Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 10th, 2017, 01:24 AM   #21

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,957

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry View Post
Wellington was in Paris in November 1814 and his opinions are considered significant..
But his relevance to the backwater conflict in 1812 is minimal or non existent.

A British war aim was not the conquest of the USA, acquire bits and pieces as the war goes well may be but it wasn't an attempt at reconquest no matter how much American propaganda likes to claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry View Post
From the US point of view it was British aggression before the US declared war. .
The British most certainly were often arrogant in their treatment of 'rebellious colonials' but you could also claim that equally that Americans were arrogant with an very opinion of themselves-- a slaver who complains about freedom?

The fact remains that it was the USA who started the war not Britain.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry View Post
Actually the British took civilian officials with them to administer New Orleans after they captured it. If it was just intended as a raid they would not have taken them. They did not do that on the attack on Washington. Of course, their plans were made before the Treaty of Ghent.
Shows they were going to try and administer any area taken properly doesn't show they were trying to conquer the USA. The military at the time often has civilian employees to take roles that today would be a military one.

If the British raid had been more successful at New Orleans then things may have been different-- I am sure the British would not have minded making life more difficult for the fledgling republic but that doesn't mean it was an attempt at conquest and since the battle took place after the peace treaty really undermines the notion that this was a British war aim
Kevinmeath is online now  
Remove Ads
Old December 10th, 2017, 01:27 AM   #22

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,957

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
The British did indeed intend to seize U.S. territory, or at least territory claimed by the U.S. Britain initially hoped to retain part of what is now Maine, force the U.S. to demilitarize on the Great Lakes, and to establish a native buffer state on what was then the northwestern portion of the United States.

In that Britain failed, just as the U.S. invasion of Canada failed.

The war was a stalemate for Britain and the U.S. and a defeat for the First Nations peoples that allied with Britain.
The British did not enter the war with this aim, simply because they were attacked by the USA.

They may have viewed some of the above as desirable once the war started but their main aim was simply to return to the status quo
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old December 10th, 2017, 02:23 AM   #23

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,957

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax_Minoan View Post
The British impressing of US (and other) sailors ended before the war in 1814. It would be hard to prove that the British in no way ended it in part to stop angering the United States.
The British only 'pressed' sailors (a deeply unpopular activity in Britain itself) in the time of war when their huge fleet was in desperate need of sailors, in peacetime the ,still large, fleet was crewed by volunteers.

American citizens could not legally be pressed into service, a sailor pressed into service had only to prove that he was an American and he would then be released. This may take years.

An American who volunteered for service was subject to British military discipline and could be a deserter and treated as such. It was not uncommon for a sailor to volunteer for service -- receive his 'bounty' or pay bonus-- and then 'run'. Such sailors even the US authorities agreed were subject to British law even if they were American citizens. Of course every 'deserter' would deny he did this and every RN officer would claim that this was the case.

The problem was one of what was an 'American', the British officers had a hard time getting their head around the notion that the sailor in front of them (they are desperate to 'recruit') speaking English (perhaps in a British accent) possibly even born in Britain is not a 'legal target' simply because he claims to be 'American'.

He may even waive a bit of paper claiming American citizen ship that you know are freely bought and sold on the docks (and the physical description and the document may be so vague as to be useless or may even be totally contradictory).

Even sailors who were actually 'American' may find it hard to prove so if born outside the USA -- they had to reside in the mainland USA for a certain number of years continuously (forget how many but it wasn't short) something a working sailor may find difficult.

But whatever the difficulties 'sailors rights' was not even mentioned in the treaty.

I suppose you can claim that after the war the British were very wary of 'upsetting' Americans and the trade rights (much to the delight of the numerous American slavers) and wanted to avoid the disruption of trade but this could equally be said of the Americans and perhaps reflects the trading nature of the countries relationship. War between the two simply wasn't worth the cost.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old December 10th, 2017, 04:29 AM   #24

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 3,162

The Americans compounded the issue. They wanted British deserters who were experienced crewmen. They often issued false papers to protect such deserters. So Britain began disregarding these papers, which was traumatic for genuine cases but the fault of dishonest US practices.
Edric Streona is offline  
Old December 10th, 2017, 07:26 AM   #25
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 849

Canada won.

The First Nations lost.
delta1 is offline  
Old December 10th, 2017, 07:53 AM   #26
Archivist
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 181

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
But his relevance to the backwater conflict in 1812 is minimal or non existent.

A British war aim was not the conquest of the USA, acquire bits and pieces as the war goes well may be but it wasn't an attempt at reconquest no matter how much American propaganda likes to claim.
Keep in mind that my statement was about your claim that: "Wellington had very little influence as he was commander in Spain!!!" Wellington was not the commander in Spain at that time, but the British ambassador to France in Paris. He was asked by Prime Minister Liverpool to accept either the command in North America or to go to Vienna as Britain's representative. I believe the predominant historical opinion is that his comments to Liverpool were very significant.

I don't believe that Britain's original aim in 1812 was a reconquest of the United States. They just wanted go back to status quo ante bellum. However, in 1814 it is absolutely clear that Britain had changed its aims. As others have stated they demanded a huge amount of territory for their Indian allies (a sine quo non of the treaty), complete military control of the Great Lakes, part of what is now Maine, denial of US fishing rights off Newfoundland, and control of Forts Niagara and Michilimackinac.




Quote:
The British most certainly were often arrogant in their treatment of 'rebellious colonials' but you could also claim that equally that Americans were arrogant with an very opinion of themselves-- a slaver who complains about freedom?

