07-10-2003, 06:49 PM
The point is, the Americans were supposedly neutral in the European conflict, but were supplying the enemies of the Allies. The British had every right to intercept American shipping going to France
Neutral countries, under the agreements of the time, were indeed allowed to trade with belligerents. That bit of international law has not remained static, however, the "freedom of the seas" folks point out that neutral ships of many nations traded with belligerents for centuries.
The key complaint a Brit would make in 1803, or in 1807, was whether or not war materiel was in the trade, versus "non war material" like cotton or wheat.
Once 1807 and the Continental system were put in place, and the significant economic mess of 1809 in England, it is very understandable that the Brits chose to test out whether or not anyone could hold them to previous agreements. The Law of the Sea is, and has always been, Might makes Right.
Their boarding of American flagged vessels was legally dubious at best, and given the American protestations being basically ignored "shut up, we are at war with Boney, and you're being a pain in the arse" the decision to act was not all that hard a decision to reach.
Had Britain not been in such a dire war, two things are probably certain:
The need for sailors would have been less, and the frequency of impressments likely would have been well below any pain threshold.
The young US would have had to look at the risk/reward of fighting a war against ALL of the Empire's might. A far different calculus indeed, both politically and materially.
Neutral countries, under the agreements of the time, were indeed allowed to trade with belligerents. That bit of international law has not remained static, however, the "freedom of the seas" folks point out that neutral ships of many nations traded with belligerents for centuries.
The key complaint a Brit would make in 1803, or in 1807, was whether or not war materiel was in the trade, versus "non war material" like cotton or wheat.
Once 1807 and the Continental system were put in place, and the significant economic mess of 1809 in England, it is very understandable that the Brits chose to test out whether or not anyone could hold them to previous agreements. The Law of the Sea is, and has always been, Might makes Right.
Their boarding of American flagged vessels was legally dubious at best, and given the American protestations being basically ignored "shut up, we are at war with Boney, and you're being a pain in the arse" the decision to act was not all that hard a decision to reach.
Had Britain not been in such a dire war, two things are probably certain:
The need for sailors would have been less, and the frequency of impressments likely would have been well below any pain threshold.
The young US would have had to look at the risk/reward of fighting a war against ALL of the Empire's might. A far different calculus indeed, both politically and materially.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete