MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 24 of 114 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23    24    25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114 )
Message
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 8:21:53 AM
Quote:
The corvettes were not deep-water ships, could not carry weaponry sufficient to any attack against a surfaced U-boat, and were so slow they could not chase down a surfaced U-boat.


Hi Brian. Perhaps a bit harsh analysis. These corvettes would not be the first choice for ASW I suppose but they could be produced quickly and cheaply. Despite rolling excessively and having an open bridge in the initial designs, they were ocean going vessels based upon a whaler design. The poor crew were wet and for many, sea sick, a lot of the time.

But they were never designed to be attack vessels although Chummy Prentice of the RCN felt that they could serve that role. When the River class frigates were built, they were a clear upgrade.

It is worth noting that 44 u-boats and 4 Italian subs were sunk by Flower class corvettes.

Quote:
“two hundred feet long, broad, chunky, and graceless: designed purely for anti-submarine work, and not much more than a floating platform for depth charges, she was the prototype of a class of ship which could be produced quickly and cheaply in the future, to meet the urgent demands of convoy escort.”
. source: The Cruel Sea, Monsarrat.

Equipped with Asdic, Huff Duff and centimetric radar, the corvettes could locate and depth charge u-boats. The RCN corvettes were not equipped initially with the latest detection equipment until later in the war.

It's true that they were lightly armed for surface combat with a single 102mm gun on the forecastle. There was a 40mm "pom pom" gun aft. The RCN also added Lewis guns and 50 cal Browning MG's.

But the real punch was the rack of depth charges or the Hedgehog projector system.

A convoy escort may have had one destroyer and four or five Corvettes. Most convoys got through and it was up to the corvettes to keep the u-boats away from the convoy. Re-routing away from the wolf packs was a critical tactic.

Most u-boats were destroyed by airplane and not surface ships as I recall. If I'm all wet on that claim, someone please weigh in.

It is true that a Flower Class Corvette was slower than a u-boat on the surface.

There is one left. HMCS Sackville is a floating museum in Halifax harbour, Nova Scotia. Life for a sailor on these ships must have been most unpleasant.



Sackville's most memorable action occurred in Aug. 1942. She fought 3 u-boats in one 24 hour period. Two of them were put out of action but did manage to escape. One of those u-boats was forced to the surface by a depth charge pattern dropped by Sackville.
Another was attacked by Sackville with the u-boat on the surface. Sackville turned to ram and put a hole in the u-boat just below the conning tower with the forward gun. She did not ram because the u-boat took off.

As mentioned, not the best ships for the job but they did their job especially when equipped with effective detection equipment. They were supposed to escort and not to leave the convoy to pursue a target.

Cheers,

George











Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 11:05:00 AM
Hi George, & Brian,

We have a Submarine Museum, here in my hometown of Muskegon, MI. It includes many aspects of Submarine warfare including the Sub USS Silver sides Which sank over 30 IJN ships in WWII, it also has a coast guard ship which sank a IJN Sub, A Hedgehog device which launches numerous explosives at the sametime, deadly to enemy subs! Also a diving bell which when lowered to a Sub in distress can help evacuate the crew! The museum itself tells the history of WWII submarine warfare! Try googling their website!?

Pretty cool museum!
MD

BTW keep up the thread! Also welcome to fall, the temps here are in the low 40's brrrr!? How's it in your area??
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 12:54:54 PM
USS SIlversides. Link here: [Read More]



----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1968
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 1:30:41 PM
U-505 is finally housed out of the weather.


NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 1:52:02 PM
One of the highlights to any trip to Chicago is a visit to the museum of Science and Industry.
The first time I toured the U505 was in 1959.
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1968
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 3:41:44 PM
The peripheral displays are aimed at a history nerd's heart.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 5:15:26 PM
Just saw this post from a few days ago by NYGiant. This format sometimes makes it difficult to maintain continuity as several topics are being discussed at any one time.


Quote:
GB caved to US demands when they realized that building the Laird Rams and delivering them to the Rebels meant war. GB took possession of this ships.The US offered war. GB declined because they realized they were in the wrong. They didn't want war. They caved. Here in the US it is taught in our schools that the fledgeling US defeated GB, the greatest military power in the world at the time, twice.


Charles Adams did a masterful job of lobbying the British throughout the war to enforce the Foreign Enlistment Act to stop ship builders from building ships for the Confederacy. Britain required solid proof that shipbuilders were flouting the rules and I admit that the government was playing fast and loose with the rules and the issues. None of the ships were built fully armed and ready to fight. And so if the ships were not war ships then there could be no restriction on their construction and sale.

However, if a ship can be seen to have multiple ports for guns then one could surmise that it was made for war.

The Laird Rams scared the hell out of the Union. Lincoln and Seward were cautioned by the USN that these ships would be able to break the blockade of southern ports.

What has not been mentioned yet is that Lord Russell, the British Foreign Secretary, had been concerned about the construction of these ships for most of the previous year. Much is made of Charles Adams' assertion that the release of these vessels would mean war. However, Lord Russell had already instructed the authorities in the port that these ships were not to be allowed to leave port before Adams made his threat.

So Britain bought the ships and one wonders what would have happened had they used them to destroy the Union blockade of the southern ports.

There was considerable support for the north initially in Britain. But when Lincoln declared that the civil war would not be fought over slavery, the British could only conclude that the war was interfering with legal trade with the south. They understood the immorality of slavery but if the US was not going to fight to eliminate slavery then the only concern was that trade had been disrupted. Hence, greater support for the south emerged culminating in a recognition of the south as a belligerent.



Quote:
What GB has that the US did not have, was another layer of Government. We don't have a Royal Family that must sign off on any foreign adventures. Queen Victoria declared GB to be neutral in the American Civil War despite the protestations of Palmerston. Queen Victoria determined that GB would NOT get involved in the Danish-Prussian War because the Queen was pro-Prussia, despite Palmerston having warned Prussia that GB would intervene (prior to his death).


Actually you do have another layer of government in that the Executive Branch, the President has extraordinary veto powers. I mentioned that the last time that a monarch had vetoed a law passed in the British legislature was 1708. Since 1789, Presidential veto power has been used over 1400 times and Congress has overturned that veto only 106 times.

Countries that employ the British Westminster system find this veto power in the hands of one person to be odd, at best. Autocratic at worst.

As for Queen Victoria's exercise of the Royal Prerogative in her Proclamation of Neutrality, I do no know whether she did so against the advice of her ministers including Palmerston. Today it is unlikely that the monarch would overturn a parliamentary decision by using the Royal Prerogative.

Cheers
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 5:59:34 PM
Actually, the only support for the South came from the English aristocracy, still smarting form the loss of the Colonies in 1781, when the fledging United States defeated the greatest military and naval power in the World, at that time.

Public opinion was divided over the war, with support for the Confederacy tending to emanate from the upper class while the middle and lower classes mostly favored the Union The working industrial class recognized immediately that the American Civil war was a struggle between slave-labor wage-labor. Despite the high unemployment, some Manchester cotton workers refused out of principle to process any cotton from America, leading to direct praise from President Lincoln, whose statue in Manchester bears a plaque which quotes his appreciation for the textile workers in "helping abolish slavery"

Actually, we don't have an extra layer. You have a Prime Minister...we have President. You have Parliament, we have Congress. We both have a judicial system.

What you have and we don't is a Royal Family, a King nor a Queen , who is the Head of State.

A perfect example of the Queen's power is the Danish-Prussian War. Palmerston before he died, warned Prussia that GB would aid Denmark if Prussia went to war for Schlesweig-Holstein. But Queen Victoria was pro-Prussia, he daughter having married the man who would become Kaiser Wilhelm I, and told her ministers there woujld be no intervention, much to the chagrin of her Danish daughter-in-law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, the question about the Laird Rams if they were given to the Confederacy and the comment about destroying the Union blockade.

1. Anti-British feelings erupt as the United States declares war against GB.
2. The Union now "fully mobilizes", enlisting more Americans and the newly arrived Irish flock to enlist, in order to fight GB. They will demand a free and united Ireland at the end of the conflict.
3. The war against the South continues on land.
4. Canada is invaded and occupied.
5. The industrial might of the US flexes it muscles to its full potential. Yankee ingenuity develops stronger cannon, and munitions that pierce armor, and wood. American technology finds new ways to combat and level the playing field.
6. The loss of 50% of imported food causes hardships in England. Women riot in the streets families face starvation.
7. GB finds the distance to Canada to be as oner-sume as it was in 1776.
8. Industrial workers in large cities refuse to fight for the continuation of a slave-labor nation, and refuse to work.
9. The Irish revolt.
10. The St Lawrence River continues freeze during the winter. British tops starve.
11. Initially the RN dominates the seas, but an American invasion of Nova Scotia forces GB to abandon its naval base there.
12. The English home front refuses to continue the war.
13. A chastened and defeat GB begs the US for a Peace settlement. At the negotiation, GB loses Ireland and Canada loses the right so fish in the North Atlantic.
14. The USA now has defeated GB 3 times in less than 100 years.

The rest of the British Empire throws off the yoke of colonialism and become free. Prussia makes its move to be the dominant country on the European Continent.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4806
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 6:33:39 PM
Apologies for what appears to be an erroneous post. In an earlier post directed to MD about Sir John A., I wrote the following: “ About 5 years ago, his statue was removed from the front of Victoria City Hall, after negotiations with First Nations representatives. Now, at the end of our mayor’s term of office, they are talking about bringing old John A back. I guess maybe the desire to remove him came more from Council than from First Nations.  

Seems that is exactly the reverse of what is taking place.

https://www.vicnews.com/news/victoria-to-part-ways-with-john-a-macdonald-statue/?utm_source=second-street&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VI+Daily+Dish+-+September+23%2c+2022

Sorry about my error.

Cheers
Brian G

----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 7:08:45 PM
Quote:
Actually, we don't have an extra layer. You have a Prime Minister...we have President. You have Parliament, we have Congress. We both have a judicial system.


I'm not sure that you have an understanding of the Westminster Parliamentary system or a constitutional monarchy. For example, are you aware that the Prime Minister is a sitting member of the legislature? As well, are you aware that the PM is not elected directly by the people?

Most people would not simply equate the US government model of a democratic republic with a British style constitutional monarchy. There are some similarities but many differences as well.


Your last part of the post is odd and clearly speculative. I feel as though I am the target of some creative baiting by an Anglophobe. . Some wishful thinking at work. However, you do seem confident that this series of events would unfold. Not sure why.

Have you considered that the USN would have been destroyed in this scenario in conjunction with the blockade of northern ports and the opening of the southern ports?

BTW, the Irish element of the Union army decided to attack British North America a number of times. They had been demobilized and then, as members of the Fenian Brotherhood, launched an invasion of BNA in 1866. They would continue with futile raids after Canada became a nation, until 1870.

Also, when was the second victory by the US over Britain? Surely not the War of 1812???

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 7:34:29 PM
Quote:
USS SIlversides. Link here: [Read More]






Thanks DT!
MD

BTW, Hey East coast Canadians watch out for Hurricane Fiona! How bad might this storm be??

Take care!!!
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 7:39:57 PM
Hi George,

Thank you for validating my comment that there are similarities between the 2 forms of government.

Your comment about the last part of my post is rather odd.. You asked what would have happened had the Confederates had received the Laird rams. And I had to speculate as the Laird rams never were used by the Confederates.

Yes...the war of 1812 was an American Victory. All British invasions of the US were repelled.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2022 9:37:16 PM
Quote:
Hi George,

Thank you for validating my comment that there are similarities between the 2 forms of government.

Your comment about the last part of my post is rather odd.. You asked what would have happened had the Confederates had received the Laird rams. And I had to speculate as the Laird rams never were used by the Confederates.

Yes...the war of 1812 was an American Victory. All British invasions of the US were repelled.


NYGiant, you sound a little desperate. The differences in the mechanics of government between a US style democratic republic and a British style constitutional monarchy are significant. Your initial comment in reference to the two types of government was overly simplistic.

No, I did not ask what would have happened had the Confederates received the Laird Rams. I asked whether you had considered that the British could have employed the rams against the US if necessary.

Not likely though. Britain did not want to go to war. They weren't that bellicose but certainly wished to keep trade options open. And the US had closed those trade options with the southern parts of the US.

War of 1812: You do realize that the US attacked BNA first don't you by invading my part of the world? And that the US forces had been repulsed in Upper and Lower Canada in 1814? And that the British occupied a portion of Maine (then part of Mass.) not leaving until 1818?

I understand that the British were defeated on Lake Champlain and that Prevost ordered the invading army to retreat because of that but they were not defeated on the field. A US victory to be sure but this British army was whole and ready to fight again.

The war ended with the British forces still on the attack, roaming up and down the US east coast to attack port cities. They had just taken Fort Bowyer when word arrived of the peace treaty. Neither New Orleans nor Fort Bowyer were actually part of the war as it was already over by the time that those two events occurred. My point is that the US had no answer to the RN attacks on their ports in 1814.

Your assertion that this war was a victory is not shared by most of the legitimate historians of this war and that includes US historians. At best, the war is considered a draw with even some historians asserting that the US lost. Alan Taylor has written an interesting analysis of this war titled, "The Civil War of 1812".

The losers were the unfortunate indigenous people who lost what little protection their benefactors, the British, had been able to afford them. With the Treaty of Ghent the First Nations were open to the depredations of the US.

George


NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2022 4:20:19 AM
George, it makes no difference if the Confederates had used them , or the British had used them against the US....the US still goes to war against GB.

You do realize that GB stopped American ships in the high seas and removed alleged RN sailors who may have deserted. That was the cause of the War of 1812.

You must be aware that the US stopped the British advance at Lake Champlain. The Battle of Baltimore (September 12–15, 1814) was a sea/land battle fought between British invaders and American defenders in the War of 1812. American forces repulsed sea and land invasions off the busy port city of Baltimore, Maryland, and killed the commander of the invading British forces. And there was the assault against New Orleans...another British defeat.

At best, GB suddenly stopped intercepting American merchant ships on the high seas and removing alleged deserters from the RN. When America did look back at the War of 1812 they thought first of the interference with their maritime rights which had caused them to fight, then of the successful exploits of their own privateers. Since the signing of the peace treaty in Ghent conveniently coincided with the end of England's interference in American affairs, they imagined it as a second successful end of the War of Independence.



Sounds like an American victory to me and my fellow Americans.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2022 7:42:37 AM
Quote:
Sounds like an American victory to me and my fellow Americans.


Only to the ones who have not read the history of this war, NYGiant. And perhaps only to those Americans who refuse to admit that they have lost some wars. The fixation on New Orleans smacks of desperation.

And not to the historians who have studied it. At best, most call it a wash. Some call it a British victory including some American historians.

As the British were successful in defending their possessions in North America, some historians call that a British victory. I live in Ontario, formerly Upper Canada, and to us this war was important as our right to live as we wished under British rule was guaranteed in victory.

You have completely ignored the fact that the US initiated this war with an invasion over the Detroit River into Upper Canada. Attempts to annex BNA were thwarted by a small group of British regulars assisted by militia and most importantly, First Nations. The invaders, despite several attempts over the period of the war were driven from the British colonies after the siege of Fort Erie. (The US left the fort and crossed into New York state)

The British weren't finished at New Orleans. They immediately sailed to Fort Bowyer and took it. And then they were prepared to sail back to Mobile, Alabama to take it when word arrived that the Treaty of Ghent had been signed.

Meanwhile the US was facing an empty piggy bank. New England was discussing secession from the Union. And there were discussions to limit the power of the executive branch in the federal government to avoid another, "Mr. Madison's War".

The war ended primarily because the British had grown weary of this sideshow. They had spent 20 years fighting France and Napoleon and I believe that they deserve praise for that. I find it shameful that the US took advantage of Britain while they were engaged in a desperate struggle to avoid domination of Europe and other parts of the world by the Emperor Napoleon.

The British didn't even send their top diplomats to the negotiations to end the War of 1812. I grant that the US victory at Plattsburgh caused them to feel that it wasn't worth it to continue to attack the US. Initially prepared to go hard line in negotiations, they changed their minds and were content to accept a return to conditions ante bellum. That was an American suggestion I believe. So no territorial gains for either side. And Britain had defended its colonies.

Please remember that. After spending two years in the defence of the British colonies because of an unwarranted attack on peaceful people, it was Britain that was on the offensive in late 1814. American negotiators had discussed among themselves the possible loss of territory to the British as negotiations began. As mentioned, the British already occupied parts of Maine (see Battle of Hampden). They controlled Mackinac Island. The push south from Montréal into the Hudson Valley would have seen further occupation of US territory.

The only foothold by the US in BNA was in the far SW of Upper Canada where the US had taken Fort Amherstburg and renamed it Fort Malden. From there they did send raiders to destroy mills and food supplies in towns on the north side of Lake Erie.

But the attempts to roll up the Niagara Peninsula and to seize York and then Kingston, Montréal and Québec were failures.

So the US should be thankful for the naval victory on Lake Champlain. It was enough to spook the defensively minded Gen. Prévost into ordering a retreat much to the chagrin of his land forces commanders most of whom were veterans of the peninsular campaign in Europe. However, they were not defeated by US troops or by militia crossing from the Vermont side. They just left as Prévost was concerned about resupply now that the lake route was lost.

I always find it interesting that some in the US call this war a great victory. That is not born out by historical fact.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2022 10:21:20 AM
George,

That is a bit much when you say, I find it "shameful"!? really " shameful"!!?? That the US fought Britain while they were fighting other European countries like France!? Did you find it shameful that the British stopped US ships and impressed sailors off it!? Let's keep shameful out of this arguement!?

All's fair in love & war!?

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2022 10:29:16 AM
Hey guys,

Lets check out new dates & history! Like 9-21,

1823 Joseph Smith Starts the Mormon Church when he sees a Angel!? What say you about the Mormons??

1931 England goes off the Gold standard! How did this effect the worlds economy back then!? Comments?

1950 comedian Bill Murray is born! Personally I think he's 1 of the best at his trade!? What is your fav. BM movie? I really liked, "What about Bob"!! ☺

1981 Belize becomes independent from GB! How & why did this happen?? Anyone?

9-22 events!??

1609 Moors driven out of Spain! Why didn't Muslims & Catholics get along back then? How's it going today?? Comments?

1692 the last of the Salem Witch Trials! How could they really believe in witches at this time!? Anyone??

1776 Nathan Hale a US officer executed by the British! He said I only regret that I have only 1 life to give to my country! He then became an immortal hero to the US cause! Why did the Brits kill such a brave man? Anyone??

1980 War between Iraq, & Iran begins! Just who was the bad guy in this war!?? What say you??

2002 the beginning of banning Fox Hunting in Great Britain! What was wrong with A bunch of royal rich dudes killing foxes!?? Comments?

On 9-23 check these out! Comments?

1779 off the British Coast US naval officer, John Paul Jones sinks the enemy ship Serapis! becoming an American hero! What say you?

1806 Lewis & Clarke return from mapping the new Louisiana Purchase! How accurate were they? One of them died controversial, soon afterwards? Who & what happened?? BTW were They were fair to the British?? Anyone?

1862 Otto Von Bismarck comes to power! Was he an aggressive war leader!? Was this the beginning of a military based government in Germany!? Anyone?

1949 Rocker Bruce Springsteen was born! Was he really the Boss!? What of Elvis, he was the King after all!!? & others? Anyone??

& finally today 9-24 these events! Please comment on any!??

1755 there are 9 justices in the Supreme Court! Is serving their lifetimes really right? Do they reflect the majority of all US Citizens? What say you?? How can the Court be more fair??

1960 1st Nuclear power sub, the USS Enterprise is launched! Does she still serve? Anyone on her history??

2015 thousands of pilgrims died in Mecca! How could this possibly happen in a religious place!? Anyone??

Now I go to all the trouble to post such a huge thread, please comment on as many events that interests you!?

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2022 12:00:36 PM
Quote:
1779 off the British Coast US naval officer, John Paul Jones sinks the enemy ship Serapis! becoming an American hero! What say you?


Certainly a "feel good" story for the insurrectionists I suppose? It was a tactical victory for Jones though his ship was severely damaged and he abandoned it, allowing it to sink, while he transferred to the British ship.

Note that the RN was pretty busy at the time in engagements with the French and Spanish navies.

The captain of Serapis gave Jones a chance to surrender and he refused while uttering that famous phrase. Perhaps Serapis should have continued the bombardment.

Were the British afraid that an armada of rebel ships was going to appear off the cliffs of Dover or sail up the Thames. Not likely.

But the treacherous French had given Jones safe harbour and his victory may have swayed them to give greater support to the rebels in BNA. Jones' ship Bonhomme Richard, was a gift to the rebels.

It is events like these that provide fodder for every nation to write an historical narrative that pleases the citizens. And accounts of the battle indicate that it was a vicious battle indeed with many dead and wounded on both ships. They engaged in hand to hand combat.

The French were impressed. Didn't they name Jones to some order akin to being knighted?

Cheers,

George

Cheers,

George
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1968
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2022 12:10:35 PM
Jones was the first American to be promoted to Admiral.

In the Russian Navy.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2022 5:22:29 PM
Quote:
1776 Nathan Hale a US officer executed by the British! He said I only regret that I have only 1 life to give to my country! He then became an immortal hero to the US cause! Why did the Brits kill such a brave man? Anyone??


He was a spy and spies get hung. Both side hung spies in this war. Some accounts say that he was incompetent while others say just naive. One historian claims that he had been on other spy missions prior to the one in which he was caught.

He volunteered to travel behind the British lines on Long Island and to report on their strength and troop disposition.

He was caught on Sept. 21, 1776 and executed the next morning. Some historians claim that justice was remarkably swift in this case and suggest that Hale may have set fire to British installations and that arson hastened the path to justice.

He may not have uttered his famous sentence about having one life to give but one British officer said that he did die bravely. And he provided a great story to those who wrote the history of this insurrection.

Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2022 6:18:24 PM
George,

You seem to be mistaken about the commencement of hostilities. The RN stopped American merchant ships on the high seas, and impressed alleged RN deserters.THAT, was the reason for the war.

The Americans repelled 3 British invasions.

The USS Constitution was undefeated in fighting British ships...in fact the Admiralty told its captains not to take on the better built American frigates.

New Orleans was a great loss for the Brits.

Bottom line...the RN from that day forward, no longer stopped American ships on the high seas. You can say that they learned their lesson. The Us lost no territory





George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2022 9:39:40 PM
Quote:
George,

You seem to be mistaken about the commencement of hostilities. The RN stopped American merchant ships on the high seas, and impressed alleged RN deserters.THAT, was the reason for the war.

The Americans repelled 3 British invasions.

The USS Constitution was undefeated in fighting British ships...in fact the Admiralty told its captains not to take on the better built American frigates.

New Orleans was a great loss for the Brits.

Bottom line...the RN from that day forward, no longer stopped American ships on the high seas. You can say that they learned their lesson. The Us lost no territory



From the British perspective, the US decision, and not an overwhelmingly popular decision in the Senate, was a betrayal. Britain was dealing with Napoleon and his determination to control all trade with his Continental Policy. The British felt that they were fighting for the US as well. And the US got its nose of joint not just because of impressment which was not the only reason that the US justified war.

Quote:
“I am really ashamed of the narrow, selfish light in which [the Americans] have regarded the last struggle for liberty and morality in Europe—but our cousin Jonathan has no romantic fits of energy and acts only upon cool, solid calculation of a good market for rice or tobacco!”
. British PM Lord Liverpool

As Britain and France determined to control trade, US trade interests were impacted. Tit for tat orders in council by Britain and France reduced the ability of the US to trade in Europe. For some reason the US chose to believe that Napoleon's assurance that his continental policy would not impact US trade. And they chose to disbelieve the British PM when he said that he would return wrongfully impressed US sailors.

As well, when Jefferson became President, relations with Britain went downhill. He had long been a proponent of annexation of BNA. He was not President when he lobbied for war and wrote in a letter to a friend that:

Quote:
The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, and the final expulsion of England from the American continent.”


Despite denial from some Americans that annexation of the British colonies was not on the table despite the invasion of said colonies, both the British and the Canadians felt and still fell otherwise. Annexation was in the minds of the war hawks who pushed for this unnecessary war. Annexation then was also a reason to go to war and a hypocritical one at that given that the US was fond of touting freedom of choice but not willing to grant it to the British subjects in the colonies.

The Orders in Council that put the US in high dudgeon were rescinded before the war began. They were listed by the Americans as another reason to go to war. The information did not get back to North America until after the US invasion of Upper Canada near Detroit but the US elected to continue with its invasion.

Note that the issue of impressment was not on the initial list of grievances. When the Orders in Council affecting trade were rescinded, Pres. Madison then brought up the issue of impressment. Impressment was not the cause of the war.

The Naval Battles on the High Seas.

When the war began the RN despatched 9 smaller ships from the Mediterranean fleet believing that they could spare them. These ships were no match initially for the larger frigates. In 6 one on one battles, the US won every one.

As well, US privateers had a field day. The RN was quite busy in Europe and did not send its best and did not send large numbers of ships initially.

But surely you cannot believe that a few one on one victories gave the US dominance of the seaways and the coastline. That was hardly the case and in the end the RN nearly brought the US to its knees.


British politicians fretted over the public reaction to their failure to protect the North American colonies fully opting instead to pay greater attention to Europe. They probably made the right choice.

After Tecumseh died in 1813 and British forces were compelled to leave SW Upper Canada, the RN did despatch 9 more vessels for the Mediterranean. The intent was to blockade US ports and they did so preventing most ships from New York and Philadelphia from reaching open water. The Chesapeake and the Delaware were also blockaded.

The effect was that only 1/3 of US merchant shipping managed to get to sea. Ocean going trade was $40 million in 1811 and only $2.6 million in 1814. The US federal government was in trouble. Its funding came from customs revenues. The US was bankrupt. Some speculate that had the war continued and the blockade with it, the US would have been compelled to sue for peace in short order as the government could not raise sufficient funds domestically and could not borrow internationally.

NYGiant, I enjoy discussing this war in particular but you seem intent on believing that this was some great US victory. It was not and again I say, it was the US that attacked the British colonies not giving a damn whether those people wanted to live under British rule or not. They were no threat to the US.

And indeed the British were taking the war to the US in late 1814. The loss at New Orleans did not end that and I am aware that it was a poorly fought debacle on their part. But they were not finished.


George



NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 6:50:50 AM
George, a couple of points...
1. The US wanted GB to desist on stopping American merchant ships on the high seas and removing alleged RN deserters. If as you say the US got its nose out of joint, then why did GB gets its nose out of joint during the Trent Affair 39 years later?

2. The USS Constitution was dominant on the high seas. And we controlled the Great Lakes.

3. Yes, thanks for admitting the privateers had a field day.

4. FYI, the Peace Treaty ending the War of 1812 was signed BEFORE the Battle of New Orleans, so yes.....the loss at New Orleans by GB was the end.

