An American 1812 war question
-
While impressment was likely one issue. There were also others. Are you aware of the "Boston Tea Party"? My impression would be that the issue of taxation without representation was pretty big and lead to a lot of hostilities. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
taxation without representation was an issue to a few big land owners not to the masses as did not effect them at the time only land owner could vote. the whole issue of taxation without representation could have been fixed with 2 seats in parliment IIRC but this could not be done without royal approval and Gorgie boy was off his trolley at the time. there was also the issue of what these taxes paid for, they had RN protection of shipping, protection against the French and many other benifits. also IIRC a big cause of the revolution was the embargo of expansion into indian terratories, HM Govenment had stopped the settlers from stealing indian land, this didnt go down well
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Can anybody provide evidence of a major claim of the revolution's cause? This is the impressment of US sailors by British warships, I have heard this used time and time again and yet when pressed they result is always "it’s well known". From the histories I have read of the time the Royal Navy only impressed ex British sailors from US ships, although the fact that the US were handing out citizenships like confetti does cloud the issue somewhat. is it just this, that the US were complaining about Brits who had later claimed to be US citizens being pressed (even if they had "run" from the RN) or is it genuine US born citizens that were being pressed? this was brought on by a pub discussion with a friendly Yank
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
This is the impressment of US sailors by British warships, I have heard this used time and time again and yet when pressed they result is always "it’s well known".
That was the War of 1812. When the revolution happened, Americans were technically British subjects, and therefore subject to British law.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
taxation without representation was an issue to a few big land owners not to the masses as did not effect them at the time only land owner could vote. the whole issue of taxation without representation could have been fixed with 2 seats in parliment IIRC but this could not be done without royal approval and Gorgie boy was off his trolley at the time. there was also the issue of what these taxes paid for, they had RN protection of shipping, protection against the French and many other benifits. also IIRC a big cause of the revolution was the embargo of expansion into indian terratories, HM Govenment had stopped the settlers from stealing indian land, this didnt go down well
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
The grievances that spurred the Revolution were clearly enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
This is the impressment of US sailors by British warships, I have heard this used time and time again and yet when pressed they result is always "it’s well known".
That was the War of 1812. When the revolution happened, Americans were technically British subjects, and therefore subject to British law.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997I already copped to that error
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
I already copped to that error
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Ahhh. Didn't read the whole thread. :)
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Well, you have to have standards dont you...
Do I? Why? (said with straight face)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Can anybody provide evidence of a major claim of the revolution's cause? This is the impressment of US sailors by British warships, I have heard this used time and time again and yet when pressed they result is always "it’s well known". From the histories I have read of the time the Royal Navy only impressed ex British sailors from US ships, although the fact that the US were handing out citizenships like confetti does cloud the issue somewhat. is it just this, that the US were complaining about Brits who had later claimed to be US citizens being pressed (even if they had "run" from the RN) or is it genuine US born citizens that were being pressed? this was brought on by a pub discussion with a friendly Yank
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Can anybody provide evidence of a major claim of the revolution's cause? This is the impressment of US sailors by British warships, I have heard this used time and time again and yet when pressed they result is always "it’s well known". From the histories I have read of the time the Royal Navy only impressed ex British sailors from US ships, although the fact that the US were handing out citizenships like confetti does cloud the issue somewhat. is it just this, that the US were complaining about Brits who had later claimed to be US citizens being pressed (even if they had "run" from the RN) or is it genuine US born citizens that were being pressed? this was brought on by a pub discussion with a friendly Yank
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
is it just this, that the US were complaining about Brits who had later claimed to be US citizens being pressed (even if they had "run" from the RN) or is it genuine US born citizens that were being pressed?
Think about if it happens now.... A UK citizen skips out on the UK navy and emigrates to the US. They take a position on a cruise ship flying registered at a US port. The UK navy threatens the cruise liner and then boards it, checks identities, and seizes the person. What would happen? In the above it doesn't really matter what legal claim that the UK thought they had, but rather that they are infringing on the sovereignty of the US by boarding the ship in the first place as well as potentially infringing on US citizens.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
is it just this, that the US were complaining about Brits who had later claimed to be US citizens being pressed (even if they had "run" from the RN) or is it genuine US born citizens that were being pressed?
