[herbie]

Because they DID.
You're watching CSI and whining about the nickel it costs you for CBC, right? Totally convinced how much better the cheap crap at WalMart is compared to the cheap crap at Zellers.

[EyeBrock]

Some historians look at it differently Brad.

A theory with some credence is that the US saw an opportunity to make a land grab while the Brits were knee-deep in fighting Napoleon. Votes in the US houses prior to the war show that lobbyists and interested congressmen/senators (the Hawks) were the land types not the shipping owners, which kind of shoots holes in the popular (these days) theories that it was the press-ganging etc that was causal in starting the war. The US attacked the Canada's, not the other way around.

On Maine, the Brits in the Peninisula War were living off New England grain and the RN's ships were built with New England lumber. Land claims outside of the Canada's were not even on the UK's interest list. The trade between New England and the UK was good for both sides, no need to invade.

I see a lot of credibility in this new look at the causes of the war. If the UK had been really serious about territorial claims on New England, it would have put more resources into the war effort. As it stood, there were more UK troops in Jamaica than the whole of North America at the height of the conflict.

[Batsy]

I knew almost nothing about the War of 1812 until yesterday when I read about it in my BBC History magazine which says that, contrary to what American historians say, the war can be viewed as a British win. Unlike in North America, that war has largely been forgotten in Britain. The British saw the war as nothing more than a minor irritant whilst they were concentrating on what they saw as the more important war against Boney.

Basically, the Americans were to blame. It was they who declared war on Britain. It was they who were the aggressors. President Madison saw Britain's preoccupation in fighting Old Boney as the perfect opportunity to grab Britain's North American territory - i.e. Canada.

So the US invaded Canada and attacked British merchant shipping in the West Indies and the North Atlantic.

It was mainly the southern and western states that were supportive of the war. The northern and eastern states of New England were allies of the British and traded with them. New England grain fed Wellington's troops in Spain and British troops in Canada.

Another issue the Americans had with the British was that they were angry that the Royal Navy arrested American vessels and press-ganged US Navy sailors into the RN.

But the British only arrested American ships that were trying to break Britain's economic embargo of Napoleonic France, so the British can be viewed as being justified in their actions.

The British also claimed that most English-speaking sailors that they press-ganged into the RN were actually subjects of the King and so they were justified in press-ganging these USN sailors into the RN.

The British were actually right. Most English-speaking sailors they press-ganged into the Royal Navy WERE indeed the King's subjects (not all US Navy sailors were Americans), so the British were largely justified in doing that, too, despite what Americans say.

When the peace treaty between the two nations was signed in Ghent it was the British who got what they wanted: the status quo, the way things were before the war started. Not a single American aim was even discussed, so it seems as though the authorities sided with the British. For this reason, it can be said that the British won the War of 1812.

[Batsy]

DanSC DanSC:

But in reality, most Americans view the war of 1812 as a draw, and those who think the USA won do so because the Americans didn't lose any territory to the British.

It was the Americans trying to take British territory, not vice versa.

The British and their Canadian and Native Indian allies all fought the Americans to protect American encroachment onto their territory.

In fact, as late as 1861, Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of State tried to persuade the President to invade Canada. But considering that the Americans failed to do so in the War of 1812, thanks mainly to the RN, Lincoln wisely decided against the idea.

[BartSimpson]

Batsy Batsy:

Another issue the Americans had with the British was that they were angry that the Royal Navy arrested American vessels and press-ganged US Navy sailors into the RN.

But the British only arrested American ships that were trying to break Britain's economic embargo of Napoleonic France, so the British can be viewed as being justified in their actions.

The British also claimed that most English-speaking sailors that they press-ganged into the RN were actually subjects of the King and so they were justified in press-ganging these USN sailors into the RN.

The British were actually right. Most English-speaking sailors they press-ganged into the Royal Navy WERE indeed the King's subjects (not all US Navy sailors were Americans), so the British were largely justified in doing that, too, despite what Americans say.

Thus the British got themselves a war. Go back to the British notion that the US was autonomous but not truly indpendent and that every US citizen was therefore British and the RN felt justified in anything they did to US shipping. It also did not help that US merchant sailors who were pressed into the RN had a distressingly high mortality rate due to their treatment in the RN.

Bottom line: stopping and boarding a foreign-flag vessel, no matter how justified you think you are, can lead to war.

Batsy Batsy:

When the peace treaty between the two nations was signed in Ghent it was the British who got what they wanted: the status quo, the way things were before the war started. Not a single American aim was even discussed, so it seems as though the authorities sided with the British. For this reason, it can be said that the British won the War of 1812.

Really? What the US gained was British recognition of our rights on the high seas as evidenced by the fact that they never stopped another US flag vessel again and they never seized sailors with valid US papers ever again. The US also resolved British demands on the US to cede New Orleans, we ended British support for the natives, and we also established bona fides for future border negotiations.

In the end of it what was accomplished was that with both sides having better defined their relationships the US was more inclined to back Britain in World War One than we were Germany. And that was not a given due to British support of the Confederacy.

What was also accomplished was that the war propelled the US to develop a professional standing military complete with well-respected military academies.

Prior to the war the US had a small military and depended on militias for defense. Seeing how poorly the militias fared against the professional Brits caused the US to overcome its worries about standing armies.

The war therefore ended up making us stronger.

That alone was a victory.

[BartSimpson]

Batsy Batsy:

In fact, as late as 1861, Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of State tried to persuade the President to invade Canada.

That's quite a spin on the Trent Affair. A war between the US & Britain nearly broke out over that matter and Lincoln's earnest apology resolved the issue. Britain moved troops to Canada to stave off a feared invasion but this ended up being rendered moot by the resolution of the matter.

War between the US and Britain was a threat during the US Civil War as Britain favored the slave-holding Confederacy and provided them with warships such as the CSS Alabama and providing the Confederacy with arms and etc.

The later Laird Rams debacle nearly provoked a war again and this time it was Britain that backed down to avoid war. The fact that US Navy ships in this interval both outnumbered and literally outgunned their Royal Navy counterparts factored into Lord Palmerston's cancellation of the sale of those warships to the CSA. At this time the US Navy had refitted its ships to using Dahlgren guns in response to Confederate naval victories and Royal Navy observers at the time were alarmed by both their range and muzzle velocity. Both factors meant that most the US Navy of 1863 could fire on British warships from outside the effective range of then-deployed British guns.

In 1864 war between the US & Britain reared up again when Confederate raiders were being harbored in Canada and the Brits demurred and prosecuted the Confederates for violating neutrality by running their military operation at St. Albans from Canada.

There was a brief face-off where 2,000 Canadian militia were stationed along the border opposed by the force of about 21,000 regular US Army that had moved into the area after the St. Albans raid.

That was the last of the Civil War confrontations between the US and Britain both for the fact that at this point the Union had 43 Corps sporting over 110 divisions of veteran troops in the field and for the fact that the Confederacy was a lost cause. It also did not hurt that popular sentiment and that in Parliament had swung against Lord Palmerston's favor of the slave-holding CSA.

Again, and in sum, all of this was between the US and Britain and had precious little to do with a country that did not even nominally exist until 1867.

[Batsy]

$1:

Thus the British got themselves a war. Go back to the British notion that the US was autonomous but not truly indpendent and that every US citizen was therefore British and the RN felt justified in anything they did to US shipping. It also did not help that US merchant sailors who were pressed into the RN had a distressingly high mortality rate due to their treatment in the RN.

The British didn't want war. It was the US which declared war on Britain, not the other way round. The British were annoyed in having to fight this war, seeing the war against Boney as much more important.

Even when Britain was suddenly capable of sending more troops from the Napoleonic Wars to North America to fight this war it didn't do so.

The British claimed at the time that most English-speaking sailors that they press-ganged into the RN were subjects of the Crown, and therefore they had every right to press-gang them. In fact, the British were RIGHT. Most English-speaking subjects they press-ganged into the RN were subjects of the Crown. Not every person sailing on US warships would have been American. There were many Brits fighting in the USN for a start.

$1:

Bottom line: stopping and boarding a foreign-flag vessel, no matter how justified you think you are, can lead to war.

I don't care. The US vessels that the British stopped and boarded were those trying to break Britain's economic embargo on Napoleonic France. So the British had every right to stop those vessels.

$1:

Really? What the US gained was British recognition of our rights on the high seas as evidenced by the fact that they never stopped another US flag vessel again and they never seized sailors with valid US papers ever again.

Valid US papers? They hardly ever seized sailors with valid US papers in the first place. Most of the "US papers" were actually bogus.

$1:

we ended British support for the natives

If that's true then it's certainly regrettable. You should have left Native American lands - and Canada - alone.

[BartSimpson]

Well, Batsy, if you want to toe the party line and say that Britain had a right to ignore the US flag on the high seas then you have every right to do so. The fact remains that one of the results of that war was that Britain ceased messing with US shipping and they ceased abducting people on the high seas and enslaving them in your navy. Either this was an admission that the practice was wrong or it was an admission that, at least in this, the US had eked out a concession from Britain.

[Batsy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

War between the US and Britain was a threat during the US Civil War as Britain favored the slave-holding Confederacy and provided them with warships such as the CSS Alabama and providing the Confederacy with arms and etc.

Just because the British sided with the Confederacy does not mean that they agreed with slavery. The British had banned slavery in their Empire by this time, unlike the US. The British released many American slaves during the War of 1812. There were cases in which the Americans declined to chase the British because they thought it was more important to round up many of the slaves that the British freed.

Britain's support of the Confederacy was only a cautionary act.

The economic primacy of Great Britain in those days required British merchants to have unrestricted markets.

But once Britain realised that the economic benefits of trading with the Confederacy were increasingly negligible she gradually started to support the North.

$1:

The later Laird Rams debacle nearly provoked a war again and this time it was Britain that backed down to avoid war. The fact that US Navy ships in this interval both outnumbered and literally outgunned their Royal Navy counterparts factored into Lord Palmerston's cancellation of the sale of those warships to the CSA.

[/quote]


The only reason why the British decided not to sell these ships is that the sale would have violated the Foreign Enlistment Act, which forbade British subjects to build or arm any ships for governments at war with governments friendly to Great Britain. I doubt Britain was growing scared.

[Batsy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Well, Batsy, if you want to toe the party line and say that Britain had a right to ignore the US flag on the high seas then you have every right to do so.

Why should the Royal Navy ignore warships that intentionally attempted to break Britain's economic embargo on France?

$1:

The fact remains that one of the results of that war was that Britain ceased messing with US shipping

US ships which the British arrested because they attempted to break Britain's embargo on France, don't foregt.

$1:

and they ceased abducting people on the high seas and enslaving them in your navy.

Of whom most of them were British subjects. Even many of the "Americans" were nothing of the sort and used bogus US papers.

$1:

Either this was an admission that the practice was wrong

The practice wasn't wrong. The British had very right to put an end to American ships' attempts to break Britain's economic embargo on France.

[BartSimpson]

Batsy Batsy:

The only reason why the British decided not to sell these ships is that the sale would have violated the Foreign Enlistment Act, which forbade British subjects to build or arm any ships for governments at war with governments friendly to Great Britain.

Which didn't stop Britain from selling the CSS Alabama to the Confederacy nor did it stop Britain from selling other arms and ammunition to the CSA.

Batsy Batsy:

I doubt Britain was growing scared.

I never said 'scared'.

The US Navy in 1863-1865 eclipsed the Royal Navy in tonnage, personnel, stores, and gunnery. There also existed then an inequality in firepower among similar rates of ships.

A Royal Navy gunboat of the Mid-Victorian period would have been an unarmoured sloop of approximately 200 to 250 tons and most of them sported two main guns of about twenty pounds. Her 1863 US counterpart would have been an armoured steam ship of about 300 tons sporting two 32 pound guns at the outset of the war and those guns would be at least ten inch rifles by late 1862.

The Royal Navy gunboat would likely be far more manuverable but this would have been lost in a confrontation as her 20 pound guns would have had little effect on the layered armour plating the US Navy employed above the water line. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy 20 pounders had a max range of 1900 yards at 5° while the US Navy 8" rifles had a max range of 2600 yards at 11°. The 8" rifle round was also a 65 pound beast compared to the 20 pounder of the RN.

In a head-to-head confrontation I would not presume to think the RN Lt. who'd be in charge would be scared. Not at all. I'd expect a smart young man of a good family to be wise enough to use his speed to best advantage and to withdraw.

Now note that I am clear that this disparity took place during an interval of 1863-1865.

By 1867 the wartime US Navy had mostly been 'paid off' as you'd put it and many of the massive guns had been put ashore or sold. The Royal Navy, on the other hand, started producing the broadside ironclad frigate as an answer to the USN and Royal Navy superiority was reestablished and unquestioned until World War Two.

[BartSimpson]

Batsy Batsy:

Why should the Royal Navy ignore warships that intentionally attempted to break Britain's economic embargo on France?

Seizing whalers in the Pacific had FA to do with France. It wasn't just US ships entering French ports that were at issue. It was sometimes US ships in US waters in sight of US territory that were being stopped. It was US ships *anywhere* in the world that were at threat from the Royal Navy.

Batsy Batsy:

Of whom most of them were British subjects. Even many of the "Americans" were nothing of the sort and used bogus US papers.

Irrelevant. A US flag ship is US territory and the British had no right to stop them to search for anyone. Thus, you had a war.

Batsy Batsy:

The practice wasn't wrong. The British had very right to put an end to American ships' attempts to break Britain's economic embargo on France.

Yet Britain never did it again.

[Batsy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Which didn't stop Britain from selling the CSS Alabama to the Confederacy nor did it stop Britain from selling other arms and ammunition to the CSA.

That's because the case I mentioned is one of the few cases in which Britain was able to enforce the act, which is still in effect.

$1:

The US Navy in 1863-1865 eclipsed the Royal Navy in tonnage, personnel, stores, and gunnery. There also existed then an inequality in firepower among similar rates of ships.

If that's true then it didn't last long. Soon after the American Civil War neglect ensured that the United States Navy slipped into obsolescence.

$1:

A Royal Navy gunboat of the Mid-Victorian period would have been an unarmoured sloop of approximately 200 to 250 tons and most of them sported two main guns of about twenty pounds. Her 1863 US counterpart would have been an armoured steam ship of about 300 tons sporting two 32 pound guns at the outset of the war and those guns would be at least ten inch rifles by late 1862.

What a load of rubbish. The WORLD'S FIRST armoured, iron-hulled warship was HMS Warrior, which came into service in the RN in 1860 and weighed over nine THOUSAND tons. She was the largest, fastest, most heavily armed and most heavily armoured warship the world had ever seen.

$1:

The Royal Navy gunboat would likely be far more manuverable but this would have been lost in a confrontation as her 20 pound guns would have had little effect on the layered armour plating the US Navy employed above the water line. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy 20 pounders had a max range of 1900 yards at 5° while the US Navy 8" rifles had a max range of 2600 yards at 11°. The 8" rifle round was also a 65 pound beast compared to the 20 pounder of the RN.

What about the 26 68-pounders that the Warrior was armed with, which had a maximum range of 3,620 yards?

[Batsy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Seizing whalers in the Pacific had FA to do with France. It wasn't just US ships entering French ports that were at issue. It was sometimes US ships in US waters in sight of US territory that were being stopped. It was US ships *anywhere* in the world that were at threat from the Royal Navy.

And it wasn't just the British that were resorting to such measures. The French stopped Americans ships, too. Both countries, quite rightly, justified the plunder of U.S. shipping as incidental to war and necessary for their survival

$1:

Irrelevant. A US flag ship is US territory and the British had no right to stop them to search for anyone. Thus, you had a war.

The British had every right to take American ships. They saw it as essential for their national survival during the Napoleonic Wars. You do know it was common practice all over the world in those days to capture and take over enemy ships? So stop acting as though America was the only victim.

And, as I've mentioned, the British mainly impressed only BRITISH SUBJECTS into the RN from American ships, many of whom were deserters, despite what Americans today say.

$1:

Yet Britain never did it again.

Only because they didn't need to due to the war against Napoleon coming to an end. Not because they suddenly decided it was wrong. The British didn't even search American ships for British sailors in Liverpool, even though the Americans conceded that the British had every right to do so.

As I've already mentioned, the Treaty of Ghent which ended the war ignored EVERY American grievance that led to them starting the war, including the British capturing of American ships and the British subjects - many of them deserters - onboard those ships. So what does that tell you?

[EyeBrock]

Batsy. You need to make your decision on this war from more than one source. You said yourself that you had never even heard of the war until yesterday.

Bart and I have debated with other this war for years. I've visited many of the battlefield sites and studied many differing accounts. Your views are very one track minded and simplistic.