1812 Re: Impressment and US sovereignty and supposed Brit disrespect of same
- There surely were bogus papers and plenty of British sailors among the American merchant and Naval fleet. Britain's right to stop merchant ships and take actual deserters and even non-deserter British citizens has never been a complaint of mine.
The fact is that American citizens (born and naturalized) were seized. The most infamous incident, Chesapeake-Leopard, the four men taken from sovereign American territory, within territorial waters,were all proven American citizens and three were returned. Unfortunately for the other, Britain's needs were more important than the facts and his life.
This also reminds me....
I have heard over the years that a British officer, boarding a merchant ship, seeking British subjects ( a loaded phrase as many Welch, Scots, Irish and millions of others around the globe would not consider themselves subjects of the crown.....but the guys with the guns made the rules)...i digress, The officer would summons all the men on deck and, perhaps get the men to speak to discern an accent.
Now....I have read an official report somewhere...can't recall and would love to find it again, that an American ship of war, flying British colors, enticed a British merchant ship (or maybe a smaller ship of war...again I am hazy) to close for exchange of information. The American officer stated that he spoke for some time with the captain of the British vessel without the British captain realizing he was in the company of his future captor, because (hazily recalling now) the officer stated the similarity in accent of the two nations.
I am sure there are people oth there that know the whole language and accent "thing." How close would the two accents be in 1812-1815
All the best
PS in my other message I referred to "Jim". Which was dumb because two "Jims" are fully involved in the conversation. I should have typed Mr. Gallen.
- When I asked my father about why he signed up in 1939 his answer was very simple, "because you did" a whole generation in the UK did because it was the right thing to do. Whether they still thought that in May 1945 (at least those who had survived) is perhaps a rather different question :)
On 3 Feb 2012, at 22:28, Ron wrote:
> When I asked my Grandad why he signed up for WW 1 and my Dad for WW II the answer was the same--for the adventure! Not KIng and country, not to oppose the godless Hun but simply for the adventure. Neiher wanted a job or signed up through economic necessity.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter monahan <petemonahan@...>
> To: warof1812 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Fri, Feb 3, 2012 1:41 pm
> Subject: RE: 1812 Re: Punishments
> Moderator says: [?]
> The Message:
> Squire wrotwe: "Was a good option if you were starving."
> Spot on, Squire! Certainly, not everyone who joined the Allied forces in 1939-40-41 did it solely because of a deep seated hatered for National Socialism. Three squares a day and a new brown or blue suit must have sounded pretty good to many of the men who hadn't worked [or eaten properly] in the Depression years. I also noted a few years ago one young lad who'd lost his job at Marks & Spencer and joined the British Army and died in Iraq. His pastor at homne referred tio him as 'an economic conscript', which I thought a very telling turn of phrase. Certainly a large number, of the grunts at least, who serve in the Canadian Foprces come from the less affluent parts of this great land.
> Peter Monahan
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]