War of 1812 Bicentennial Lecture with Andrew Lambert

[@99IronDuke]

Good video.

[@99IronDuke]

Dr Lambert is brilliant and truthful.

[@TheIceman567]

He’s a joke. I’ve read his work.

[@martinidry6300]

@@TheIceman567 All of it? He certainly has a sense of humour. His work is no joke though. Always insightful and never a wasted word. He's the foremost authority on naval matters - in the world. How about you?

[@TheIceman567]

@@martinidry6300 he’s a joke. I’ve read his work. Yes a good Chunk of it. He called the USS president the flagship of the US navy when in fact it was the USS Constitution since 1810 for starters. In fact exarmydoc covers even more that I agree with. Foremost in the world? And the war was about sailor rights. Not about Canada since you said to another person they “would go down” if they brought it up. Which many historians agree it was about sailors rights including historians like Donald Hickey for one. So please try me you’ll go down. Son you sit here stalking on a video. Get a life, I mean how old are you in your 50’s? This guy is a joke.

[@martinidry6300]

@@TheIceman567 Look who's stalking? Yes, the pot calling the kettle black. Revealing you extol the scholarship of Donald Hickey. He is an incredibly narrow historian. How old are you? Does it matter? As relevant as asking you how tall/small you are. Now that is a (very weak) joke. Shades of desperation here. You do sound terribly young though.

[@TheIceman567]

@@martinidry6300 you mean like lambert? I’ll take Hickey anytime since he has other historians that have agreed with him. And the fact you’ve been incorrect so far. As for the stalking you go back over a year and you’re over 50 that just sad.

[@RKarmaKill]

Andrew Lambert is a rockstar

[@martinidry6300]

He was my personal tutor when I was at KCL. I chose him because I judged him as an essentially 18th century man. He still is - and all the better for it. Very thought provoking, droll and amusing. Great stuff.

[@rockyvarkhond2269]

I studied under Lambert at KCL. Cool guy.

[@caratacus6204]

US nationalists will even argue that they didn’t lose the Vietnam War, so I am not surprised there would be so many angry Americans in the comments.

[@michaelthomas6280]

@caratacus6204 How insightful

[@davidbarry213]

Great to hear from a British point-of-view (for a change).

[@ДмитрийДепутатов]

Young Mark Garcia Paul Williams Elizabeth

[@avenaoat]

Interesting war was the 1812, because all partipitians can be say they won it. Canada did not become the part of the USA. British occupied Washington and American won at New Orleans. It was a clasical draw.

[@johnpeate4544]

The US lost big time. The USA had 468,463 soldiers while the British had 9,200 soldiers in North America (and a lot of the best off fighting Napoleon) The Americans outnumbered the British more than 50 to 1. The British invaded Washington, burned The White House and the president ran away. America’s oceanic trade went from $40 million in 1811 to $2.6 million in 1814. Custom revenues-which made up 90 percent of federal income-fell by 80 percent, leaving the administration virtually bankrupt. By 1814 it could neither raise money at home nor borrow from abroad. See Brian Arthur’s _How Britain Won the War of 1812_ _Britain _*_crushed_*_ the United States economically, much as it had Napoleon, _*_and felt little or no repercussions itself._*_ By the last year of the war, the American government was _*_completely bereft of funds; it’s maritime trade had almost entirely ceased and, with it, the bulk of it’s at base._*_ New federal taxes were burdensome and incited resistance to the war effort; domestic efforts to raise loans came short of the mark, an no foreign power was willing to provide loans to _*_the beleaguered republic. Fortunately, Britain proved willing to grant a generous peace treaty. The United States had achieve none of the war goals set forth in Madison’s 1812 speech, in which he asked Congress to declare war. Simple put, the war was a disaster for the United States,_*_ and the American interpretation of it as a victory a singularly strange conclusion, an one that required a strange brew of _*_twisted facts,_*_ emerging _*_mythology,_*_ and republican ideology to concoct._ IT'S THE ECONOMY, JEMMY on JSTOR (www.jstor.org/stable/23351806)

[@TheIceman567]