I enjoy discussing this war with you. It wasn't a great American victory...just a plain run of the mill victory for the fledging US against the bully GB.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 7:52:02 AM
Quote:
George, a couple of points...
1. The US wanted GB to desist on stopping American merchant ships on the high seas and removing alleged RN deserters. If as you say the US got its nose out of joint, then why did GB gets its nose out of joint during the Trent Affair 39 years later?

2. The USS Constitution was dominant on the high seas. And we controlled the Great Lakes.

3. Yes, thanks for admitting the privateers had a field day.

4. FYI, the Peace Treaty ending the War of 1812 was signed BEFORE the Battle of New Orleans, so yes.....the loss at New Orleans by GB was the end.

I enjoy discussing this war with you. It wasn't a great American victory...just a plain run of the mill victory for the fledging US against the bully GB.



Yeah, you can keep making that claim but it has been disproven by historians with more clout than you or I.

For the record:

Nearly 6,000 British subjects deserted the RN in the period before the war and during. Most wound up in the US on merchant ships and some in the small US navy. Britain felt that it was fighting a great war for civilization and the free nations, and that the attack on them during this period was cowardly and hypocritical.

The US did not try to prevent these deserters from joining merchant fleets and the British needed their sailors back to fight against Napoleon. Impressment stopped when Napoleon stopped and of note, neither impressment nor the Orders in Council were even addressed in the Treaty of Ghent. By Christmas of 1814, these were forgotten issues as the US was nearly bankrupt and Britain was war weary.

There is no doubt that Americans and not British sailors were scooped from US ships, mostly merchant ships. The British considered them fair game though they did board Chesapeake and took four of their sailors back.

I say again that the Orders in Council by Britain that affected US trade were rescinded before the US declared war. The US would have known this by the time of their defeats at Detroit and Queenston Heights. At that point, Madison added the impressment element to his list of grievances. (source: The Maritime Executive)


The USS Constitution did not have a field day nor did it dominate the seas. Once the British decided to augment their North American station based in Halifax and to blockade US ports, the day of one on one victories by larger US frigates over smaller British ships was over. In fact, Constitution then spent most of its time in Boston harbour.

Quote:
In 1812 the British Navy included 130 ships of the line with 60-120 guns and 600 frigates and smaller vessels. And the U.S. Navy at that time? Seven frigates fit for sea, three needing repairs, eight brigs, schooners, or sloops, and 165 gunboats (of which 103 were in ordinary or under repair).
. source: Maritime Executive

The reason that US frigates were so successful early in the war may be found in this quote:

Quote:
Of their hundreds of warships, the British had only one ship of the line, seven frigates, and a dozen smaller vessels operating out of Halifax in the summer of 1812.


I hope that you realize that the US attacked while the RN was fighting a serious war in Europe.

US Congress knew that its USN fleet was weak but did not approve the construction of new ships until Jan. of 1813. They approved an order for 4 ships of the line and 6 new frigates. None ever saw combat because the RN beefed up its deployment and dominated the coastal areas and the high seas for the remainder of the war.

Quote:
By early 1813, the British had eleven ships of the line, thirty-four frigates, and fifty-two other vessels operating off North America, while the U.S. had only two frigates at sea. By November 1813, the British established a commercial blockade that stopped all traffic regardless of nationality across the entire east coast south of New England.


Decatur ran the British blockade in May of 1813 in USS United States, accompanied by Macedonian and Wasp. They were on the run and headed for New London, Connecticut where they spent the rest of the war.

After sinking HMS Java, USS Constitution saw very little action and spent most of the rest of the war in Boston even though that port had not been blockaded.

Quote:
“Objective analysis of the War of 1812 must conclude that the victories of Constitution … had no direct effect on the course of the war,” “The losses suffered by the Royal Navy were no more than pinpricks to the great fleet: they neither inspired its battle readiness nor disrupted the blockade of American ports… What Constitution did accomplish was to uplift American morale spectacularly and, in the process, end forever the myth that the Royal Navy was invincible.”
. Tyrone G. Martin in his history of USS CONSTITUTION, A Most Fortunate Ship.

USS Congress, a frigate, left Boston in 1813 but returned by the end of the year too damaged to be repaired. She spent the rest of the war here as well.

USS Constellation never left port for the rest of the war.

This information is based on a single source so I stand to be corrected but other sources attest to the dominance of the RN on the high seas. It's blockade of critical ports not only kept the USN in check but nearly bankrupted the US.


NYGiant said: Quote:
And we controlled the Great Lakes.


Absolutely incorrect. There never was any dominance of one side over the other on all of the lakes.

The US victory at Put-in Bay certainly gave them control of Lake Erie forcing the British to retreat from SW Upper Canada.

On Lake Ontario, there was never a deciding battle to determine who would run that lake. And so the two commanders (Chauncey for the US and Yeo for Britain. I think. Doing this from memory) would not engage unless they had the larger and heaviest ships on the lake. The war here was a ship building war. At times the US had the upper hand as when they attacked and burned York (now Toronto). But when the US was trying to roll up the Niagara Peninsula in 1814 resulting in decisive battles at Lundy's Lane and Fort Erie, the US squadron was nowhere to be seen.
That squadron was supposed to lend support and resupply to the the US forces on the peninsula. Chauncey elected not to do so as Yeo's squadron had launched the largest warship ever to sail the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence.

As for the upper Great Lakes, the British controlled Mackinac Island and the fort there. That island guarded the entrance to Huron and Superior.

