British whatif

[Saphroneth]

I believe it is more basic: Seward thought a war- or the threat of a war- with any foreign nation would be enough to galvanize unionist sentiment even among the most rabid secessionists. That- not conquest- was his intent.

There was certainly a strong strain of opinion in the US at the time that Canada should be annexed, and that dated back well before the ACW and continued afterwards.

 

[Saphroneth]

As far as removing the suspected rebels or criminals from the ship, I have to be curious how these individuals boarded that ship to begin with.

They purchased tickets in Havana as private citizens.

To be clear, are you seriously asserting that Wilkes did nothing wrong by removing Mason and Slidell from the Trent?

 

[WJC]

The Trent Affair is so similar to what the U.S. was complaining to the British about leading up to the War of 1812; however, in the instances of the British being so extreme so as to conscript whole vessels of American citizens and keep the vessel as well, that was a much more severe act and we did go to war.

Interestingly enough, the impressment issue- often cited as THE cause of the war- was settled through peaceful negotiations before the War of 1812 began!

 

[Saphroneth]

however, in the instances of the British being so extreme so as to conscript whole vessels of American citizens and keep the vessel as well, that was a much more severe act and we did go to war.

Can you please indicate what you mean by this?
Impressment was and always was the conscription of British citizens; that it involved so many American vessels was because (by American counts) literally half of the skilled manpower on the US merchant marine was British.

 

[Jimklag]

Can you please indicate what you mean by this?
Impressment was and always was the conscription of British citizens; that it involved so many American vessels was because (by American counts) literally half of the skilled manpower on the US merchant marine was British.

British impressment of "British" sailors was identical to southern soldiers capturing "runaway slaves" during the Civil War. The British merely had to claim that the sailor was British (just like the rebels claimed the black man was a runaway) and that was good enough for the British admiralty. Some estimates put the number of American citizens pressed into British naval service in the thousands. It is total British propaganda that they were merely impressing their own runaway sailors.

 

[Saphroneth]

British merely had to claim that the sailor was British (just like the rebels claimed the black man was a runaway) and that was good enough for the British admiralty.

If that were true then the British wouldn't have returned thousands of incorrectly impressed sailors.

But surely you must realize that the actual American position was equally unreasonable? The American claim of the time was that anyone on board an American vessel must be regarded as American without question, even though Gallatin found that half the skilled manpower was British; indeed there was actually a British suggestion to resolve the issue during Jefferson's presidency, which was a promise by the British not to impress any sailors from American ships if the Americans would undertake to ensure that American ships did not employ British citizens. This offer was rejected by the Americans.



'an engagement on our part to employ no British sailors would materially injure our navigation... The question, it seems to me, will be merely whether we will make that sacrifice in order to obtain an abandonment of the practice of impressing hereafter. And upon a reconsideration of the subject, the fact as to number & consequences being very different from what we had apprehended, I think the sacrifice too great for the object.' (Albert Gallatin to Thomas Jefferson, 13 April 1807)

'it is much more difficult to estimate the proportion of British seamen... they constitute at least one fifth of the whole number of persons employed on board vessels in foreign trade, that is to say that they amount altogether to about Nine thousand. An important consideration is that they almost exclusively consist of able seamen, making nearly one fourth of the total number of that description employed in every species of vessels; nearly one third of those employed in vessels in foreign trade; and, when the officers who are chiefly americans are deducted, making almost one half of the Sailors able seamen employed in the last mentioned vessels, vizt. vessels in foreign trade... the number of English seamen being larger than we had estimated, and particularly as it relates to able seamen, it is to be apprehended that the measure proposed would materially injure the navigation of the United States. Indeed it appears to me that the only positive good resulting from it would be that the British would then abstain from impressing in future.'
(Albert Gallatin to James Madison, 13 April 1807)


And let's be absolutely clear here: there is no dispute whatsoever that the British state has the right to require any and all of its subjects to do military service, including those nine thousand British sailors.

 

[Saphroneth]

Some estimates put the number of American citizens pressed into British naval service in the thousands.

Yes, and the number released after verification of their identity was also in the thousands. Per Robcraufurd:



NAM Roger's The Command of the Ocean, summing up the scholarship, arrives at an estimate of c.6,500 sailors [impressed from American ships]. Monroe claimed 6,257 between 1803 and 1812, so the numbers are obviously in the correct ball park.

We can also have a stab at estimating the proportion that were improperly impressed. Press gangs were interested in experienced sailors, not unskilled men they could easily recruit anywhere. Gallatin estimated that of the able-bodied sailors serving aboard American ships engaged in foreign trade, half (9,000) were British- by American definitions, not by British. This compares favourably with statistics from the US Navy at New York in January 1808, where 56% were British by British standards and 45% by American standards.

Taking Gallatin's figure of 50% as an approximation, if Royal Navy ships impressed able-bodied seamen completely at random that 6,500 would have represented 3,250 British and 3,250 wrongly impressed Americans. Because 3,800 men were released on grounds of nationality, there was either a slight bias towards impressing Americans (perhaps reflecting a willingness to accept ordinary seamen or landsmen as well as ABs) or a number of British sailors took advantage of the opportunity to leave Royal Navy service.


In other words, the likelihood is that all or nearly all sailors who were impressed and who were truly American were released after a review process confirmed their nationality.
Unless this was also de rigeur for slave-taking parties in the South, the comparison falls apart even on that basis.

 

[Jimklag]

And let's be absolutely clear here: there is no dispute whatsoever that the British state has the right to require any and all of its subjects to do military service, including those nine thousand British sailors.

It is equally clear that American ships are American territory and not subject to British law. The British merely exercised the right of might - armed warships stopping unarmed merchant ships.

 

[Saphroneth]

It is equally clear that American ships are American territory and not subject to British law. The British merely exercised the right of might - armed warships stopping unarmed merchant ships.

The British had enacted a blockade of most of Europe and the rest of it was under British control. Ships approaching a blockaded shore can be boarded for search.

 

[Jimklag]

The British had enacted a blockade of most of Europe and the rest of it was under British control. Ships approaching a blockaded shore can be boarded for search.

In Chesapeake Bay?

 

[Jimklag]

The British had enacted a blockade of most of Europe and the rest of it was under British control. Ships approaching a blockaded shore can be boarded for search.

That would be indisputable if true. A very large number of the ships stopped and boarded were in American waters and the Caribbean - not the European blockade zone.

 

[Saphroneth]

In Chesapeake Bay?

Nope, and the Chesapeake-Leopard affair was indeed unlawful (and disavowed), at least to the best of my knowledge. Though in that case the issue wasn't actually Impressment.

 

[Saphroneth]

That would be indisputable if true. A very large number of the ships stopped and boarded were in American waters and the Caribbean - not the European blockade zone.

I don't suppose you have statistics on the matter? I know the doctrine of continuous voyage was a thing in the 19th century and I suspect it may have been by that time.
(Though I'll note that if the issue is stoppings and boardings outside the European blockade area, rather than Impressment, that's what should be referred to - not Impressment.)

 

[Jimklag]

I don't suppose you have statistics on the matter? I know the doctrine of continuous voyage was a thing in the 19th century and I suspect it may have been by that time.
(Though I'll note that if the issue is stoppings and boardings outside the European blockade area, rather than Impressment, that's what should be referred to - not Impressment.)

Well, since they were stopped and boarded for the purpose of impressment, I don't think so. Nonetheless, merely stopping and boarding an American vessel in American waters is a casus belli - any "continuous voyage" doctrine notwithstanding.

 

[Ian Peavot]

Yes, it was the Trent, and she was. She went to the Tagus along with Dacre's squadron to come over as support for Milne.

Thank you, that's answered it for me. Do you think it is a fair statement that Warrior was the most powerful warship afloat at that time and the threat of her deployment was a significant contributing factor in the U.S government backing down?

 

[WJC]

Before that; he said he'd do it during a public event in 1860.

Thanks for your response.
Perhaps we are talking of the same event: ! typed "December 1861" by error: it should have been "December 1860".

 

[WJC]

There was certainly a strong strain of opinion in the US at the time that Canada should be annexed, and that dated back well before the ACW and continued afterwards.

Thanks for your response.
There has and still is an American opinion that Canada should become part of a larger United States. The best time for that to have occurred was before our Revolutionary War. Since then the two nations have become quite comfortable going their own, but different, ways.
It is certainly difficult for me to believe that some sort of annexation was possible at the time of our Civil War. However, it was an obvious concern at the time, leading to Confederation in 1867.

 

[Saphroneth]

Snip

She was the most powerful warship in commission, yes. I don't think it influenced the decision to back down, though, because AIUI that information was not known about in the US until after they had made their decision on the climbdown. (The time taken for news to cross the Atlantic was significant at this time.) The conventional RN was enough of a threat.

Well, since they were stopped and boarded for the purpose of impressment, I don't think so. Nonetheless, merely stopping and boarding an American vessel in American waters is a casus belli - any "continuous voyage" doctrine notwithstanding.

Indeed, but I'm after statistics here. You stated that "A very large number" of the ships stopped and boarded were in US or American waters, but I'm wondering where that comes from - if it's from statistics or not.
I'd have expected most common-or-garden Impressions to take place on US merchant ships trading with Europe, simply because the US was doing a lot of trading with Europe, and that the ships which got chased down in the manner of the Chesapeake-Leopard were cases of known deserters being on a US ship.

If the problem is stopping and searching ships outside of the legal cases offered by blockade rights, then that is the issue. (AIUI there was no treaty between the US and Britain giving the mutual right of search, and there wasn't until 1862.)

 

[Jimklag]

Indeed, but I'm after statistics here. You stated that "A very large number" of the ships stopped and boarded were in US or American waters, but I'm wondering where that comes from - if it's from statistics or not.

If, by statistics you mean a chart or some other table of a statistical nature, it is not statistics. The Mariner's Museum says 9,000; PBS article says "up to 15,000"; from the US archives, "In January 1812 the US Secretary of State, James Monroe, published figures claiming that 6,257 American citizens had been impressed into the Royal Navy over the past nine years." Those are my statistics.

 

[Saphroneth]

If, by statistics you mean a chart or some other table of a statistical nature, it is not statistics. The Mariner's Museum says 9,000; PBS article says "up to 15,000"; from the US archives, "In January 1812 the US Secretary of State, James Monroe, published figures claiming that 6,257 American citizens had been impressed into the Royal Navy over the past nine years." Those are my statistics.

But none of that says anything about where it happened. Your claim was that

A very large number of the ships stopped and boarded were in American waters and the Caribbean

But the statistics you've quoted just say how many were Impressed, not where the ships were stopped and boarded. Based on that evidence, just about every one of them could have been stopped sailing across the Atlantic (towards Europe, thus liable to interception) or in British territorial waters (thus also liable to boarding).

Do your sources happen to give the numbers for how many British citizens were impressed from American ships into the Royal Navy, by the way?