The fact remains that it was the USA who started the war not Britain.
Undoubtedly there was some arrogance on both sides but that is not the important point. The facts are that Britain acted aggressively toward the US and the US declared war. Both sides were to blame for the war even if nationalists on both sides don't want to admit it. As for the subject of slavery neither Britain nor the US has clean hands. There were over 600,000 slaves in the British slave colonies while Britain was fighting its "existential" war for freedom from Napoleon.



Quote:
Shows they were going to try and administer any area taken properly doesn't show they were trying to conquer the USA. The military at the time often has civilian employees to take roles that today would be a military one.
On a raid there is no intention of a prolonged occupation. It is an attack followed by a short stay with whatever dirty work they intend, and then they leave. The British attack on Washington and the US attack on York are examples of raids. The British attack on New Orleans was clearly different. In addition to the civilian officials to administer the city during their prolonged stay they also brought the usual group of wives, girlfriends, and whores. The latter is not surprising except as an indication they intended to stay for some time. What is more significant according British historian Robin Reilly is that they brought a large number of their children. Needless to say, a raid does not include the bringing of children.


Quote:
If the British raid had been more successful at New Orleans then things may have been different-- I am sure the British would not have minded making life more difficult for the fledgling republic but that doesn't mean it was an attempt at conquest and since the battle took place after the peace treaty really undermines the notion that this was a British war aim
The signing of the Treaty of Ghent changed what the British would have done had the attack been successful. The British would have emptied the warehouses of cotton, sugar, etc. as per the rules of war at that time. The war was not officially over until February 16 1815 when the US ratified the treaty. Within days of the British ratifying the treaty both the British army and navy sent instructions to North America that they were to begin withdrawing forces as soon as they heard the US had ratified the treaty. The Treaty of Ghent changed British intentions and they would not continue the war to hold on to New Orleans.
Harry is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 02:06 PM   #27

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,052

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry View Post
I don't believe that Britain's original aim in 1812 was a reconquest of the United States. They just wanted go back to status quo ante bellum. However, in 1814 it is absolutely clear that Britain had changed its aims. As others have stated they demanded a huge amount of territory for their Indian allies (a sine quo non of the treaty), complete military control of the Great Lakes, part of what is now Maine, denial of US fishing rights off Newfoundland, and control of Forts Niagara and Michilimackinac.
These later war aims were a mix of opportunism because the war was going well and bargaining ploys for a future peace treaty




Quote:
Undoubtedly there was some arrogance on both sides but that is not the important point. The facts are that Britain acted aggressively toward the US and the US declared war. Both sides were to blame for the war even if nationalists on both sides don't want to admit it. As for the subject of slavery neither Britain nor the US has clean hands. There were over 600,000 slaves in the British slave colonies while Britain was fighting its "existential" war for freedom from Napoleon.
No argument on this point.


Quote:
On a raid there is no intention of a prolonged occupation. It is an attack followed by a short stay with whatever dirty work they intend, and then they leave. The British attack on Washington and the US attack on York are examples of raids. The British attack on New Orleans was clearly different. In addition to the civilian officials to administer the city during their prolonged stay they also brought the usual group of wives, girlfriends, and whores. The latter is not surprising except as an indication they intended to stay for some time. What is more significant according British historian Robin Reilly is that they brought a large number of their children. Needless to say, a raid does not include the bringing of children.
The British attack was not a raid, they intended to occupy it in order to force the US to accept a peace treaty.


Quote:
The signing of the Treaty of Ghent changed what the British would have done had the attack been successful. The British would have emptied the warehouses of cotton, sugar, etc. as per the rules of war at that time. The war was not officially over until February 16 1815 when the US ratified the treaty. Within days of the British ratifying the treaty both the British army and navy sent instructions to North America that they were to begin withdrawing forces as soon as they heard the US had ratified the treaty. The Treaty of Ghent changed British intentions and they would not continue the war to hold on to New Orleans.
Instructions given the British commanders attacking New Orleans

Napoleon Series: War of 1812 Issue 16

Last edited by redcoat; December 11th, 2017 at 02:08 PM.
redcoat is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 02:13 PM   #28

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,052

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
The war was a stalemate for Britain and the U.S. and a defeat for the First Nations peoples that allied with Britain.
While it was a military stalemate the war was a political victory for Britain as it achieved it's core war aims of not acceding to US maritime demands and defending British North America.
redcoat is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 02:19 PM   #29

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,052

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
So itís easy to prove the US had no impact on Britainís stopping Navy impressment by
1) Britainís continues use of it during the war.
2) Britainís stopping it after France surrendered not after any actions or events in the US.
3) USA dropping the matter in the treaty of Ghent and not forcing Britain to change policy.
The US did make diplomatic efforts to get the British to renounce the practice of impressment in the years after the war, but failed.
redcoat is offline  
Old December 11th, 2017, 02:25 PM   #30

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,052

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax_Minoan View Post
The British impressing of US (and other) sailors ended before the war in 1814. It would be hard to prove that the British in no way ended it in part to stop angering the United States.
There was another reason the British couldn't impress US sailors before the end of the war, the US merchant fleet was blockaded in its own ports.
redcoat is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
1812, canada, war, won



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why were there 3 incompetent commanders in the 1812 invasion of Canada? betgo American History 59 September 23rd, 2015 09:43 PM
Why Wouldn't Militia Invade Canada in 1812? VM1138 American History 21 October 6th, 2014 06:57 PM
Canada won the War of 1812, U.S. historian admits Corto Maltese American History 42 March 1st, 2012 03:38 AM
What if Canada was conquered by the US in 1812? sylla1 Speculative History 7 October 16th, 2010 09:03 AM
The War of 1812 old_abe American History 32 June 30th, 2009 01:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.