Your statement that the US controlled the Great Lakes is a pipe dream, I'm afraid.


NYGiant said: Quote:
4. FYI, the Peace Treaty ending the War of 1812 was signed BEFORE the Battle of New Orleans, so yes.....the loss at New Orleans by GB was the end.


This is getting tiresome. The RN left New Orleans and headed for Fort Bowyer which was taken rather easily. They were prepared to engage in further offensive action and I believe that Mobile, Alabama was the next target.

US victory? Nah. The US was just fortunate that the British had had enough of a war that saw 2.5 million deaths in Europe. In contrast, the 20,000 or so deaths in North America were a trifling number.

Cheers,

George





George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 7:52:18 AM
double
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 9:22:57 AM
Sorry...but the War of 1812 was over when the US defeated GB at the battle of New Orleans. That's a pesky fact.

Another pesky fact...The Battle of Lake Erie, sometimes called the Battle of Put-in-Bay, was fought on 10 September 1813, on Lake Erie off the shore of Ohio during the War of 1812. Nine vessels of the United States Navy defeated and captured six vessels of the British Royal Navy. This ensured American control of the lake for the rest of the war, which in turn allowed the Americans to recover Detroit and win the Battle of the Thames to break the Indian confederation of Tecumseh. It was one of the biggest naval battles of the War of 1812.

Nice try though.


During the War of 1812, the U.S. Navy frigate Constitution defeats the British frigate Guerrière in a furious engagement off the coast of Nova Scotia. Witnesses claimed that the British shot merely bounced off the Constitution's sides, as if the ship were made of iron rather than wood. The Constitution went on to defeat or capture seven more British ships in the War of 1812 and ran the British blockade of Boston twice.

Most likely due to the superior materials ion US Navy ships, don't you think.

GB learned its lesson, and stopped the removal of Americans off of American merchant ships.







NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 9:35:16 AM
Fort Bowyer/,,,the 1st battle or the 2nd battle?

You seem to have forgotten that the US defeated GB at the 1st battle.

And that the Brits withdrew after the 2nd battle when they found out the war of 1812 was over. When news of ratification of the treaty arrived, ending the war, the British withdrew.[
Nice try though.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 3:47:33 PM
Quote:
Fort Bowyer/,,,the 1st battle or the 2nd battle?

You seem to have forgotten that the US defeated GB at the 1st battle.

And that the Brits withdrew after the 2nd battle when they found out the war of 1812 was over. When news of ratification of the treaty arrived, ending the war, the British withdrew.[
Nice try though.


More than a nice try, my friend. I think that I have provided sufficient evidence with some references to refute nearly all of your claims in the last post. You are making outlandish claims to success on the part of the US forces.

Of course they withdrew from Fort Bowyer when they were informed that the war was over. Were they supposed to attack Mobile or head back to New Orleans for another try?

You're throwing spaghetti at the wall, NYGiant and little of it is sticking.

George
MikeMeech
 UK
Posts: 528
Joined: 2012
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 4:47:43 PM
Hi

The West Point Military History Series publication 'Early American Wars and Military Institutions' page 57, does not see the war of 1812 as a 'great American victory':

"The end of the war was as odd as its beginning. With the joyous news of the victory at New Orleans arriving almost simultaneously with the news of the Treaty of Ghent, the Americans quickly and conveniently confused the facts in their minds and began to think they had won the war of 1812. It had not been won. Concluded by a negotiated peace, it was at best a draw. None of the original goals of the war had been achieved: Great Britain had not been compelled to repeal her Orders in Council unconditionally or to change her imposed rules for the use of sealanes when she was at war; Canada remained safely in British hands; and American commerce raiders had been effectively blockaded in their harbours after the first year of the war. War weary from a generation of difficult wars with France and Napoleon, and unable to muster any support at home for an increasingly unpopular war with the United States, the British Government was more than happy to conclude the affair. The American Government, which had been thwarted in its attempts to conquer Canada and had faced the possible secession on the part of New England, was happy to gain a peace that left the country intact!"

Mike
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 4:51:37 PM
Quote:
Sorry...but the War of 1812 was over when the US defeated GB at the battle of New Orleans. That's a pesky fact.

Another pesky fact...The Battle of Lake Erie, sometimes called the Battle of Put-in-Bay, was fought on 10 September 1813, on Lake Erie off the shore of Ohio during the War of 1812. Nine vessels of the United States Navy defeated and captured six vessels of the British Royal Navy. This ensured American control of the lake for the rest of the war, which in turn allowed the Americans to recover Detroit and win the Battle of the Thames to break the Indian confederation of Tecumseh. It was one of the biggest naval battles of the War of 1812.

Nice try though.


During the War of 1812, the U.S. Navy frigate Constitution defeats the British frigate Guerrière in a furious engagement off the coast of Nova Scotia. Witnesses claimed that the British shot merely bounced off the Constitution's sides, as if the ship were made of iron rather than wood. The Constitution went on to defeat or capture seven more British ships in the War of 1812 and ran the British blockade of Boston twice.

Most likely due to the superior materials ion US Navy ships, don't you think.

GB learned its lesson, and stopped the removal of Americans off of American merchant ships.



NYGiant, do you actually read my posts. I am not sure that you have said anything that I haven't already said.

You made some incorrect assertion that the US controlled all of the Great Lakes and so I gave a synopsis of what I know to be true and indeed, I spoke of the US victory on Lake Erie. That victory forced the greatly undermanned British forces to retreat and alter their defensive plan. Lakes Ontario, Huron and Superior and Georgian Bay were not under USN control.

The Battle of Put-In Bay was interesting and worth some study. Perhaps you are unaware of the status of the British squadron which was not manned by a complement of RN sailors. So short were the British of trained seamen that they sent militia soldiers to try to fill out the crews. But I already acknowledged that victory.

But you are absolutely incorrect if you think that the USN controlled Lake Ontario or the Upper Great Lakes.

As for the Constitution, it had some brilliant victories including one near Gibraltar if my memory serves. But once the British decided to send sufficient ships they were able to keep USN vessels in port and that includes Constitution which was one of the few to leave the port of Boston and to return. But that ship was in port for long periods of time, just as many other US ships were. The RN was keeping them there.

But the USN victories, much praised in the US, did nothing to thwart the RN which had many more and superior vessels. As your own historian said, these US ships and their single ship victories were little more than "pinpricks" to the greatest navy in the world.

The idea that this single ship was going to drive the RN from North American waters smacks of hubris and reverie.

Not much more can be accomplished here. You keep rewording and bouncing from topic to topic without addressing my posts.

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 5:16:52 PM
You forgot to mention that the Brits were repulsed initially

Good thing I can correct the record.

NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 5:23:28 PM
Its a fact that the US controlled the Great Lakes as I have indicated the consequences. Do YOU read what I have posted?

Bottom line....the RN no longer stopped American merchant ships and removed alleged RN deserters. That was a result of the War of 1812.

Evidently you can't accept the US defeating the greatest military and naval power at that time in 2 wars.

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 8:16:07 PM
Quote:
You forgot to mention that the Brits were repulsed initially

Good thing I can correct the record.



It would be really nice if you would engage in discussion and defend your position instead of trying to score points.

Just what are you talking about in this post.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 8:45:32 PM
Quote:
Its a fact that the US controlled the Great Lakes as I have indicated the consequences. Do YOU read what I have posted?

Bottom line....the RN no longer stopped American merchant ships and removed alleged RN deserters. That was a result of the War of 1812.

Evidently you can't accept the US defeating the greatest military and naval power at that time in 2 wars.




Now here is where you get to support your statement. I have described the situation on the different lakes and if I understand your statement, you seem to believe that the US controlled all of the Great Lakes. Are you able to substantiate that statement?

There were British deserters on US flagged ships. The British wanted them back. It is also true that the USN engaged in the impressment of British sailors but we don't know how many.

Interesting piece from the National Archives in Maryland that deals with the dirty little secret, that the USN engaged in the impressment of British sailors.

[Read More]

However, impressment by the British did not stop as a result of any action taken by the US. You may want to believe that but as soon as Britain had more sailors than it needed, it ceased the practice of impressment of American sailors.

When did that happen? As soon as Napoleon was defeated, the RN had more sailors than it needed. And so, they ceased with the practice.

Quote:
Evidently you can't accept the US defeating the greatest military and naval power at that time in 2 wars.


No I cannot and most of the historians who have studied this war would agree with me. You're blowing smoke my friend

I can't help but feel that you are baiting. The RN had the USN bottled up nicely for the better part of the war. The RN nearly destroyed the US economy and reduced government intake of customs duties to very little.

The lake actions did influence the land battles and if the USN had full control of Lake Ontario, which it did not, then the results on the Niagara Peninsula in 1814 may have been different.

And the USN was just too damned small to take on the RN in the Atlantic when it found the time to send a fleet over.

I feel like you must feel that if you repeat, "we won, we won, we won" that eventually someone will believe it.

Cheers,

George

NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 8:47:33 PM
Pesky facts
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 8:50:18 PM
Quote:
Pesky facts



Still waiting
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 8:52:07 PM
The US defeated the British navy , soundly defeated them on Lake Eire.

Not baiting, just telling the facts, with an emphasis on there results.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 8:55:17 PM
I already gave them.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2022 9:26:15 PM
Quote:
The US defeated the British navy , soundly defeated them on Lake Eire.

Not baiting, just telling the facts, with an emphasis on there results.


Yes they did though it was a British squadron was not truly an RN squadron. There were some RN officers but the crews were mostly Provincial Marine (much despised by the RN) and foot soldiers. I mentioned this defeat a long time ago in this exchange.

Now what about the other lakes?


George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/26/2022 6:16:17 AM
Quote:
Hi

The West Point Military History Series publication 'Early American Wars and Military Institutions' page 57, does not see the war of 1812 as a 'great American victory':

"The end of the war was as odd as its beginning. With the joyous news of the victory at New Orleans arriving almost simultaneously with the news of the Treaty of Ghent, the Americans quickly and conveniently confused the facts in their minds and began to think they had won the war of 1812. It had not been won. Concluded by a negotiated peace, it was at best a draw. None of the original goals of the war had been achieved: Great Britain had not been compelled to repeal her Orders in Council unconditionally or to change her imposed rules for the use of sealanes when she was at war; Canada remained safely in British hands; and American commerce raiders had been effectively blockaded in their harbours after the first year of the war. War weary from a generation of difficult wars with France and Napoleon, and unable to muster any support at home for an increasingly unpopular war with the United States, the British Government was more than happy to conclude the affair. The American Government, which had been thwarted in its attempts to conquer Canada and had faced the possible secession on the part of New England, was happy to gain a peace that left the country intact!"

Mike


Thank you so much for this post, Mike. One would hope that this summary would convince even the most ardent supporter of the US military in this conflict that there was no victory for the US side. What are the odds of that happening?
Cheers,

George
Page 24 of 114 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23    24    25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114 )

© 2024 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC