1807, when HMS Leopard stopped USS Chesapeake, fired on her and removed five US Navy sailors from her crew on the claim that they were deserters from the Royal Navy.
New England commercial interests had the most to lose if there were war with England since their trade was with England. The Southern and Mid Atlantic states had a substantial trade with France and the French West Indies that was unacceptably disrupted by the enforcement of the British blockade of France. Western commercial interests were frustrated by the fact that Britain had not evacuated the Great Lakes after the Revolution and was supplying and supporting the Shawnee-Illinois -Creek Indian confederation in blocking westward expansion of the US into the old Northwest Territory, the cotton land of Alabama and Mississippi and into the Louisiana Purchase lands.
In terms of the outcome of the war, by the time of the Treaty of Ghent in December 1814. (Mr Death is right on the dates) the blockade was no longer significant because Napoleon had abdicated and had been shipped to Elba. The war had broken the power of the Ohio Country and Southern Indians and had removed Britain from the southern shore of the Great Lakes. Britain had again recognized the independence of the US and acquiesced in its westward expansion. While the treaty is pretty much a return to things as they were, the US clearly achieved its aims, if you do not think that the conquest of Canada was an objective, but rather a ploy to pressure Britain to lift the blockade and end support for the Western and Southern Indians.
I can’t speak for the French, but the Indians wanted a united confederacy of tribes that would push the US and its settlers back to the Appalachians. Tecumseh (a Shawnee) was the acknowledged leader in this movement, and he played an important role in inciting the Upper Creeks to rise up against US settlers in Alabama, in what is now known as the “Red Sticks War” or “Creek War”.
The Creek War colored Andrew Jackson’s view of Indian affairs and led him to support removal of the Eastern tribes in later years. Even the Cherokee, many of whom had fought valiantly on the side of the US, were not spared.
So the War of 1812 was a disastrously failed war of independence for the Indians.
Yep, Northern Piper I pretty well say that in the second paragraph of the post you quote but I wasn’t overly impressed with the broadness of the earlier observation be sewalk.
To clarify a little further, at that particular time any ship could claim to be sailing under any flag - how would you know unless you boarded the vessel whether the flag was, in fact, genuine ?
Also, while the days of Blackbeard and the infamous Outer Banks pirates had long since passed, opportunistic privateers out of the Caribbean were running along that coast (with largely British crews) as were Americans (all of a sudden a nation of seafarers ?), the Spanish were hovering around Florida while the French would have liked to have been anywhere other than in port. It all sounds like a recipe for bloody chaos - not what you really want when the idea is to cut off Napoleon from his New World supply routes becuase (albeit amongst other things) protect your own country from invasion:
“Ship ahoy, Cap’n”
“What flag is she flying, Birds-nest-man”
“'Tis Merican, Cap’n”
“Likely story ! Helmsman, make for that ship”
“Aye, Cap’n. A-Harrrr”
<30 minutes later>
“Prepare to be boarded, merchantman”
“Well bless me cotton socks if it ain’t ‘is Majesty’s Navy. Moring’ to yer”
“My good man, you speak with a cockney accent and fly the American flag. What trickery is this !”
“Shiver me timbers. Ain’t no trickery, Cap’n. Me’s an Merican”
“Prove it”
It might seem, with the niceties of 21st century hindsight, a little harsh but I would imagine there weren’t too many naive shrinking violets around the political or seafaring worlds at that point.
Britain was playing a high stakes game - possibly the highest in all history at that point: See off Napoleon and continue to expand the Empire to the point of total world domination or lose to Napoleon and face the ultimate threat; Invasion. If ‘upsetting’ the ex-colonies was the price to be paid (and providing political fodder for an invasion of Canada), I’d hazard it was worth paying. Desperate times, no ?
SofaKing - I’m not going to defend that action against an American Naval vessel in international waters. Whether it policy or an ill-judged action by a not terribly competent captain, I can’t say. It seems not to have been common practice. However, perhaps it might also be difficult to image such a widespread and rigidly enforced military objective without, how should I term this…‘collateral damage’ ? Nonetheless, a very unfortunate affair.
Interesting thread, folks - in rummaging around I also found information on something I hadn’t heard of before: A quaint little engagement known as ‘The War of Jenkins Ear’. Excellent.
Oh God ! HMS Dyslexia strikes again. Please make that bizarre passage to read: "…routes because (albeit amongst other things)* of the need to *protect your country from invasion:
