|
Page 1 of 2
(Page:
1
2
)
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
During the War of 1812, a combined British and Native American force is defeated by General William Harrison’s American army at the Battle of the Thames in Ontario, Canada. The leader of the Native forces was Tecumseh, the Shawnee chief who organized intertribal resistance to the encroachment of white settlers on Native lands. He was killed in the fighting.
Tecumseh was born in an village in present-day Ohio and early on witnessed the devastation wrought on tribal lands by white settlers. He fought against U.S. forces in the American Revolution and later raided white settlements, often in conjunction with other tribes. He became a great orator and a leader of intertribal councils. He traveled widely, attempting to organize a united Native front against the United States. When the War of 1812 erupted, he joined the British, and with a large force he marched on U.S.-held Fort Detroit with British General Isaac Brock. In August 1812, the fort surrendered without a fight when it saw the British and Native show of force.
Tecumseh then traveled south to rally other tribes to his cause and in 1813 joined British General Henry Procter in his invasion of Ohio. The British-Native American force besieged Fort Meigs, and Tecumseh intercepted and destroyed a Kentucky brigade sent to relieve the fort. After the U.S. victory at the Battle of Lake Erie in September 1813, Procter and Tecumseh were forced to retreat to Canada. Pursued by an American force led by the future president William Harrison, the British-Native American force was defeated at the Battle of the Thames River on October 5.
The battle gave control of the western theater to the United States in the War of 1812. Tecumseh’s death marked the end of most Native resistance east of the Mississippi River, and soon after most of the depleted tribes were forced west.
=====================================================================================================================================================
So, that was 4 invasions of its territory by the greatest military and naval force of its time, that the fledgling United States repelled.
And we ended up with more territory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Still so confused aren't you, NYGiant? Remember that the initial invader was the US. Think of the US as Russia and Upper Canada as Ukraine.
I also think that you are a little short on information about what constituted naval power on each of the Great Lakes. These small squadrons were not the mighty RN ships of the line and frigates that bottled up the USN and merchant ships in eastern ports for most of the war. The RN chose to prosecute its war on the open seas and offered little in the way of support to the Provincial Marine that was initially responsible for protecting British interests on the Great Lakes.
You keep spouting nonsense like this: Quote:So, that was 4 invasions of its territory by the greatest military and naval force of its time, that the fledgling United States repelled.
And we ended up with more territory.
You know full well that no territory was gained by either party. Conditions ante bellum were restored. And the Treaty of Ghent completely ignored the acts that caused the US to react in the way that it did. Why? Because the trade restrictions through Orders in Council had been removed in 1812.
And the British stopped impressment as soon as they had defeated Napoleon and certainly not from anything that the US had done during the war. They stopped because they didn't need any more sailors.
Why not just engage in discussion without baiting people just to get your jollies.
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Still confused aren't you George? Recall that the fledging United States went to war against Great Britain because the RN was stopping American ships on the high seas and impressing "alleged" RN deserters.
As far as the Great Lakes are concerned, recall the battle of Lake Erie. 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.
Recall that the United States was also aggravated by the reluctance of the British to depart from trading posts in western territory ceded to American control after their revolution. In fact, the British offered the type of assistance to First Nations and Métis peoples that impeded American western settlement. After the war, the Brits could not help the native Americans stop westward expansion. Basically, we Americans kicked you put of land that was ceded to us, but you refused to leave.
I keep spouting those pesky facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Actually, by accepting the Treaty of Ghent the British abandoned their First Nations allies and the slaughter of those people continued in the US for the next 60 years. Many a British officer was ashamed that their government did not pursue the issue of FN land rights.
I have tried to explain to you that the RN did not contribute too many men to the Great Lakes battles. The small squadron that lost at Put-in Bay was not even fully crewed by sailors. The British authorities sent the Newfoundland Militia to fill out the crews, some of who were Provincial Marine. (look it up, the PM were not combat sailors and the RN thought that they were a sad lot) The British ships were not even fully and properly fitted with modern cannon and firing mechanisms. And still they went to battle.
The situation on Lake Champlain was better but the squadron there was greatly understaffed and had not even had time to work together. The commander on that lake did not want to engage until he was ready but was ordered to do so by Prévost because Prévost wanted his land attack to proceed while the weather was still manageable.
But on the high seas where the RN chose to send its best, the tiny and undersized USN was no match. The only pesky facts that you choose to point out are the ones that seem to prove some sort of dominance by large frigates in 6 single ship engagements.
The RN dominated the USN in the Atlantic and kept most of the naval and merchant vessels in port. The US economy was on its last legs in 1814 as the customs duties that the US federal government relied upon had nearly dried up. This is also a pesky fact that doesn't quite fit your narrative.
You are persistent, I will say. But you choose to ignore the fact that the US was the aggressor. Some of your own politicians were appalled that a war was started over something like impressment. You are aware that the USN also engaged in impressment I trust.
[Read More]
If you want to deal in facts, then deal in all of them. You cherry pick and then declare a US victory in this war despite that fact that most historians would tell you that you are incorrect.
Have you looked at battles like:
Chateauguay
Crysler's Farm
Stoney Creek
Beaver Dams
Fort George
Chippawa
Lundy's Lane
Fort Erie
These are all interesting battles and would be interesting to discuss but you really have no interest in analysis it seems. More important for you to flag wave and chant "USA, USA, USA". Quite disappointing.
There are other battles as well and I am perfectly willing to acknowledge US successes. And to acknowledge that all the British could manage for most of the war was a defensive posture. That was their plan. Should the Americans roll up Upper Canada they would continue to retreat eastward with the thought that Québec City must be preserved at all costs.
They were very busy with Napoleon and so sent sufficient numbers of troops to keep the invader at bay.
But even with improved performances by the US army, thanks to Winfield Scott, the pesky fact remains is that the US invaders were driven out of Upper Canada on the Niagara Peninsula and out of Lower Canada as well. The invasion and subjugation of peaceful people was a failure.
And when the war ended, it was the British who were on the attack, taking it to the invaders in a form of retributive justice. The British had no thought that they would reclaim their colonies though it was considered that they could indeed reclaim some land in Maine to ensure effective communication and passage from Nova Scotia to Lower Canada. And so they attacked port cities and bombed and burned. They continued to do so until receiving word that the US and GB were at peace.
The bloody nose received at New Orleans did not end the British mission.
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OpanaPointer
St. Louis
MO USA
|
Posts: 1891
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
I've been to the Tippecanoe battlefield, not far from Purdue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
A couple of things George....
1. The American Navy ended up the victors in the Great Lakes.
2.On the high seas, how did the RN fare against the USS Constitution? Why do you think THEY nicknamed it "Old Ironsides'?
3. GB was the aggressor, stopping American merchant ships and impressing "alleged" RN deserters.
4. All 4 invasions by GB were repelled.
5. I never said the US was invincible. Only that the US were the victors.
6. The war ended with the British retreating from New Orleans. In fact, the war was already over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OpanaPointer
St. Louis
MO USA
|
Posts: 1891
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
On the plus side they burned Washington.
That should be an annual thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
We're going around in circles. And yet you keep making the same erroneous claims with little substantiation.
1. No. The USN controlled Lake Erie. That was important but it did not control the other Great Lakes. Failure to gain control of Lake Ontario meant that US army actions on the Niagara Peninsula could not be supported. You have said multiple times that the USN controlled the Great Lakes. That is factually incorrect but you keep pounding away at it.
2. USS Constitution did well but it could not possibly affect the outcome of the war on the high seas.
Quote:With only 16 warships, the United States could not directly challenge the Royal Navy, which had 500 ships in service in 1812. Instead, the new nation targeted Canada, hoping to use the conquest of British territory as a bargaining chip to win concessions on the maritime issues.
Quote:If the war went worse than Americans expected on land, it went surprisingly well at sea, at least initially. Early in the war, the new nation won a series of single-ship duels between American and British warships. Especially noteworthy were the four successful cruises made by USS Constitution in the war. The frigate outran a large British squadron in 1812 and subsequently defeated four Royal Navy ships in combat. Constitution also earned her nickname, “Old Ironsides,” when round shot in the duel with HMS Guerriere appeared to bounce off the ship’s 22-inch-thick hull. An American seaman exclaimed, “Huzza! Her sides are made of iron!” Soon after, Constitution was known as “Ironsides,” which in time became “Old Ironsides.” American privateers also took a toll on British shipping early in the war.
Quote:With only 16 warships, the United States could not directly challenge the Royal Navy, which had 500 ships in service in 1812.
Quote:
In the end, however, British naval power held. The British used their navy to ship troops to Canada, to keep them supplied, and to blockade and raid the American coast. The blockade had a devastating impact on the U.S. economy and public finance, and also kept most American warships in port. The British convoy system—in which warships escorted merchant vessels—cut down on the success of American privateers. Furthermore, the British evened the score in single ship duels by defeating USS Chesapeake, USS Essex, and USS President.
All quotes were lifted from a US site called, USS Constitution Museum.
By Jove, I could have written the article myself. The author keeps affirming my assertions.
Here you go, read the whole thing if you like. [Read More]
I thought that you perhaps would trust a US site especially one that studies the USS Constitution.
6. For the umpteenth time, the British did not go home after New Orleans. They continued to Fort Bowyer and took it and were preparing to head to Mobile for a go at it. I have said this repeatedly. Why don't you do some research on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
George, a few corrections.
1. The US Navy didn't have to control all the Great Lakes. By controlling Lake Erie, this eliminated a route for the British Army could be supplied by. Recall that an Army marches on its stomach.
2. The USS Constitution defeated five British warships: HMS Guerriere, Java, Pictou, Cyane, and Levant.
3. Control of the seas means nothing if you didn't control the Great Lakes.
4. How did this 4 invasions of the US turn out?
5. The British went home as they prepared to attack Mobile because the war was over. They abandoned Fort Bowyer.
6. From the site you cherry-picked...
A." In Britain’s effort to control the world’s oceans, the British Royal Navy encroached upon American maritime rights " That means that GB was the aggressor.
B.The two leading causes of the war were the British Orders-in-Council, which limited American trade with Europe, and impressment, the Royal Navy’s practice of taking seamen from American merchant vessels to fill out the crews of its own chronically undermanned warships.
C. As British diplomat Augustus J. Foster acknowledged at war’s end, “The Americans . . . have brought us to speak of them with respect.”
D. helped forge the United States into a nation. Americans could celebrate their victories on the high seas and on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, as well as at Fort McHenry and New Orleans. These victories introduced new American heroes (including Oliver H. Perry and Dolley Madison) and future United States presidents (William Henry Harrison and Andrew Jackson), developed new expressions (including “We have met the enemy and they are ours” and “Don’t give up the ship!”), established American symbols (USS Constitution, the Fort McHenry flag, and Uncle Sam), and inspired a patriotic song that eventually became the national anthem (“The Star-Spangled Banner”).
7. 4 invasions repelled. How did that invasion at New Orleans turn out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
1. British forces continued to be supplied from Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River after the Battle of Lake Erie. At least you are admitting that the US did not control all of the Great Lakes.
2. Multiple sources will tell you that the single ship victories by USN vessels had no strategic value. I have acknowledged that they were good for morale but a mere pinprick to the RN which was already heavily engaged in Europe but still found the resources to blockade the US eastern sea ports.
3. Absolute nonsense. The USN was a non factor in this war once the RN despatched a few more ships. And the economic consequences to the US government are well documented.
4. You realize that the US attempted to invade BNA multiple times and were repulsed throughout the war. From Detroit in 1812 to Fort Erie in 1814, the small British garrison assisted by colonial militia and First Nations warriors were able to send the invader home.
Britain had no intention to annex any US territory except perhaps part of Maine. The US on the other hand had every intention to seize the remaining British colonies if possible. This is rarely acknowledged on the US side and a reason to go to war. The War Hawks wanted Canada and so did ex-President Jefferson.
5. You're being obtuse. Britain abandoned Fort Bowyer and the plans to attack Fort Bowyer because they were informed by an RN vessel that the war was over. Otherwise, what do you think that they would have done if they still believed that they were at war? They would have continued to make war.
The only point that I would agree with is that the US pumped up a victory at New Orleans and told itself that that was a total victory even though none of its initial war objectives were attained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
1. The US didn't need to.
2. Enough of a pinprick to prompt the British Admiralty to order its frigates not to engage the heavier American frigates one-on-one; only British ships of the line or squadrons were permitted to come close enough to attack.
3. The American Navy defeated the RN at Lake Champlain and Lake Erie.
4. I never said that the US won every battle.
5. Pure speculation.
6. The US merchant ships were never again stopped by the RN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
This is not discussion and it is certainly not factual. More wishful thinking, I think.
Perhaps you should assess my points and if you disagree, then tell me why and substantiate. Instead you appear to come up with a quick, no thought quip, which is supposed to be a substitute for well thought out responses.
At one point in our exchanges you suggested that the British blockades of the US eastern seaboard ports were insignificant. And you continue to point to half a dozen single ship battles in which the larger USN frigates defeated six lower rated RN vessels.
I have told you that when the RN despatched large ships of the line to bolster the North American station that USN war ships were kept in port for much of the war and that US trade was destroyed because merchant ships were restricted as well. Several of those US frigates, so successful in the early days of the war, were later destroyed by the RN fleet.
And yet you continue to toss out trite statements that, "the USN defeated the greatest land and naval power on earth". Equine waste, sir.
It doesn't take much research to discover that I have made accurate assessments of the effect of the USN on the Atlantic.
What sort of answer is #1, "The US didn't need to"?
In 1813, US forces on the Niagara Peninsula needed the support of Commodore Chauncey on Lake Ontario but he could not leave port at Sacket's Harbor because the RN squadron dominated the lake. And so supplies and cannon fire directed at the British from the lake did not materialize. This despite the fact that the USN was the much larger and stronger squadron.
The war on Lake Ontario was a ship builders war and whichever side had the biggest ship on the lake at any one time, would own the lake. In fact, both the USN and RN squadrons did not often sail the lake together. If concerned about an imbalance of power, Chauncey would stay in Sacket's Harbor or RN Commodore James Yeo would remain in Kingston. Or, they would shadow one another but Yeo feared that Chauncey would never seek to meet head to head and he did not.
In 1813, it was the USN that had the largest ship and the US army was once again engaged in operations on the Niagara Peninsula.
Note that in 1813 it was the USN carrying the war to the north shore of Lake Ontario. On April 27, 1813 US forces landed at York (now Toronto, my hometown) and they pillaged and burned. British forces retreated though they did manage to kill Gen. Zebulon Pike by exploding a magazine as they left.
In May, the US captured Fort George at the point where the Niagara River empties into Lake Ontario.
Initially, Chauncey with some reluctance sent his ships to the south shore of Lake Ontario near Fort George to lend support to the troops. But the British attacked Sacket's Harbor hoping to destroy another war ship that was being built. It was an unsuccessful attack but when word reached Chauncey he got spooked and headed back to Sacket's Harbor.
And so there was no dominance by the USN on Lake Ontario despite having much larger ships than the small RN squadron. This effected operations on the Niagara Peninsula resulting in some US losses in battle at Stoney Creek and Beaver Dams. These were not major battles but they were enough to compel US forces to restrict themselves to Fort George which they eventually abandoned and headed back to the US side but not before putting the small village of Newark to the torch in the dead of winter. People died of exposure.
In retaliation, the British crossed the Niagara and burned all that they could down to Buffalo, NY.
With the launch of HMS St. Lawrence in Sept. of 1814, the British controlled Lake Ontario. The St. Lawrence was the only ship of the line to be built and to operate on fresh water. And she never had to do battle as the USN could not compete with this large and well equipped vessel.
Chauncey once again withheld support for US troops when they, once again, invaded the Niagara Peninsula in 1814. That was critical as despite a victory at Chippawa and a great performance at Lundy's Lane, US forces left the battlefield and headed to Fort Erie where the waters of Lake Erie enter the Niagara River. They withstood a siege but decided that they had better leave, once again for the US side. Failure to control Lake Ontario by the much stronger USN contributed to the failure of US land forces in 1814.
So your statement that the USN dominated the Great Lakes is patently incorrect. As is your statement that the only lake dominance that mattered was on Lake Erie. The Battle of Lake Erie was very important and it altered the course of the war.
The much smaller British forces were forced to retreat to the east which was part of their defensive plan though they did not want to do so if they could help it.
But the US also altered its attack to focus on the Niagara Peninsula and Lower Canada where operations to seize the British colonies failed.
If interested, here are two interesting articles about the naval war on Lake Ontario. One is a Canadian site, the other US.
[Read More]
[Read More]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Thank you for the articles!
Twice, the fledgling United States defeated GB, the greatest military and naval power in the world...at that time.
I don't recall the RN ever defeating the USS Constitution.
Any action on Lake Ontario was a draw. In fact, it was called the War of Construction.
How many times did the RN stop American merchant ships, after the Brits were defeated at New Orleans? I say they stopped all together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
And, we kicked the Brits out of territory they were told to leave after the American Revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
|
Quote: And, we kicked the Brits out of territory they were told to leave after the American Revolution.
Is that the ghost of Kate Smith that I hear? 
It's pretty clear that you have come to this forum mostly to bait which is against the forum rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
|
Quote: Thank you for the articles!
Twice, the fledgling United States defeated GB, the greatest military and naval power in the world...at that time.
I don't recall the RN ever defeating the USS Constitution.
Any action on Lake Ontario was a draw. In fact, it was called the War of Construction.
How many times did the RN stop American merchant ships, after the Brits were defeated at New Orleans? I say they stopped all together.
NYGiant, are you aware that the British were engaged in a monumental struggle with the French and Napoleon. And they were victorious. Your claims to glory sound ridiculous in that light.
The USN won two engagements on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain. That's it. That's all.
Baiting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Not baiting at all. I'm just giving you the American interpretation which is taught in our schools.
Some would call it...push-back.
Yes, I am aware that GB was in a struggle against France and Napoleon.
Also, the engagement on Lake Erie 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.
The engagement on Lake Champlain helped to stop a British Invasion of the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
|
Quote: Not baiting at all. I'm just giving you the American interpretation which is taught in our schools.
Some would call it...push-back.
Yes, I am aware that GB was in a struggle against France and Napoleon.
Also, the engagement on Lake Erie 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.
The engagement on Lake Champlain helped to stop a British Invasion of the United States.
The British give little time to this war in their history curriculum if my information is correct. They were engaged in a world war and were angry that the young nation of the US decided that it would take the opportunity to invade British colonies when Britain was engaged in something so important to all nations, from their perspective.
So I am not sure why or to whom this "push-back" is directed. Certainly US students do not benefit from being told that they were victorious in this war. I am not sure how that gets into a high school curriculum for example when most US historians have concluded that neither side could claim a victory and that the only losers were the First Nations people.
So I do not understand this compulsion to "push back" when most of the historiography conflicts with your opinion. Is it just ego or a desire to take the piss out of someone?
I have done quite a bit of reading on this war and have already concurred with you that the two naval battles on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain were important. They altered the strategies for both sides remembering of course that the British were on the defensive until their defeat of Napoleon which allowed them to send large numbers of well trained troops to the US.
But the lake battles cannot and do not represent a complete defeat of the RN. These were small ship squadrons which, for both sides, had to be constructed on the lakes in which they would be used and the US had a construction lead on both lakes. Beaten were two ill equipped and poorly armed RN squadrons quite far removed from what could be seen on the Atlantic where large ships of the line kept the USN and merchant ships in port.
The naval defeat on Champlain convinced the British that they did not want to invest any more time or human resources on this war. By the time of the Plattsburgh battle, there were about 30,000 well trained British troops plus militia (some of whom were embedded rather than sedentary) in Canada. Some 12-14,000 marched to Plattsburgh and all but a few returned unscathed.
They were still available to fight but the naval defeat convinced them that it was better to make peace and get back to trade. Fighting Napoleon had been costly for the British as well. They had considered negotiating to keep Maine which they occupied but the Duke of Wellington told them that based on what they had accomplished during the war that the claim of possession was not strong.
So the British ignore this war because it was more of an annoyance than anything else.
The Canadians in my part of Canada claim victory because the invaders were expelled and multiple times at that.
Some Americans claim victory and somehow conflate the result with a protection of their independence which was not under any threat at all.
As mentioned, it was the First Nations that suffered. Their dreams of a homeland in the Ohio Valley area as the British had guaranteed were quashed and they were pursued in the US until vanquished.
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
More than likely, GB was still upset that the up-start colonists rebelled and set up their own brand of democracy. What they teach in American schools is that the RN was stopping American merchant ships and removing sailors against their will. And we teach that , that practiced stopped because of the war.
A defeat is a defeat, no matter on the seas or a lake.
GB had no business guaranteeing Native Americans the Ohio Valley. The western terms of the Treaty of Paris were that the United States would gain all of the area east of the Mississippi River, north of Florida, and south of Canada. The northern boundary would be almost the same as they are today.
Basically, we made GB fulfill the terms of the Treaty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
“agree to desist from all hostilities against the United States of America, their Citizens, and Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations [5].”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Actually the British had no desire to reclaim their former colonies in North America. They were angry that those former colonies would go to war when Britain was engaged in a titanic struggle with Napoleon.
As I have said, impressment did not cease because of anything that the US had done during the war. It continued until Napoleon was defeated and the RN began to downsize. That meant that sailors were being paid off and that impressment was not seen to be necessary. So I think that your students are being taught incorrectly on this matter.
I have acknowledged the victories on the two lake battles but your provocative comment is that the US defeated the mighty RN which it clearly did not do since the RN was responsible for creating the economic conditions that made Washington more than happy to seek a peace.
The British were prepared to go hard line during the negotiations until the defeat on Lake Champlain. The US negotiators were most discouraged to learn of the sacking of Washington and the occupation of Maine. They feared that the US may indeed lose some territory. With the news out of Plattsburg, they were elated and felt that they could probably negotiate a peace with better terms.
When the Duke of Wellington said that he was not willing to take over operations, the British told their rather ineffectual negotiators (a "B" team if there ever was one", that they would be happy to get back to peaceful trade.
Washington told its negotiators that the RN blockade had severely damaged the economy and cut trade to extremely low levels and that they would be happy to a return to status quo ante bellum. And so it was.
The British certainly had every right to consider their First Nations allies and had the war gone better, they would have pushed for an Indian homeland in Ohio and Michigan. Truthfully, they were probably more concerned with establishing a buffer zone between BNA and the US and if that buffer zone was full of appreciative allies who would go to war with Britain if needed, all the better.
And the issue of First Nations' rights was considered during the negotiations and included in the treaty. The US negotiators would not move on their view that they could not support an Indian homeland. However, they did agree to an article in the Treaty of Ghent that addressed the First Nations.
The US agreed to return lands to the First Nations as they were in 1811. The British agreed not to provide arms to the FN.
The First Nations? They were never asked and were never a part of the negotiations but the treaty compelled them not to make war on the Americans.
Once the Treaty was ratified, the US completely ignored Article 9. By 1817 they had negotiated a series of independent treaties with the FN. The US had no intention to return any lands to the First Nations and the British were in no position to enforce the terms laid out in Article 9 nor did they have the will to do so.
Treaty of Ghent
Quote:ARTICLE THE NINTH.
The United States of America engage to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom they may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against the United States of America, their Citizens, and Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And His Britannic Majesty engages on his part to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom He may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges, which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against His Britannic Majesty and His Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly.
And we know what happened if the First Nations chose to fight when the terms of the Treaty of Ghent pertaining to them were violated by other parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Sorry, but you are wrong about the impressment of Americans off or American merchant ships. That practiced stopped with the end of the War of 1812.
The Ohio Valley was given to the United States by the Treaty of Paris, When the Brits would not leave, the Americans kicked them out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
|
Quote: Sorry, but you are wrong about the impressment of Americans off or American merchant ships. That practiced stopped with the end of the War of 1812.
The Ohio Valley was given to the United States by the Treaty of Paris, When the Brits would not leave, the Americans kicked them out.
Napoleon was defeated in the spring of 1814. The RN immediately began to reduce the size of the navy and the need for impressed sailors disappeared.
The War of 1812 continued to be fought.
The British never said that they would not use impressment again though they never did.
Most of the history books say that impressment stopped with the defeat of Napoleon. If you have evidence to the contrary I should be pleased to read it.
Impressment as an excuse to go to war had disappeared and the subject was not addressed in the Treaty of Ghent. Nor were the Orders in Council that had restricted trade. Those orders were rescinded before the first US invasion of Upper Canada.
Quote:The Ohio Valley was given to the United States by the Treaty of Paris, When the Brits would not leave, the Americans kicked them out.
You persist in being needlessly provocative. The British continued to occupy six forts in the Northwest Territory which had been ceded to the US in the Treaty of Paris. They had concerns about the treatment of their First Nations' allies by US settlers but truthfully were also enjoying trade with the FN and that included arms.
Washington did not want another war with the British over this issue of territorial sovereignty and so he sent John Jay to negotiate with the British. It was decided that a long lasting peace with Britain was more important than going to war again.
The result was Jay's Treaty (“Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America,” ) in which the British agreed to abandon the forts. The US was granted "favoured nations status" in Britain which gave the US some trade advantages.
Other issues like the Maine border and compensation to Americans for revolutionary war debts were put on the back burner and sent to arbitration.
The treaty was not very popular with the people as the British were still behaving in a high handed manner on the seas. However, US trade began to flourish. John Jay was not able to get the British to budge on the impressment issue which would continue to plague the Americans. This despite the fact that the USN also engaged in impressment as did most of the other navies in the world.
The British agreed to abandon the forts in US territory by June of 1796.
Your comment that the Americans, "kicked" the British out of the forts implies military action. It seems to me that intelligent diplomacy resolved a land ownership issue but again I would be pleased to read of any action taken by the US forces to expel the British from the six forts that it still occupied after the Treaty of Paris.
Again I must emphasize that the First Nations had lost their benefactor in the Northwest Territory and were compelled to treat with the US.
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
NYGiant, I am having a technical problem with your posts. They all appear in a format that is wider that the normal view on the forum. This forces me to scroll right and left to read your text.
So do you use the forum post entry box when typing? Or do you compose with another word processor and then copy and paste?
I cannot figure this out. As soon as you post, every other post then becomes extra wide.
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Maybe I need to lose some weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
1. During the War of 1812, a combined British and Native American force is defeated by General William Harrison’s American army at the Battle of the Thames in Ontario, Canada. The battle gave control of the western theater to the United States in the War of 1812. Tecumseh’s death marked the end of most Native resistance east of the Mississippi River, and soon after most of the depleted tribes were forced west.
2. The War of 1812 ended along with impressment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
|
Quote:
1. During the War of 1812, a combined British and Native American force is defeated by General William Harrison’s American army at the Battle of the Thames in Ontario, Canada. The battle gave control of the western theater to the United States in the War of 1812. Tecumseh’s death marked the end of most Native resistance east of the Mississippi River, and soon after most of the depleted tribes were forced west.
2. The War of 1812 ended along with impressment.
I asked you to provide evidence to refute my assertion that the RN stopped impressment with the defeat of Napoleon in the spring of 1814.
Instead, you simply repeat that the war of 1812 ended along with impressment. Are you trying to imply that somehow the US was responsible for forcing the British to stop impressing American sailors? If so, that is incorrect. Prove your points please.
Re: First Nations. I addressed this long ago. With the failure of the British to secure protection for the FN, many began to sign treaties in 1817. Many of these were violated. And yes, some tribes moved west and they would continue to move until there was no place to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Look at the facts. The United States went to war with Great Britain because of the RN impressing alleged RN deserters. That practice stopped with the end fate War of 1812. The American victory on Lake Champlain led to the conclusion of U.S.-British peace negotiations in Belgium, and on December 24, 1814, the Treaty of Ghent was signed, ending the war. Although the treaty said nothing about two of the key issues that started the war–the rights of neutral U.S. vessels and the impressment of U.S. sailors–it did open up the Great Lakes region to American expansion and was hailed as a diplomatic victory in the United States. On September 11, 1814, the tide of the war turned when Thomas Macdonough’s American naval force won a decisive victory at the Battle of Plattsburg Bay on Lake Champlain
Last I checked, Napoleon abdicated in early 1814 (April, 1814). GB continued the war, and impressing American sailors, until the defeat at Lake Champlain.
British and Indian forces did invade the West, and were soundly defeated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
NYGiant, would you please google, "when did the British stop impressing Americans into the RN, war of 1812?". Then get back to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Sure.
The practice ceased in the Royal Navy after 1814.
That is the year the war of 1812 ended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
|
Quote: Sure.
The practice ceased in the Royal Navy after 1814.
That is the year the war of 1812 ended.
OK this is going nowhere. You keep rewording until you finally get something accurate even if simplistic. Both statements are correct but they do not indicate whether impressment ended before or after the war was over.
And I believe that you had been trying to imply that the US war effort somehow compelled the British to stop the practice. And that would be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
well, we know that the British would have continued the practice of impressment if the US had not gone to war, because they HAD done it before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Probably because it was the practice among the world's large navies and even the smaller ones like the USN.
Quote:To a certain extent (and apparently not widely admitted by American officials), the United States reciprocated impressment against the British, seizing unsuspecting seamen to serve aboard American warships. . source: National Archives
Isaac Hull was the captain of USS Constitution and he impressed many a British sailor.
There is a reason that the British targeted US vessels however. The US had many British subjects and deserters serving on USN vessels.
Quote:(Quite often, British seamen composed 35 to 40 percent of U.S. naval crews in the early 19th century, enticed to serve by better pay and working conditions). . source: National Archives.
This doesn't seem to be a part of the US narrative spun at the end of this war. It was an uncomfortable truth.
[Read More]
An interesting and little known aspect of the War of 1812:
From the National Archives: The War of 1812-Stoking the Fires
[Read More]
Very few studies exist dealing with the subject matter of USN impressment of British sailors. Kind of makes impressment less of an egregious act on the part of the British, I guess. Can't have that. It spoils the spin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
Just a little information I picked up today. In the book, "Grant Invades Tennessee" by Timothy B Smith, on page 23 of the paperback edition, I found the following sentence.
"Essentially, that is the way the United States itself had beaten England twice by waiting the enemy out and refusing to give in until the British did."
Twice...that means in the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
|
Quote: Just a little information I picked up today. In the book, "Grant Invades Tennessee" by Timothy B Smith, on page 23 of the paperback edition, I found the following sentence.
"Essentially, that is the way the United States itself had beaten England twice by waiting the enemy out and refusing to give in until the British did."
Twice...that means in the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
Such a compelling defence of your erroneous conclusion. (sarcasm, couldn't resist) You're back at it again for, what is it, round 6.
And yet you never seem to develop an argument. In most of your posts you simply make a statement and then become abusive when your statement is rejected. You have done the same thing here.
You must present compelling evidence if you wish to make a claim that the US won.
I have told you multiple times that the Canadians, Americans and British will all have a different view of the war. Actually the British may not have a view at all as this conflict was certainly an annoyance that they did not need and yet with a comparatively small number of regulars assisted by militia and First Nations, they managed to drive an invader out of the colonies. That would be the Canadian view as well except that our narrative emphasizes that the colonists themselves, the people, drove the Americans out. That claim is somewhat mythological though the embedded militia did fight well in some cases.
When the war ended the American press duped the people into belieiving that a great victory had been had, all because of a victory at New Orleans.
You have on multiple occasions crowed that the Americans repelled the invaders. You seem to have difficulty in starting the war where it began which was in 1812 with an invasion of the British colonies by the US. Make that multiple invasions over the three year period of the war. And each time, the US was driven from those colonies and denied their goal which was to annex the British territories.
This is often denied by some Americans despite the declarations of the War Hawks and their supporter Thomas Jefferson that annexation was indeed, an objective.
As well, I have described the conditions at the end of the war. No longer the invader, the US had been pushed back in 1814 and the defenders were now on the attack.
The US economy had tanked because of the British blockade which limited trade severely and kept the USN in port.
The RN was ranging up and down the US eastern coastline and bombing where they would.
The New England states had threatened to secede as they wanted no part of this war.
The British had occupied part of Maine.
So it was the US that was on its back heels not the British and the colonists.
However, I will grant that the British had not done enough to lay claim to US territory even though they were in occupation. The defeat on Lake Champlain had not done any damage to the now rather large and menacing British army sitting in Canada. But it was clear that to continue the war could be a protracted affair.
It did give the British pause and the government decided that this war was no longer worth pursuing and that the expense of putting "cousin Jonathan" in his place was not worth the effort.
Finally, I asked you to examine the Treaty of Ghent. The US attained none of its objectives. The Orders in Council that restricted trade had been rescinded before the war began.
Despite being provided with information that the British stopped impressment during the war to coincide with their victory over Napoleon, you kept insisting that it ended with the treaty. And you were proven to be incorrect but still continued to say the same thing. Evidence be damned.
You have provided the name of one US historian who seems to believe that the War of 1812 was a US victory. I believe that he is a civil war expert but I think that if you did a little more research you will find that the greater number of historians, especially historians who specialize in the War of 1812, will tell you that at best this war was a draw. Both sides agreed to return to conditions evident ante bellum. No gains were made by either side.
And there are a number who will tell you that the US lost this war and that it was a stupid and ill considered decision to declare it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
It doesn't have to be compelling. It just goes along with what I have been saying...That in the United States, we won the War of 1812. Tim Smith is a pretty well respected historian, and has written some pretty good book, albeit on the American Civil War.
I gave you enough compelling evidence earlier...the repulse of 4 invasions by the GB, the control of Lake Erie, and GB stopping the impressment of Americans from American ships. That stopping of impressment was the only objective we wanted. You admit it stopped during the war of 1812, in 1814, so really it did not have to be part of the peace settlement.
And when Napoleon returned to Europe and was defeated at Waterloo, impressment did not start up again.
And of course, we soundly defeated GB at the Battle of New Orleans. It's the last battle and who won it, that people remember.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
No, the last battle of the war was the British victory at Fort Bowyer with the British preparing to head to Mobile.
You are correct that the people only remember New Orleans because they only study history with a distinctly American bias.
Again, there was no initiative on the part of the US that led to the British stopping impressment. Had the war against Napoleon continued and there was a need for sailors it would have continued. And there was a lot of Brits on US ships remember.
Britain never rescinded the impressment orders.
The list of battles won is not a compelling argument that victory was achieved. The US was the invader and as the war ended it was being attacked in its own back yard. So well done on defending oneself I suppose but the original goal was not to defend US territory from attack by the British. It was supposed to be the other way around so from that perspective, prosecution of this war was an epic failure.
And had the US not decided to attack the peaceful people in the British colonies, there would have been no need to defend. But indeed the British were still on the attack when the news arrived that the Treaty of Ghent had been signed and the US was still on the defensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
And you know that the Brits abandoned Fort Bowyer.....leaving New Orleans the great battle where the Americans soundly defeated the Brits.
The war with Napoleon did continue.....as he was defeated at Waterloo. Still no renewal impressment.
Of course they never rescinded the impressment orders. Just stop the practice.
I can count 4 invasions by GB and their Indian allies which were repulsed and sent back to Canada. So, tell me again, who was the invader? And the war ended when that back yard invasion was repulsed at New Orleans.
In fact, we have a song here in the states about the Battle of New Orleans.....https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=battle+of+new+orleans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Tecumseh defeated.
|
|
Quote: And you know that the Brits abandoned Fort Bowyer.....leaving New Orleans the great battle where the Americans soundly defeated the Brits.
The war with Napoleon did continue.....as he was defeated at Waterloo. Still no renewal impressment.
Of course they never rescinded the impressment orders. Just stop the practice.
I can count 4 invasions by GB and their Indian allies which were repulsed and sent back to Canada. So, tell me again, who was the invader? And the war ended when that back yard invasion was repulsed at New Orleans.
In fact, we have a song here in the states about the Battle of New Orleans.....https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=battle+of+new+orleans
You talk in circles, NYGiant. Fort Bowyer was attacked on Feb. 11, 1815 in preparation for the attack on Mobile. The fort was surrendered to the British. And that happened after the Battle of New Orleans which occurred on Jan. 8.
So do tell, how are you going to convince me that the Battle of New Orleans was the last battle of the war?
The fort was returned to the US in March of 1815 once the British commander had been informed of the signing of the treaty. The British had heard of the signing two days after Fort Bowyer fell but they waited until their own government informed them of the peace and then they returned the fort to the US.
Of note, Andrew Jackson had reinforced Fort Bowyer and had boasted that, "10,000 men could not take it". No, it only took 1,000 and when British Gen. Lambert had his siege works prepared he informed that US commander of the fort that he was about to begin bombardment. He offered to allow women and children to leave and for the US forces to surrender. They accepted the offer.
The British turned their sights on Mobile when, on Feb. 13, a British ship arrived to give the news of peace.
You may stomp your feet but the British were still in attack mode. In late 1814 thhe US was not and it was the US that intended to defeat the British.
But you are too obdurate to try to understand that the US failed to meet any of its objectives.
NYGiant, have you bothered to count the number of invasions of the British colonies that were repulsed by British regulars, Canadian militia and First Nations. I believe the number is ten over the course of the war, and that is why Canadians are proud that they prevented annexation of their colonies. They defeated the invaders on every occasion.
It baffles me that you will not admit that the US engaged in an attack on peaceful people. You reap what you sow, isn't that how it goes?
Yes, we all know that little ditty about the Battle of New Orleans. It is catchy but historically inaccurate. I'm sure that that is why it appeals to you.
There was no chase of the British. In fact, they withdrew in good order. Andrew Jackson had lost contact and so they slipped away at night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
