The most underrated and overrated American presidents.

[Masada]

If it were that simple then why was there an international incident when a British ship carrying rebels (US Civil War) was boarded by an American ship and the Confederates were taken off?

Hmmm lets see because Britain didn't recognize them as criminals?

Britain's proclamation of neutrality was consistent with the position of the Lincoln Administration under international law—the Confederates were belligerents—giving them the right to obtain loans and buy arms from neutral powers, and giving the British the formal right to discuss openly which side, if any, to support.[

The reverse isn't true, deserters are deserters navies routinely handed over other navies deserters. It was a done thing.

On the first search of the Chesapeake even the Royal Navy captain admitted that the three Americans had originally been wrongfully impressed into the British navy.

The fourth wasn't I presume. With regards to actions like this its up to the letter of the law not up to the individual oversight of the captain in question he has to obey his orders.

For some reason, Americans didn't think much of Britain seizing native-born American citizens into its navy and then labelling them deserters when they had the presumption to flee such enforced servitude.

Citizenship was the key issue, who was what.

Sorry, we lost the War of 1812? If we had, there would be a Union Jack over Washington right now, dude.

I didn't see Whitehall being razed by American soldiers.

If we were so weak, why were the British unable to maintain control of the US? If we were so weak, why didn't the British army subjugate the colonists once more to regain control of North America?

There were Caribbean islands which paid more in taxes to Britain than America. The whole of Quebec was traded for some small flyspeck islands if that gives you an indication of your relative worth. Not to mention that keeping America cost the British more than you gave them back. Adam Smith was the first to recognize the future potential strength of America, something you didn't realize for almost a hundred years after.

Everything just said in the last two posts.

Word.

 

[civiijkw]

Hmmm lets see because Britain didn't recognize them as criminals?



The reverse isn't true, deserters are deserters navies routinely handed over other navies deserters. It was a done thing.



The fourth wasn't I presume. With regards to actions like this its up to the letter of the law not up to the individual oversight of the captain in question he has to obey his orders.



Citizenship was the key issue, who was what.



I didn't see Whitehall being razed by American soldiers.



There were Caribbean islands which paid more in taxes to Britain than America. The whole of Quebec was traded for some small flyspeck islands if that gives you an indication of your relative worth. Not to mention that keeping America cost the British more than you gave them back. Adam Smith was the first to recognize the future potential strength of America, something you didn't realize for almost a hundred years after.



Word.

Taking them in sequence:

1 & 4) Britain didn't recognize the Confederates as criminals, and America didn't recognize American-born sailors forcibly impressed by Britain to be deserters once they escaped their enforced servitude. If there was an international incident over the first then why should people be surprised that the was an international incident over the second. Such sailors were never citizens of the British empire so even Britain's refusal to recognize nationalization (once British - forever tied to Britain even if a person emigrates to another country) is not significant in their case.
Also, Britain was willing to attempt to violate the Union blockade of the Confederacy and yet some are surprised that America saw a problem with the British blockade of the continent. Again, if there was an international incident over one then why be surprised with the other.

2 & 3) The one formerly British sailor supposedly on the Chesapeake was not found even though the ship was searched by the first Royal ship to reach it. If Monroe had been president at the time instead of Jefferson then it is quite possible that we would be discussing the War of 1807 (though the US was probably even less prepared then). Firing a sudden broadside into a ship of a nation that was at peace was not considered a particularly friendly act. After that tensions were such that war was eventually almost certain (barring major policy changes).

5) That would have been a bit unlikely (outside of alternate history books even more one-sided than Stars and Stripes Triumphant).

6) Underestimating self-worth wasn't really a major problem in a country that (soon afterward) touted Manifest Destiny. The reverse of that is one thing that helped give the country the chutzpa to make the initial declaration of war (helped by the outcome of the war against the Barbary pirates after the European nations were seen by some as being too timid or corrupt to stand up to them - even today people remember the phrase "millions for defense and not one cent for tribute"). I'm not sure how much the Battle of New Orleans had to do with promoting that feeling of destiny. Rather than an inferiority complex, the US seemed more to be annoyed by not being given the respect it felt was its due (I'm reminded of the Mark Twain response to a French politician's comment about the comparitively slim American history).

The early statesmen did recognize that America needed to obtain some of the British technology secrets and offered rewards to emigrating engineers (I think Slater was the name of the first engineer to take a false name and pretend to be a farmer in order to circumvent the security that would have otherwise prevented him from leaving Britain).

 

[Sharwood]

This is why I don't argue with Americans about the War of 1812. They can't grasp the simple concept of "if you start a war with the intention of conquering a nation, and don't conquer that nation, or even part of it, you've lost said war."

 

[civiijkw]

This is why I don't argue with Americans about the War of 1812. They can't grasp the simple concept of "if you start a war with the intention of conquering a nation, and don't conquer that nation, or even part of it, you've lost said war."

I didn't say anything about winning or losing 1812, but was rather arguing against somebody who indicated there was absolutely no justification for the declaration.

It is a bit funny that our national anthem came from that war, particularly when it includes phrases like "their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution" and "no refuge could save the hireling and slave from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave" (written after Washington was burned, if I remember correctly - and I think slavery was more common in the surrounding countryside than in the British army). The lyrics are fine but you'd think it would be more appropriate if the anthem had been chosen from a more successful war.

 

[Masada]

I didn't say anything about winning or losing 1812, but was rather arguing against somebody who indicated there was absolutely no justification for the declaration.

Whose that?

This is why I don't argue with Americans about the War of 1812. They can't grasp the simple concept of "if you start a war with the intention of conquering a nation, and don't conquer that nation, or even part of it, you've lost said war."

Quite.

 

[say1988]

The one formerly British sailor supposedly on the Chesapeake was not found even though the ship was searched by the first Royal ship to reach it.

One unquestionably British subject was taken (later hanged) and an American who had served in the Royal Navy was taken, whether he served by choice or deserted I do not know.

Also, Britain was willing to attempt to violate the Union blockade of the Confederacy and yet some are surprised that America saw a problem with the British blockade of the continent. Again, if there was an international incident over one then why be surprised with the other

You have every right to try and violate a blockade you disagree with, they just have the right to shoot you if you do.

There is no question, the US had reasons to oppose Britain, though.