The Only American General to Lose a War Dead at 91

[Saras]

And in any case Brits stopped impressig as a policy after the Napoleonic wars, but DEFINITELY not because of the war of 1812.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Saras
And in any case Brits stopped impressig as a policy after the Napoleonic wars, but DEFINITELY not because of the war of 1812.

Of course the americans werent concerned with whether or not the brits continued impressment as a policy, but whether or not they continued to impress sailors from american merchant ships.

[Ben Kenobi]

2) To remove British forts from the American fronteer and stop the Brits from stirring up the Indians against us.

Right, like American policy towards the Indians was intended to pacify them, that they were all nice and peaceful towards them, in their drive for manifest destiny.

The British used to have a heck of a time trying to police the squabbles between the US colonies and the native peoples who lived beyond the allocated colony boundaries. When the Americans became independent, the British no longer had to pay to defend both sides from each other.

Regardless of whether or noth the Indians had a legit cause for going after us, the Brits had no right to be arming them and giving them supplies just to attack us.

If the Indians are allies to the British, then they have every right to sell and trade weapons to help them defend themselves against the Americans.

Further, if you can't control your own territory and stop foreign countries from putting forts in it, it's not your territory. Had we done nothing about those forts, the Brits could have claimed the Northwest territories.

Which justifies burning forts on the other side of the border how? I have to go with the arguments here, that the Americans were only too happy to get their hands on Canada, figured it would be a pushover, and when Canada didn't fold right away, they were shocked and surprised.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Tingkai


A feeble excuse to start a war, not unlike weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

In the case of the impressment something was actually occuring whereas the WMD situation was action about something that might occur.

If the US started boarding UK ships and apprehending british citizens to send them to gitmo, you would not think that an act of war?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Geronimo
In the case of the impressment something was actually occuring whereas the WMD situation was action about something that might occur.

If the US started boarding UK ships and apprehending british citizens to send them to gitmo, you would not think that an act of war?

The British were boarding merchant ships in international and arresting British desserters during a time of war. No it was not an act of war against the US, and the US government knew it. That's why it took the US warhawks so long to drum up enough support to start the war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tingkai


The British were boarding merchant ships in international and arresting British desserters during a time of war. No it was not an act of war against the US, and the US government knew it. That's why it took the US warhawks so long to drum up enough support to start the war.

Stopping a ship in international waters is irrelevant, stopping a ship without justification in Int waters is piracy. And lots of American sailors were of British birth, and they were taken more or less indiscriminately. There was of course reluctance to go to war anyway.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi





If the Indians are allies to the British, then they have every right to sell and trade weapons to help them defend themselves against the Americans.

.

Not if they were on what was recognized as American territory.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Stopping a ship in international waters is irrelevant, stopping a ship without justification in Int waters is piracy. And lots of American sailors were of British birth, and they were taken more or less indiscriminately. There was of course reluctance to go to war anyway.

At this very moment, Nato warships are stopping ships in international waters, such as in the Persian Gulf. Is that piracy?

Besides, desserters were arrested, not American citizens.

[Kuciwalker]

They didn't really care much about distinguishing between the two.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Besides, desserters were arrested, not American citizens.

This is just one example.

Chesapeake, U.S. frigate, famous for her role in the Chesapeake affair (June 22, 1807) and for her battle with the H.M.S. Shannon (June 1, 1813). The Chesapeake left Norfolk, Va., for the Mediterranean under the command of James Barron in June, 1807. Just outside U.S. territorial waters the H.M.S. Leopard stopped her and demanded the right to search her for British deserters. Barron refused to allow this, and shortly afterward the Leopard opened fire. Unprepared for action, Barron was forced to submit and allow the impressment of four of his crew (two of whom were American-born).

http://www.answers.com/topic/chesapeake?method=5&linktext=Chesapeake

Besides saying that the Brits were only arresting Brit citizens is more than a little disingenuous considering the fact that it wasn't until 1850 that they reconized the right of a man to renounce his nationality.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tingkai


At this very moment, Nato warships are stopping ships in international waters, such as in the Persian Gulf. Is that piracy?

looking for Terrorists, who pose a risk of violence, not deserters. What would you think if we forced a Canadian passenger jet to land, on the belief that deserters from US forces in Iraq were on it?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This is just one example.

Chesapeake, U.S. frigate, famous for her role in the Chesapeake affair (June 22, 1807) and for her battle with the H.M.S. Shannon (June 1, 1813). The Chesapeake left Norfolk, Va., for the Mediterranean under the command of James Barron in June, 1807. Just outside U.S. territorial waters the H.M.S. Leopard stopped her and demanded the right to search her for British deserters. Barron refused to allow this, and shortly afterward the Leopard opened fire. Unprepared for action, Barron was forced to submit and allow the impressment of four of his crew (two of whom were American-born).

http://www.answers.com/topic/chesapeake?method=5&linktext=Chesapeake

Besides saying that the Brits were only arresting Brit citizens is more than a little disingenuous considering the fact that it wasn't until 1850 that they reconized the right of a man to renounce his nationality.

Yes, a well known case, and yes, distinguishing which nation a person belonged to was difficult, particulary less than 20 years after the American Revolution.

Nonetheless, the British did not take every sailor on the Chesapeake, only four.

And while American history books will mention that two, or three of the four were born in the US, the more pertinent question was whether they had served in the Royal Navy and whether they were deserters.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They didn't really care much about distinguishing between the two.

Indeed:

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, the Royal Navy aggressively reclaimed British deserters posing as sailors of any other Navy, both by halting and searching merchant ships, and in many cases, by searching American port cities. Since it was difficult to tell whether a sailor was British or American, the Royal Navy "accidentally" impressed over 6000 American sailors during the early 1800s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment
Bolded an interesting part.

[Tingkai]

Do you really think that the U.S. government would have allowed the Royal Navy to search for sailors in US cities, particularly after winning the American Revolution?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Do you really think that the U.S. government would have allowed the Royal Navy to search for sailors in US cities, particularly after winning the American Revolution?

No, i think we would have gone to war over it. Isnt that what we're talking about?