The US Won the War of 1812

[Galahad]

--For the benefit of Dunserving who appears not to have read them--or who doesn't think that they apply to trolls--here are a couple of the rules Marcus has established for his Forum.
--"Guidelines & Instructions
by Marcus Wendel on Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:09 pm
These are the basic guidelines of this forum:
.....* No insults are tolerated (that includes serious national and religious insults)...
* Keep the message on topic....."

--Dunserving has now made 4 off-topic posts in a row, a violation of one of Marcus' stated rules.

--His initial post was calculated to be an implication of cowardice on the part of the US Navy, and the "fact" he used as a foundation for it was incorrect. We'll cut him some slack on that would-be insult since it boomeranged on him.

--His second post opened by imputing that I lied in something I'd written ("Meanwhile, if we stick to the truth............When HMS Cornwallis was firing on your little ship the captain did not know that the war had ended.....").

--Again, we'll cut Dunserving some slack over that "little ship" comment; we all know it's nothing but troll spite being displayed.

--But he has yet to apologize for implying that I was other than truthful. He has further not shown where I did, in fact, state anything that wasn't the truth. THAT deliberate insult I'll cut him no slack over, because I don't like being called a liar by some troll with an agenda. That was another violation of the Forum's rules, one uncalled for in any way.

--Except in his spiteful mind, ticked that his little joke insult got shot down with fact.

--Dunserving should either get on the topic of the thread, or go troll someplace else lest we see what the Forum moderator has to say on the matter of repeatedly violating Marcus' rules in order to hijack the thread.

--And, assuming he is going to keep posting, I suggest Dunserving should actually read my initial post, rather than just read the title.

[Dunserving]

I read your post and I also read the rules.

You claim that I have implied cowardice on the part of the US Navy and that I have implied that you are a liar.

I have done nothing of the kind and reject your comments abut me utterly. I do not imply anything - if I thought it then I would state it, unequivocally. And as I have not formally accused your navy of cowardice, nor you of lying, you may take it as read that I have made no allegation of any kind of that sort. My comments were written in English as it is learnt and understood by an Englishman born in London, and if your similar but different language leads you to have a different understanding to mine it's your problem not mine. Presumably your understanding of my words led you to make the troll allegation. I reject that utterly. I don't have any Scandinavian ancestry either. Almost certainly do have some French ancestry though.

For those reasons if you are waiting for an apology you will have a very long wait indeed. Marcus and the the other moderators have had over five weeks to react by either locking the thread or banning me, or both. They have done neither.

The "little ship" comment was entirely appropriate - surely the 18 gun Hornet could not be thought of as equal to the much bigger and more heavily armed Cornwallis? No need to cut any slack is there?

You wrote "But neither the British government nor the Honourable East India Company ever submitted a claim for damages with regard to HEICS Nautilus. That seems to indicate that they supported the Peacock's action in the sense that it was legitimate--which is was."

Surely the fact that neither our government nor the ships owners submitted a claim does not necessarily indicate that they supported the Peacock's actions? A legitimate action? Depends whose side you are on.

There are other possibillities, not the least of which is that it was really a very minor incident and perhaps hardly worth starting fighting or other financial/diplomatic conflict over? Did anyone important get hurt of killed? Was there any great financial cost or loss? Worth also remembering how many cargo ships never arrived at their destination in those days even in times of peace. The incident happened some 60 years before the Plimsoll Line, and I'm sure we all know why that got invented. A bit of damage to a fairly insignificant cargo vessel was hardly worth caring about compared to the losses in a typical peacetime year.

I'm not sure how your government would have felt about it had the situation been reversed, but it is pretty typical of British government to just let it go when it suited, regardess of right. The incident was worthy of a diplomatic spat, but hardly worthy of starting another conflict.

[waldzee]

I read your post and I also read the rules.

You claim that I have implied cowardice on the part of the US Navy and that I have implied that you are a liar.

I have done nothing of the kind and reject your comments abut me utterly. I do not imply anything - if I thought it then I would state it, unequivocally. And as I have not formally accused your navy of cowardice, nor you of lying, you may take it as read that I have made no allegation of any kind of that sort. My comments were written in English as it is learnt and understood by an Englishman born in London, and if your similar but different language leads you to have a different understanding to mine it's your problem not mine. Presumably your understanding of my words led you to make the troll allegation. I reject that utterly. I don't have any Scandinavian ancestry either. Almost certainly do have some French ancestry though.

For those reasons if you are waiting for an apology you will have a very long wait indeed. Marcus and the the other moderators have had over five weeks to react by either locking the thread or banning me, or both. They have done neither.

The "little ship" comment was entirely appropriate - surely the 18 gun Hornet could not be thought of as equal to the much bigger and more heavily armed Cornwallis? No need to cut any slack is there?

You wrote "But neither the British government nor the Honourable East India Company ever submitted a claim for damages with regard to HEICS Nautilus. That seems to indicate that they supported the Peacock's action in the sense that it was legitimate--which is was."

Surely the fact that neither our government nor the ships owners submitted a claim does not necessarily indicate that they supported the Peacock's actions? A legitimate action? Depends whose side you are on.

There are other possibillities, not the least of which is that it was really a very minor incident and perhaps hardly worth starting fighting or other financial/diplomatic conflict over? Did anyone important get hurt of killed? Was there any great financial cost or loss? Worth also remembering how many cargo ships never arrived at their destination in those days even in times of peace. The incident happened some 60 years before the Plimsoll Line, and I'm sure we all know why that got invented. A bit of damage to a fairly insignificant cargo vessel was hardly worth caring about compared to the losses in a typical peacetime year.

I'm not sure how your government would have felt about it had the situation been reversed, but it is pretty typical of British government to just let it go when it suited, regardess of right. The incident was worthy of a diplomatic spat, but hardly worthy of starting another conflict.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Both of you are n an odd exchange- & as a veteran of bad posts I know of whence I speak!
Both the Battle of Lake Erie & the battles on Lake ontario at Burlington were sagas crews of both the Provincial Marine & the Us Navy fighting to the death- with Perry turning the tables with innovation.

The Freshwater naval war was a fight to the finish....

[waldzee]

Good morning Galahad,

I missed your above excellent post - until now.

A couple of comments;

Re: "never again did Britain seriously contemplate war on the US,..";

During the US Civil War, the USN captured 2 British diplomats aboard a Confererate vessel on the high seas. To abbreviate: HM Government sent 10,000 troops to Canada in preparation to protect British diplomats and et cetra. President Lincoln told his Admirals and Generals to hold off because = One war at a time is enough. = or something reported like this. I forgot the specifics of this incident but the Civil War people here should be readily familiar with this incident.

Re: "Thirty years later that led to the War with Mexico,..";

"Manifest Destiny" was planned much earlier. The expulsion of a Spanish presence was coupled to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. What the Hades were Captains Lewis and Clark doing with their flaura and fauna survey party on the Pacific Coast in 1805?! "Oh, the sea, the joy".

Re the US War of 1812,;

The Brits were involved in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. London's main concern was protecting their West Indies markets by American raiders. This was the main reason the Brits blockaded US ports. This did damage US commerce but it was a secondary matter with the West Indies protection being of primary importance.

Again, great post.

Warm regards,

Bob

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The US, in the Ghent treaty, gained the Red River Valley & the 49th parallel boundary instead of the Upper Missouri channel , & eventually, the Oregon country, so it was a 'clear victory', over time.

The Losers, I suppose, were the Sioux, who were coalescing in the Red River Basin

[David Thompson]

Gentlemen -- Our rules prohibit personal remarks about other posters, so avoid them in discussions of historical events. Our readers come here for sourced information about the topic, not extraneous flame-bait or personal notions about unrelated matters. Consider this a thread warning.

[waldzee]

Gentlemen -- Our rules prohibit personal remarks about other posters, so avoid them in discussions of historical events. Our readers come here for sourced information about the topic, not extraneous flame-bait or personal notions about unrelated matters. Consider this a thread warning.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mea Culpa! I did not intened to imply

"the Sioux lost Territory'- but are winners as people.

[Ken McCanliss]

The only exchange of territory in the war was when three American soldiers
captured Carleton Island in the St. Lawrence River (in the Thousand Islands
group). This was ratified by Great Britain in the treaty of peace. Thus, by the
measure of territory won or lost, the United States did indeed win the War of
1812.

[Ken McCanliss]

By the way, that the Red River Valley was ceded to the United States and the 49th Parallel
agreed upon as the boundary was accomplished by the Treaty of 1818 (also known as the
London Convention), and not by the Treaty of Ghent.

[waldzee]

By the way, that the Red River Valley was ceded to the United States and the 49th Parallel
agreed upon as the boundary was accomplished by the Treaty of 1818 (also known as the
London Convention), and not by the Treaty of Ghent.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the London convention was triggered by the war of 1812.

[Ken McCanliss]

The northern boundary was one of those unresolved issues between Great Britain
and the United States that the Treaty of 1818 laid to rest. It was a comprise in
which the U.S. got the Red River Valley (south of the 49th parallel) and Britain
got the northern portion of the Louisiana Purchase (that part north of the 49th parallel).
In 1846, that line was extended from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.
But even then the boundary issue was not settled. That came in the 1880s when
the U.S. and Britain submitted the dispute over the San Juan Islands (in Puget Sound)
to arbitration by the Emporer of Germany.

[waldzee]

[quote="Dunserving"]I read your post and I also read the rules.

You claim that I have implied cowardice on the part of the US Navy and that I have implied that you are a liar.

I have done nothing of the kind and reject your comments abut me utterly. I do not imply anything - if I thought it then I would state it, unequivocally. And as I have not formally accused your navy of cowardice, nor you of lying, you may take it as read that I have made no allegation of any kind of that sort. neither......
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Given that the events occurred 200 years ago, we all now shall thank the internet gods for small mercies....