Think about if it happens now.... A UK citizen skips out on the UK navy and emigrates to the US. They take a position on a cruise ship flying registered at a US port. The UK navy threatens the cruise liner and then boards it, checks identities, and seizes the person. What would happen? In the above it doesn't really matter what legal claim that the UK thought they had, but rather that they are infringing on the sovereignty of the US by boarding the ship in the first place as well as potentially infringing on US citizens.
jschell wrote:
Think about if it happens now....
Let's really think about if it were to happen now ... A US citizen skips out on the US navy and emigrates to the UK. They take a position on a cruise ship flying the Red Duster and registered at a UK port. The US navy threatens the cruise liner and then boards it, checks identities, and seizes the person.
jschell wrote:
What would happen?
Nothing, other than muted whimpering about the unfairness of it all. Later, a statement from the PotUS assuring the UK that the very special relationship between the US and the UK is as strong as ever.
jschell wrote:
it doesn't really matter what legal claim
No, the legality of their actions never matters to the top dog.
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
jschell wrote:
Think about if it happens now....
Let's really think about if it were to happen now ... A US citizen skips out on the US navy and emigrates to the UK. They take a position on a cruise ship flying the Red Duster and registered at a UK port. The US navy threatens the cruise liner and then boards it, checks identities, and seizes the person.
jschell wrote:
What would happen?
Nothing, other than muted whimpering about the unfairness of it all. Later, a statement from the PotUS assuring the UK that the very special relationship between the US and the UK is as strong as ever.
jschell wrote:
it doesn't really matter what legal claim
No, the legality of their actions never matters to the top dog.
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
the us board ships on the open sea nowadays why is that different it was not uncommon and was a major method of restriscting the slave trade
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
the us board ships on the open sea nowadays why is that different it was not uncommon and was a major method of restriscting the slave trade
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Relating to the originating post: Comment the First My intention was to reflect the reversal of roles between our two nations since the early 1800s. Comment the Second I was possibly unkind in suggesting that we would not show the same spirit as the US did in standing up to the dominant naval power. However, the demeanour adopted by every UK Prime Minister towards their contemporary US President, to obtain confirmation of our 'special relationship', would suggest otherwise. Comment the Third Merely a truism.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
the us board ships on the open sea nowadays why is that different
No idea. I am not an expert on International Maritime Law. (Give me an afternoon with Google, though, and I could become one.)
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
it was not uncommon and was a major method of restricting the slave trade
Indeed it was.
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
jschell wrote:
Think about if it happens now....
Let's really think about if it were to happen now ... A US citizen skips out on the US navy and emigrates to the UK. They take a position on a cruise ship flying the Red Duster and registered at a UK port. The US navy threatens the cruise liner and then boards it, checks identities, and seizes the person.
jschell wrote:
What would happen?
Nothing, other than muted whimpering about the unfairness of it all. Later, a statement from the PotUS assuring the UK that the very special relationship between the US and the UK is as strong as ever.
jschell wrote:
it doesn't really matter what legal claim
No, the legality of their actions never matters to the top dog.
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
ict558 wrote:
Let's really think about if it were to happen now ...
Not sure if you are being flippant... But for 1812 it was happening repeatedly. And if it happened repeatedly now I would expect that at some point the US would start shooting. Now whether that was a full on war or just a minor action to protect national interest I couldn't say.
-
ict558 wrote:
Let's really think about if it were to happen now ...
Not sure if you are being flippant... But for 1812 it was happening repeatedly. And if it happened repeatedly now I would expect that at some point the US would start shooting. Now whether that was a full on war or just a minor action to protect national interest I couldn't say.
jschell wrote:
Not sure if you are being flippant...
As I replied to BSJ: Comment the First My intention was to reflect the reversal of roles between our two nations since the early 1800s. Comment the Second I was possibly unkind in suggesting that the UK would not show the same spirit as the US did in standing up to the dominant naval power. However, the demeanour adopted by every UK Prime Minister towards their contemporary US President, to obtain confirmation of our 'special relationship', would suggest otherwise. Comment the Third Merely a truism.
jschell wrote:
Now whether that was a full on war or just a minor action to protect national interest I couldn't say.
Depends on whose histories you read. :)
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