Incorrect Because the US had declared war on Britain, in the first place, and Canada was British territory. The US had no hope to successfully take on the British Navy; all they could do was to go for nearby land possessions. Nobody in the US expected to beat the Royal Navy. The US navy held only 17 ships. Wade G. Dudley in Splintering the Wooden Wall: The British Blockade of the United States, 1812-1815 (2), attempted to establish that the blockade was quite ineffective in punishing the United States, pointing out areas where it was weakest, such as in the South and on the Gulf Coast. He remarked that, in 1814, ‘the country as a whole was quite self-sufficient - no one starved, and the implements of war continued to be produced - its government had little money, thanks to the tremendous expenses associate with warfare, Madison's embargo, and the blockade’. The blockade, he suggested, ‘was never the overwhelmingly successful. But, paradoxically, this was a time of resurgence and renewal for the American military, who performed well in campaigns at Niagara and at Plattsburg, maintained control of Lake Erie, stood firm on Lake Ontario, and won a crucial battle on Lake Champlain. Despite British amphibious attacks on the shores of Chesapeake Bay, the burning of Washington and the ransoming of Alexandria, Baltimore's naval and militia defenders repulsed the British who withdrew quickly from the Chesapeake to shift their attention to New Orleans. The one major element Arthur does not seriously account for is American privateering enterprise, which was successful in both naval and financial terms, despite the blockade. Privateer owners were an interesting blend of profit-minded entrepreneurs and patriotic sea warriors. To license and hold them accountable, the government issued 517 commissions for privateer and letter of marque vessels, which captured 1,345 British prizes and inflicted an estimated $45.5 million in damage on the British merchant fleet. The privateers sallied forth from Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Virginia, Louisiana, and Georgia. Indeed, many of the sailors who formerly had manned trading vessels signed on as privateersmen in major ports from Portsmouth to New Orleans. The large numbers of these swift-sailing, highly maneuverable schooners and brigs which slipped through the blockade, were a continuing irritation to the blockade commanders as they harried British convoys from the West Indies and took the war even to the chops of the Channel. Arthur minimizes the privateers' efforts as having little impact on Britain's aggregate overseas trade but whether by this he means global or North Atlantic trade he does not say. He balances the losses to privateers and American naval vessels by pointing out that the United States lost 1,407 merchantmen to the Royal Navy. But by this comparison, American privateers did fairly well. Also, As for the economy, it was due to not having a national bank and the embargo act of 1813, With the onset of war, existing embargoes expired and Congress issued a new Embargo act in 1813. On December 17, 1813 President James Madison signed the Embargo Act of 1813 into law. This added four new restrictions to the existing embargoes. All American ships and good were prohibited from leaving port. All commodities customarily produced in the British Empire were banned. All foreign ships trading in American ports were not allowed to trade unless 75% of the crew were citizens of the ship's flag. No Ransoming of ships was allowed. In the United States, the economy grew every year from 1812 to 1815, despite a large loss of business by East Coast shipping interests. Prices were 15% higher-inflated-in 1815 compared to 1812, an annual rate of 4.8%. The national economy grew 1812-1815 at 3.7% a year, after accounting for inflation. Per capita GDP grew at 2.2% a year, after accounting for inflation. Hundreds of new banks were opened; they largely handled the loans that financed the war since tax revenues were down. Money that would have been spent on foreign trade was diverted to opening new factories, which were profitable since British factory-made products were not for sale. This gave a major boost to the Industrial Revolution in the United States as typified by the Boston Associates. The Boston Manufacturing Company, built the first integrated spinning and weaving factory in the world at Waltham, Massachusetts in 1813. As for the number you’re stating militia which every state didn’t use. The US had about 35,000 troops by 1814 compared to Britain’s 48,000. Btw 12:04 states the USA got its terms doesn’t sound like the USA lost anything🤷‍♂️ study kid, won’t look so dumb next time. but yet your historians say otherwise… “The United States, meanwhile, could claim to have won the war because they didn’t lose any territory in the Treaty of Ghent, says Wesley Turner, a retired associate professor of history at Brock University. “But more importantly, the British ceased supporting First Nations people in their fight against American settlement in the Midwest.” Although this goal was “barely mentioned by U.S. President James Madison in his War Message,” Turner says, it was central to U.S. ambitions and the reason why U.S. interior states supported the war. Up to 1812, the British had been arming natives defending their lands against U.S. encroachment. Afterwards, the British dropped this support and deserted their allies. With the Treaty of Ghent in place, the United States could move into native lands without fear of British opposition - and they seized the opportunity.” Also…. The Americans also looked on the conflict as a victorious second war of Independence against Britain, says Peter Macleod, pre-Confederation historian and curator of the Canadian War Museum’s 1812 exhibition. “Seeing themselves as bullied and oppressed by the British Empire, they resorted to war and compelled Britain and the world to acknowledge American sovereignty and American power.” And… “According to Canadian Historian Pierre Berton, “Colonel Van Rensselaer was hit in the thigh by a musket ball as soon as he stepped out of his boat on the Canadian shore. As he tried to form up his troops, he was promptly hit five more times in the heel, thighs and calf, and though he survived, he spent most of the battle out of action, weak from loss of blood.” The Battle was a decisive victory for the British but may have lost them the War. Commanding the English forces was General Isaac Brock. Brock is considered one the best leaders of the war. Brock made a fatal mistake that day. Even though the Americans were pinned down and the assault failing, Brock apparently took a page out of the Van Rensselaer play book. He personally led a charge. He was six foot four inches tall and dressed in a bright red General’s uniform complete with a plumed hat, sash and silver and brass trim. The American’s couldn’t miss. Brock was killed and the English war effort never recovered.” Ouch!

