American War of Independence....

[Sudanese]

The 1/3 Tory, 1/3 Revolutionary and 1/3 neutral is actually based on some serious scholarship. It changed dramatically depending upon local too: New England was certainly more radical before 1776 than the rest of the colonies.

The six percent is based upon the numbers in Ulster. It infers a civil government not willing to take Cromwellian measures to suppress an insurrection. If the government takes the "Pinochet option", you'd need a LOT more. General Sir Frank Kitson lectured on this " terror statistic" in the 1980s.

As an aside, my Patroon ancestors came to new York in the 1640s. My Great-Grandmother still spoke "aldtey Duutch" as a first language-and she was born in 1870.

[Sudanese]

Indeed and we must forget those other colonists who came to what is now the eastern seaboard of the United States like the Dutch (Remember New Amsterdam?) or the Germans, but native born Americans were, despite their heritage, still subjects of the crown and they did, whatever they may have thought of themselves, rebel against the King.

The Americans who were loyal to the crown (which was quite a large number) fled to Canada where their decendants flourish today. I daresay, if the American Revolution never took place today, 'Canada' and the 'US' would be one of the largest countries in the world today!

PS As a matter of interest, and its off topic, but to underscore my above point, Alex. Hamilton couldn't become President because he was not native born. If memory serves me correctly, he was born in either Jamaica or Barbados.

[Guest Rick Research]

That is correct. Which is why the next President (yet another cousin ) is Constitutionally disqualified from BEING President, as foreign born and in a time when a wife/mother lost her American citizenship and took that of her husband--as did resulting children. (At least Chester Arthur actually didn't KNOW which side of the border he was born on, nor were there living witnesses when he was sworn in.)

But the Constitution no longer matters here. The idiotic Hamilton exclusion COULD have been dropped at any time in the last 200 years and never was, so now the oligarchs simply ignore any law they chose not to obey--

rather like the 1760s again.

"Its forgotten in the United States today"

Not by old families in New England. We are as stiff necked as ever. :catjava:

[James Hoard]

I daresay, if the American Revolution never took place today, 'Canada' and the 'US' would be one of the largest countries in the world today!

I doubt it.

If the American Revolution never happened, France would not have gone bankrupt and had their revolution, so ultimately no need for a Boney to sell Louisiana. Expansion eastwards would have been severely limited.

[Guest Rick Research]

That is an extremely intersting "what if" indeed! (Though I fear we digress from the original topic, mea culpa.)

The French claim derived from Spanish losses, and if the creaking old Spanish Empire had staggered along without that pressure for several more generations...

would British Canada have flowed downward and now extend from the Rio Grande to Hudson's Bay?

Super Canada?

Tsarist Russian Alaska embroiled in California coastal border wars with the Victorian Confederation? :catjava:

[James Hoard]

would British Canada have flowed downward and now extend from the Rio Grande to Hudson's Bay?

Super Canada?

Perhaps not. There wouldn't have been a reason for the confederation if an American threat had not existed.

James

[Les]

Perhaps not. There wouldn't have been a reason for the confederation if an American threat had not existed.

James

In 1781, the States could have pushed for a winner take all policy that included Canada. American designs on territory north of the Great Lakes was minimal, perhaps almost non-existent. The "threat" you refer to was a two edged sword. The newly formed United States had to live with a British thread north of it's borders. In 1812, there were more than one or two Brits that saw a renewed war as a way to re-exert colonial control over the United States.

The final resolution of the US-Canadian border did not take place until the 1850's, and almost came to blows over the 44 or 40 positions taken by Britain/Canada and the United States.

Les

[James Hoard]

In 1781, the States could have pushed for a winner take all policy that included Canada. American designs on territory north of the Great Lakes was minimal, perhaps almost non-existent. The "threat" you refer to was a two edged sword. The newly formed United States had to live with a British thread north of it's borders. In 1812, there were more than one or two Brits that saw a renewed war as a way to re-exert colonial control over the United States.

The final resolution of the US-Canadian border did not take place until the 1850's, and almost came to blows over the 44 or 40 positions taken by Britain/Canada and the United States.

Les

I do not know about American designs being minimal. They included places like Bermuda, the Bahamas and the West Indies. One forgets nowadays that the economic value of just Jamaica and Barbados exceeded the whole of the then United States.

James

[Michael Johnson]

The Americans did attempt to export the Revolution to Canada, but found no takers in French Quebec. Memories of the Seven Years War were still fresh, and the Quebecois preferred the British way of dealing with their religion and culture to what a Protestant (and even Puritan) 13 colonies might have in mind.

[Michael Johnson]

In 1781, the States could have pushed for a winner take all policy that included Canada. American designs on territory north of the Great Lakes was minimal, perhaps almost non-existent. The "threat" you refer to was a two edged sword. The newly formed United States had to live with a British thread north of it's borders. In 1812, there were more than one or two Brits that saw a renewed war as a way to re-exert colonial control over the United States.

This is one of the most cherished American myths of the 19th century. Judging from things like regiments present, I don't think that there is any proof that Britain had any designs on reconquest. Yes, implementation of the peace treaty was slow, as far as withdrawing British garrisons from land that was ceded to the U.S. but would they have been withdrawn at all if Britain had planned a reconquest.

The characterization of the War of 1812 as "The Second War of Independence" ignores the fact that it was the U.S. that commenced hostilities, using the justification of interference with American shipping.

[Ulsterman]

The Americans did attempt to export the Revolution to Canada, but found no takers in French Quebec. Memories of the Seven Years War were still fresh, and the Quebecois preferred the British way of dealing with their religion and culture to what a Protestant (and even Puritan) 13 colonies might have in mind.

True-maddening so for poor Arnold and his rag-tag army slogging northward through the snows of the Kennebec vally.

Ever get a chance to read any of Kenneth Roberts?

Perhaps if my stiff necked Congregationalist New England ancestors had not sacked Louisberg so thoroughly and despised Catholics so virulently.... they were the grandchildren of the Puritans after all.

Even today the massive silver Catholic altarpiece from Louisberg is in the Portland Museum of art-a testimony to anti-Catholic sentiment and an early bit of war booty.

[peter monahan]

As to "what ifs", Harry Turtledove, an acknowledged master of the genre called "alternate history" co-wrote an excellent book with an actor whose name escapes me.

The book, called "The Two Georges" features an officer in the Royal American Mounted Police tracking a stolen painting of one of the King Georges across British North America. I think its set about 1900 or so and includes sections on a free Mohawk state, American radical nationalists/terrorists supported by Imperial Russia and so on. Quite well done actually and a 'good yarn', as my dad would say, even for non-history buffs,

[Les]

This is one of the most cherished American myths of the 19th century. Judging from things like regiments present, I don't think that there is any proof that Britain had any designs on reconquest. Yes, implementation of the peace treaty was slow, as far as withdrawing British garrisons from land that was ceded to the U.S. but would they have been withdrawn at all if Britain had planned a reconquest.

The characterization of the War of 1812 as "The Second War of Independence" ignores the fact that it was the U.S. that commenced hostilities, using the justification of interference with American shipping.

Peter,

The post-war situation deserves a thread of it's own separate from this one. "Official" positions openly stated by a government, are sometimes called into question by actions that run counter to official policy.

Post-war agitation of indigenous non-Europeans (aka, "Indians") by British and/or Canadians against the United States in the NW frontiers was one source of friction and suspicion of British motivations. British trade limitations and not allowing complete and total free trade, and unimpeded commercial shipping was another irritant. British attempts to force the United States into taking sides with Britain and against France was another. (French behavior was not entirely above reproach either.) Seizure of American vessels (there were hundreds of incidents) by the Royal Navy despite protests by is well-enough known that it need not be elaborated on. One thing the search and seizures did do, was rile up American sentiments about the nations sovereign rights, free trade issues, etc.

Those actions or policies, and other issues gave Americans doubts about British motives, that are not entirely above reproach. Despite Britain being America's major trading partner, that didn't ease suspicions. Trade does not mean the partners trust or like each other. More than once in history, major trade partners have gone to war with each other.

The Jay Treaty attempted to settle many of these, and other issues. It was not popular in the United States, and was passed by the Senate and signed into law, because the thinking was the infant United States was not prepared, and could not afford a war against Britain at that particular time. Many Americans accepted the Jay Treaty in order to postpone matters until the United States could be prepared and primed for another war.

Britain was interested in preventing the United States from supporting France, and taking sides in the on-going war(s). British tactics aimed at the United States may have been a combination of stick with not much carrot, but from an American point of view, national pride and sovereignty issues caused a high degree of suspicion towards Britain and it's motives, and policies which did nothing to alleviate the frictions.

The British invasion of the Gulf Coast region of the U.S., culminating with the Battle of New Orleans expanded the war beyond any shared borders. The campaign was not defensive. After Waterloo, we can only speculate what if the Anglo-American conflict had gone badly for the United States whether popular sentiment in Britain might have pushed the politicians to rethink their objectives and retaking the colonies. J'ai ne sais quoi.

Les

[PKeating]

I doubt it.

If the American Revolution never happened, France would not have gone bankrupt and had their revolution, so ultimately no need for a Boney to sell Louisiana. Expansion eastwards would have been severely limited.

French ambitions in North America were effectively curtailed by the British victory in 1763, ending the Seven Years or French-Indian War. These ambitions involved linking New France to Louisiana via the great rivers, with a strong of forts and settlements, in alliance with the Indian League. This would have placed a barrier in the way of British expansion across the Appalachians into the Ohio Territory and beyond. That war, described by Winston Churchill as "the first First World War", was sparked off by the murder on 28.5.1754 of a French envoy by Indian warriors and a Virginian Militia detachment under the command of a certain George Washington.

The Virginians who had invested in The Ohio Company were naturally very pleased by the victory over the French but their anticipation of lucrative westwards expansion was disappointed by London's directive that treaties banning such intrusion in Indian territories be respected. Not that this was due to any magnanimity on the part of George III and his ministers: they simply wanted to keep their subjects in the colonies on the eastern side of the mountains to facilitate the Crown's taxmen!

The American Revolution was essentially the result of the resentment that wealthy English gentlemen, landowners and businessmen, who all considered themselves thoroughly English, felt against London in the face of overcrowding due to rapid birthrates in New England and the pressing need for lebensraum and the wealth-generating opportunities denied them by London's awkward insistence upon respecting the treaties with the Indians. Taxation was one of the sparks to the powder, of course. But the root causes were not dissimilar to those of the previous war.

PK

[James Hoard]

French ambitions in North America were effectively curtailed by the British victory in 1763, ending the Seven Years or French-Indian War.

Curtailed not eliminated.

Besides continental America, they also had substantial interests and bases in the West Indies. Their interests in the region were far from over.

Cheers,

James

[James Hoard]

The Jay Treaty attempted to settle many of these, and other issues. It was not popular in the United States, and was passed by the Senate and signed into law, because the thinking was the infant United States was not prepared, and could not afford a war against Britain at that particular time. Many Americans accepted the Jay Treaty in order to postpone matters until the United States could be prepared and primed for another war.

Sounds to me like you are amply demonstrating American bad faith, rather than British!

Cheers,

James

[Les]

Sounds to me like you are amply demonstrating American bad faith, rather than British!

Cheers,

James

James,

Depending on who one reads (and accepts) the actions and perceptions of both parties were arguably aimed at a temporary papering over of the cracks in an effort to forestall a real resolution of the problems until later.

There was enough bad faith on both sides to go around. The British (late 1790's) were at war with France, and not too keen on getting bogged down with either another war against the US, or expanding the war by pushing the US into an alliance with the French. (The two are not necessarily mutual.) The British felt the Americans should ally with Britain because the mother country was Americas largest trading partner. The French, feeling the Americans owed something to France for military and financial support during the Revolution, thought the US had a duty or obligation to help France.

The Jay Treaty was signed by the US and Britain during the Washington administration. The terms were initially disclosed to the US Senate behind closed doors. When the terms of the proposed treaty started leaking out, the public reaction was very adverse to almost all of the terms. Washington was very aware the United States did not have the necessary resources to even consider it as a viable option at the time. Without binding public opinion by making the treaty a fait-accomple, the public would have turned against the government.

French bungling (seizing American ships and cargoes in European ports), excesses during the Reign of Terror, and hints at using the Louisiana territories to garrison French troops that could be used at Britain, -or- the US was enough to alienate American goodwill towards France.

Washington's farewell address which advised against any enduring treaties or foreign entanglements was an expression of popular public sentiment aimed at a American neutrality.

The Jay Treaty called for the British to stop agitating American Indian tribes in the NW (not done), putting an immediate and final stop to halting US flag-carrying ships and forcibly impressing crews, (not done), and allowing expanded American trade to certain ports in the Caribbean (also not done). Signing a treaty agreement and then not adhering to the terms is bad faith. Why Britain pursued these and other actions despite the terms of the Treaty are subject to speculation. One source I've read suggests the "strong arm" actions were a show of force suggesting "don't mess with us" or else we'll get really mad, with the objective of presenting a perception to Americans that Britain was far stronger than the reality of the situation. Some might call it the idea of a strong defense is a strong offense.

Between 1797-1798, there was a major war scare and John Adams (President at the time) along with much of the government and people feared a war with France was imminent.

IMO? Both sides were mis-reading the other, and were making misteps.

Les

[James Hoard]

"The Jay Treaty called for the British to stop agitating American Indian tribes in the NW (not done)"

That is an American claim, true. Not an established fact. The treaty allowed for the free movement of native Americans between the two territories. They are human beings with loyalties and prejudices of their own. Perfectly capable of choosing sides and agitating or not agitating amongst their fellows all upon their won account, without the help or prompting of the British.

In the century to come, whole tribes were quite capable of making up their own minds, voted with their feet, and migrated to Canada.

"putting an immediate and final stop to halting US flag-carrying ships and forcibly impressing crews, (not done)"

While true, that wasn't a question of official policy to specifically target Americans and impress them by force. Establishing a person's nationality in the 1790's and early 1800's wasn't simply a question of asking them to present a passport.

", and allowing expanded American trade to certain ports in the Caribbean (also not done)".

And the Mississipi was

Actually that isn?t quite so. For example, the treaty only allowed for vessels to trade between ports in the territories and the United States. Not free trade per se, not trade by American vessels to other countries. It also prohibited American immigration and settlement, coastal trade, trade between British territories and a number of other types of trade. Article XIII, for example, even included the following: ?And the citizens of the said United States, may freely carry on a trade between the said territories and the said United States, in all articles of which the importation and exportation respectively, to or from the said territories, shall not be entirely prohibited?.

The free trade clause, Article XIV, concerned HM?s European territories and the US.

Signing a treaty agreement and then not adhering to the terms is bad faith.

Why Britain pursued these and other actions despite the terms of the Treaty are subject to speculation. One source I've read suggests the "strong arm" actions were a show of force suggesting "don't mess with us" or else we'll get really mad, with the objective of presenting a perception to Americans that Britain was far stronger than the reality of the situation. Some might call it the idea of a strong defense is a strong offense.

Well, claiming that the treaty says one thing, when it clearly does not, seems to be a an undisputed act of the bad faith on the part of the party misrepresenting the treaty.

[James Hoard]

"The Jay Treaty called for the British to stop agitating American Indian tribes in the NW (not done)"

That is an American claim, true. Not an established fact. The treaty allowed for the free movement of native Americans between the two territories. They are human beings with loyalties and prejudices of their own. Perfectly capable of choosing sides and agitating or not agitating amongst their fellows all upon their won account, without the help or prompting of the British.

In the century to come, whole tribes were quite capable of making up their own minds, voted with their feet, and migrated to Canada.

"putting an immediate and final stop to halting US flag-carrying ships and forcibly impressing crews, (not done)"

While true, that wasn't a question of official policy to specifically target Americans and impress them by force. Establishing a person's nationality in the 1790's and early 1800's wasn't simply a question of asking them to present a passport.

", and allowing expanded American trade to certain ports in the Caribbean (also not done)".

And the Mississipi was supposed

Actually that isn?t quite so. For example, the treaty only allowed for vessels to trade between ports in the territories and the United States. Not free trade per se, not trade by American vessels to other countries. It also prohibited American immigration and settlement, coastal trade, trade between British territories and a number of other types of trade. Article XIII, for example, even included the following: ?And the citizens of the said United States, may freely carry on a trade between the said territories and the said United States, in all articles of which the importation and exportation respectively, to or from the said territories, shall not be entirely prohibited?.

The free trade clause, Article XIV, concerned HM?s European territories and the US.

Signing a treaty agreement and then not adhering to the terms is bad faith.

Why Britain pursued these and other actions despite the terms of the Treaty are subject to speculation. One source I've read suggests the "strong arm" actions were a show of force suggesting "don't mess with us" or else we'll get really mad, with the objective of presenting a perception to Americans that Britain was far stronger than the reality of the situation. Some might call it the idea of a strong defense is a strong offense.

Well, claiming that the treaty says one thing, when it clearly does not, seems to be a an undisputed act of the bad faith on the part of the party misrepresenting the treaty.

[James Hoard]

The Jay Treaty called for the British to stop agitating American Indian tribes in the NW (not done),

That is an American claim, not established fact.

The treaty established the right of Native Americans to freely travel between the territories of both the USA and the Britain. They are human beings with loyaties and prejudices of their own, entirely capable of choosing their own friends and enemies without prompting from anyone. And, likewise advising their fellow compatriots to do the same. That many preferred the British to the US wasn't unreasonable, since between the two, the ballance of harshness was greater on the American side.

Indeed, some of the leaders among their number were far from simpletons. They included sophisticated and educated men of standing. During the war to come, several served as fully commissioned officers in the British Army.

In the century to come, they were to make the choice even more plain to see. Whole tribes voted with their feet and migrated to Canada.

putting an immediate and final stop to halting US flag-carrying ships and forcibly impressing crews, (not done)

Article XVII specifically does not prohibit the stoppage of vessels, but actually says that they can be stopped for suspected contraband. Article XVIII goes on to specify the types of materials that can be considered contraband ?cannon, muskets, mortars, petards, bombs, grenades, car-casses, saucisses, carriages for cannon, musket rests, bandoliers, gun-powder, matches, saltpetre, ball, pikes, swords, head-pieces, cuirasses, halberds, lances, javelins, horse-furniture, holsters, belts, and generally all implements of war; as also timber for ship-building, tar or rozin, copper in sheets, sails, hemp, and cordage, and generally whatever may serve directly to the equipment of vessels, unwrought iron and fir planks only excepted; and all the above articles are hereby declared to be just objects of confiscation, whenever they are attempted to be carried to the enemy?.

As for impressing crews. There was no official policy of seizing and impressing Americans. Establishing a person's identity or nationality in the late 1790's and early 1800's wasn't a simple matter of asking them to present their passport.

allowing expanded American trade to certain ports in the Caribbean (also not done).

Again, a misreading of the treaty. Actually, it only allowed for vessels to trade between ports in the Caribbean territories and the United States. It did not allow free trade per se. Not trade by American vessels to other countries, nor American immigration and settlement, nor coastal trade and a number of other types of trade. Article XIII, for example, included the following: ?And the citizens of the said United States, may freely carry on a trade between the said territories and the said United States, in all articles of which the importation and exportation respectively, to or from the said territories, shall not be entirely prohibited?. So at the end of the day either side only actually allowed trade which they did not prohibit!

The free trade clause, Article XIV, concerned HM?s European territories and the US.

To look at the reverse of the coin, the Mississipi was supposed to be open to British trade and British vessles. That never happened.

Signing a treaty agreement and then not adhering to the terms is bad faith. Why Britain pursued these and other actions despite the terms of the Treaty are subject to speculation.

On the other hand, one could say that signing a treaty, then misrepresenting its terms in order to claim a breach is bad faith in itself. Now, one can claim that the US negotiators was hoodwinked, that they were not as skilled in negotiating the terms as their British counterparts, that they settled on terms that their fellows agreed not. These are all valid points to make. But ignoring or deliberately misreading the contents of the treaty the US signed up to in order to claim British bad faith is simply not on.

Cheers

James

[Les]

Signing a treaty agreement and then not adhering to the terms is bad faith. Why Britain pursued these and other actions despite the terms of the Treaty are subject to speculation.

On the other hand, one could say that signing a treaty, then misrepresenting its terms in order to claim a breach is bad faith in itself. Now, one can claim that the US negotiators was hoodwinked, that they were not as skilled in negotiating the terms as their British counterparts, that they settled on terms that their fellows agreed not. These are all valid points to make. But ignoring or deliberately misreading the contents of the treaty the US signed up to in order to claim British bad faith is simply not on.

Cheers

James

James,

You're giving the appearance of trying too hard to parse words and exculpate British actions at the expense of making matters seem mostly the fault of the Americans. You're last statement equally applies to the British. The British signed a treaty and then ignored and willfully violated the terms signed by representatives of their Government.

The British had an Empire and were protecting what they had, and actively fighting a war with the France (first and Empire, then a proclaimed Republic, and then Empire again). The infant American Republic had budding territorial ambitions to the west and as history shows, took the opportunity to acquire territories from the French, later the Mexicans, and Russians.

While your statement points out the Americans signed the Treaty, so did the British, who then willfully continued violating more than one term of the treaty. If someone signs what to all intents and purposes is a contractual agreement, and then ignore the terms the signing implies a promise to follow through on, calling it something else, doesn't change the fact that Britain promised to perform, ignored the full terms of the promise, and continued doing many of the things the Treaty was supposed to halt.

The bad faith was mutual. That might not be palatable to some, but neither the Americans or British were entirely without blame or fault in their perceptions or actions.

Re: Indians in the US/Canadian border region "voting with their feet" as you put it? Tribes living along, and astride the borders knew the borders represented two different political entities and used that border to their advantage. US military forces were not authorized, and did not pursue Indians across the joint US-Canadian border. The Indians realized if they could move fast enough, hostile acts done by them in the United States, would not be prosecuted by the Canadians once they crossed over into Canada. That isn't truly "voting with their feet" but rather using one country as a safe haven, while avoiding the consequences of their actions across the border. Indians were aware of, and took advantage of the border situation for well over the first one-hundred years following the establishment of the joint international border.

Canada/Britain took the position that any acts by Indians committed in the United States were not important, or would not be prosecuted by the military or police in Canada. As long as Indians minded their proverbial "p's" and "q's" while in Canadian territory and did nothing illegal -inside- Canada, they had nothing to fear. The Canadians/British were not unaware what the situation was, and that Indians could (and did) use Canada as a "refuge" but did nothing to curtail or alleviate the situation. If we were to use a legal concept, anyone aiding and abetting a fugitive from justice is considered a party to, or an accomplice to the act. Canada's providing a refugee to Indians crossing the border in an effort to avoid military reprisals, bears a resemblance to legally aiding and abetting fugitives from justice. Despite official US protests, Canadian/British officials ignored -why- Indians crossed the border. In a very real sense, that did encourage Indians in continuing to use Canada as a safe haven, or base or operations against the United States.

There are more than a few "off topic" examples that can be pointed out where not only Britain, but many other nations considered "safe havens" located across an international boundary not off limits to military retaliation.

Les

[James Hoard]

While your statement points out the Americans signed the Treaty, so did the British, who then willfully continued violating more than one term of the treaty.

You keep saying this, but every example you have given so far is either disproved or can easily be explained. Usually, what is being claimed as being in the treaty isn't in the treaty at all. This is quite clear from the examples I presented earlier and which you have not refuted.

As for the Native Americans who moved to Canada one can just as easily say in terms of atrocities that they were fleeing from American atrocities committed against them. My meaning wasn't about simple individuals or little groups flitting accross the border area back and forth to cause trouble, like Fenians in reverse. On the contrary, I was talking about whole tribes or septs of tribes that decided to permanently migrate and settle in British territory.

[Les]

You keep saying this, but every example you have given so far is either disproved or can easily be explained. Usually, what is being claimed as being in the treaty isn't in the treaty at all. This is quite clear from the examples I presented earlier and which you have not refuted.

As for the Native Americans who moved to Canada one can just as easily say in terms of atrocities that they were fleeing from American atrocities committed against them. My meaning wasn't about simple individuals or little groups flitting accross the border area back and forth to cause trouble, like Fenians in reverse. On the contrary, I was talking about whole tribes or septs of tribes that decided to permanently migrate and settle in British territory.

James,

I'm not concerned about each and every issue, and that might lead you to think I haven't (not can't) refute the points you've raised in objection.

The trade issue and freedom of trade was a very important issue of the Treaty. Americans were concerned about American commercial vessels being stopped and crew members being impressed into British service. That is one part of a much larger commerce issue: the SEIZURE OF SHIPS AND CARGOES, and Britain not paying compensation to ship owners or merchants who owned or bought the cargoes on the ships. That -was- part of the Jay Treaty. Seizing and impressing crew members was tangential to the overall issue of free-trade, and the rights of neutrals as seen from the American perspective.

Britain still continued stopping neutral commercial shipping in international waters, still continued seizing more than a few ships and cargoes, and removing crew or passengers from a neutral ship. British claims of citizenship matters if you wish to raise them, should be tempered by with a consideration of the official outrage from the British government during the "Trent Affair" in 1862, when the Confederate ambassadors Mason and Slidell on their way to England were taken from a British flag carrier, imprisoned, and shipped back to America. British public and official protests regarding -one- incident, and threats of war/intervention stand in sharp contrast to -"hundreds"- of British search and seizures of American ships, cargoes, and crew members.

The use of local peoples and factions against other locals/factions, and competing Imperial powers is far older than Britain. Read Caesar and his conquest of Gaul. It's part of the S.O.P. of nation and empire building. Britain used aboriginal peoples against the French (and vice-versa) during the wars in America, against the colonists/Americans during the Revolution, against the French in India (as in the continent of), Indians against Indians (in India), etc. The same in Africa and Asia.

When there's plenty of instances that show a clearly established pattern of Britain using local peoples against others, why do you think that the the same methods were not used to varying degrees against the United States when doing so would be to Canadian/British interests? If you could show it was -not- done, then you'd be demonstrating one of a very small number of situations of the sort.

The US-Canadian border was not clearly defined during the Treaty of Paris, with the result that both the United States and Britain/Canada laid claim to some of the same territories in the NW territories. This was a problem that required time to settle.

True, more than a few Indians fled from atrocities (committed against and also -by- some of them) to Canada. However, please don't assume that tribal (or sept) movements resulted as -the- result of political events north or south of the border. Two major events were taking place, that impacted the overall situation. One of the factors was almost entirely due to cultural changes within native American cultures in Northern America.

First, the westward movement of both Canada/Britain and the United States resulted in the absorption or displacement of indigenous peoples. Usually groups could not relocate, and were either assimilated or overwhelmed by increasing numbers of settlers. Those that could move, did so, but often at the expense of their neighbors who were forced to move...by other native American tribes. Not all Indians moved because of white settlers. Indian on Indian warfare was an important factor as well.

Second. Prior to the 17th century, the Great Plains were largely uninhabited, and there was no "Plain's Indian" culture typical of the later 19th century. During the 18th century, many of the Indian tribal groups in the river valleys of the "North West" were acquiring horses and abandoning localized riverine agriculture for the migratory "Plains Indian" hunting-gathering existence that reached it's height during the later part of the 19th century. The adoption of the horse, and shift to a nomadic existence resulted in tribal expansion, inter-tribal competition and warfare escalating, tribal groups taking sides and forming coaltions for/against whites (on both sides of the border), other Indians,

The Fenian invasion of 1866 was primarily Irish born immigrants. They acted without the support, approval or even prior knowledge of their existence or plans, by the American government. It was a one time event, unlike Indian movements back and forth over the US_Canadian border which were not a one-time event. Indian movements were numerous, and lasted more than a century. Canada's failure to at least attempt to curtail or curb at least some of the matter, is not exactly being a good neighbor.

I'm not bent on trying to prove one country right or wrong. Far from it. There's enough to show culpability was mutual. Between 1781-1803 (the Treaty of Amiens) and then from 1804-1812, Britain can not claim that stopping neutral shipping and other acts were not violations of another nation's sovereign rights. If the situation were reversed, and British interests or sensitivities were adversely affected, the resort to threats of war (or war itself) might not be tempered with forbearance or long suffering tolerance.

I suspect we're not going to agree on causes, sensitives, rights or wrongs perceived or real, or even at something that approximates a mutual non-national bias in favor of one or the other of the "sides." On that...we should let some of the others comment.

Les

[James Hoard]

James,

I'm not concerned about each and every issue, and that might lead you to think I haven't (not can't) refute the points you've raised in objection.

The trade issue and freedom of trade was a very important issue of the Treaty. Americans were concerned about American commercial vessels being stopped and crew members being impressed into British service. That is one part of a much larger commerce issue: the SEIZURE OF SHIPS AND CARGOES, and Britain not paying compensation to ship owners or merchants who owned or bought the cargoes on the ships. That -was- part of the Jay Treaty. Seizing and impressing crew members was tangential to the overall issue of free-trade, and the rights of neutrals as seen from the American perspective.

Britain still continued stopping neutral commercial shipping in international waters, still continued seizing more than a few ships and cargoes, and removing crew or passengers from a neutral ship. British claims of citizenship matters if you wish to raise them, should be tempered by with a consideration of the official outrage from the British government during the "Trent Affair" in 1862, when the Confederate ambassadors Mason and Slidell on their way to England were taken from a British flag carrier, imprisoned, and shipped back to America. British public and official protests regarding -one- incident, and threats of war/intervention stand in sharp contrast to -"hundreds"- of British search and seizures of American ships, cargoes, and crew members.

Quite frankly, I do not know what the Trent Affair of 1862 has to do with the War of 1812, so shall pass on commenting on that one.

Official outrage, diplomatic notes, articles in the press, demonstrations, public meetings over the seizure of diplomatic personnel are all very different from a impressing a few tars and then using that to justify an invasion.

By the way, which article of the Jay Treaty disallows impressing tars? I cannot quite find the section or clause myself. It must be somewhere in the verbage, but my copy of the old print makes it difficult to read.

As for seizure of ships and cargoes, that is certainly allowed by the treaty. I have already quoted from the relevant article once, but do so again because you seem to wilfully disregard the evidence put before you.

Article XVII specifically does not prohibit the stoppage of vessels, but actually says that they can be stopped for suspected contraband. Article XVIII goes on to specify the types of materials that can be considered contraband ?cannon, muskets, mortars, petards, bombs, grenades, car-casses, saucisses, carriages for cannon, musket rests, bandoliers, gun-powder, matches, saltpetre, ball, pikes, swords, head-pieces, cuirasses, halberds, lances, javelins, horse-furniture, holsters, belts, and generally all implements of war; as also timber for ship-building, tar or rozin, copper in sheets, sails, hemp, and cordage, and generally whatever may serve directly to the equipment of vessels, unwrought iron and fir planks only excepted; and all the above articles are hereby declared to be just objects of confiscation, whenever they are attempted to be carried to the enemy?.

Note especially that it does not say "... timber for [WAR]ship-building, & etc" it simply says "ship-building, & etc" So that whole section is a rather clever catch-all which the American negotiators obviously missed. Too bad. They should have been awake at the time, and so should the Congress which approved it.

As for using local people, I have not claimed that they were not used. It is I who pointed out that First Nation officers served during the War of 1812. But the crucial point is "during". They joined in the defence of Canada and in the proscecution thereafter. Britain did not stir them up in preparation for war with the US. The US was quite capable of stirring them up on their own account without any help from the British whatsoever.

The Native American peoples normally resident in US territory who joined the British did so because the US itself had alienated them. Tecumseh, who became such a hero to the Canadians, had been alienated by US highhandedness in November 1811. He did not join the British (in the taking of Detroit) until August 1812, two months after the US declared war and then invaded.

If Britain really had aimed at War with the US, British North America would not have had such a small garrison composed of veteran's battalions and militia guarding her. Nor would the US invasion of Canada have had to be repulsed by French-Canadian militia. If a War had been intended, British North America would have been bristling with a strong force of regular troops above and beyond the normal defence establishment. In actual fact, it was considerably run-down well below the normal establishment. Prevost's orders from the government were to defend, not invade. It is only when the US invaded on the 12th of July and they were easily defeated that Brock felt free to order offensive operations. Evidence of the very opposite of an intention to attack the US.

What actually happened was that the US saw that the British were heavily engaged in a World War in Europe, on the seas and India at the time and thought that Canada was simply a "matter of marching". They had designs on the British North American territories. Period. All the rest are patently threadbare attempts at justification.

Cheers

James

PS

The Fenian Raids were a "one time event" which happened six times; thrice in 1866, once in 1870, and once in 1871.

[Hugh]

added: There was an earlier episode at Paoli, Pa. Grey ordered his troops to remove the flints from their muskets to prevent an accidental discharge that would ruin the element of surprise in the attack he planned there. His men bayoneted a few Americans before they could respond. Almost a year later, the "Tappan" Massacre took place on a slightly larger scale and a large number of Americans ran away.

Les

I was told in the mid-'50's by members of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry (32nd Foot) that they earned their red hackle at the Battle of Paoli, which is about 10 miles from where I grew up. We were in Bermuda at the time. Can't remember whether it was 1st Bn or 2nd Bn. If I remember correctly, the other battalion were not authorised the red hackle.

Hugh