[@johnpeate4544]

@@TheIceman567 I see you’ve found the video 😂 1:08 mins - _”Americas’ bankrupt”_ Your point about militia: The United States had 8 million population at this time, so the adult males of military age would have numbered around 2,200,000. Thus, about a quarter of the men were enrolled in the militia. Remember, the much-vaunted Second Amendment had as its purpose the creation of a nation in arms, with a rifle behind every bush. The US was much more militarised than Britain in this era, which relied on a small professional army and a fleet. The American government expected to conquer Canada before the British would even have time to send any troops across from Europe - even assuming they could spare any from fighting Napoleon The US could draw on a larger pool of military-aged men than the British could bring to bear some 3,000 miles away from Britain. In fact the 468,000 men were the enrolled militia plus the federal US Army; the entire pool of military-aged men would have been about four times that size. The British clearly lost the War of 1812 because they defeated the US army, defeated the US Navy, wrecked the US economy, burned the US capital, and forced the US to abandon all its war aims in return for peace. Clearly, a US victory. Again: America’s oceanic trade went from 40 million in 1811 to $2.6 million in 1814. Custom revenues-which made up 90 percent of federal income- fell by 80 percent, leaving the administration virtually bankrupt. By 1814 it could neither raise money at home nor borrow from abroad. No one in London had any interest in trying to reconquer the USA. They just wanted the Americans to stop behaving like idiots. How many times did the americans invade Canada? 10. How many times were they sent running back to the US? Yes 10! And what were the American objectives? Americans like to pretend the main objective was to have the Orders in Council rescinded, and that conquering Canada was just a bonus. The words of the statesmen of the day do not support this. Canada was the prize, the Orders in Council merely the rallying cry to get the public aboard. The Americans achieved NEITHER objective. The Orders in Council were rescinded in June 1812 as no longer being necessary to Royal Navy manpower needs, before the fighting in America had really gotten under way. Furthermore, the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the war, were Status Quo Ante Bellum. In other words, everything went back to exactly how it was before the war, with no concessions. The British never gave up the right to reinstate their search of American ships at any time. The Americans achieved nothing, but had half their frigates captured, and their economy brought to a halt by a British naval blockade. On top of that, America lost twice as many personnel killed in action as the British, or four and half times as many dead, all causes, even though the the British only sent about 7% of its army and navy and were desperately outnumbered and a lot of the best were off fighting Napoleon. So, Britain achieved it’s objective, America achieved neither of it’s objectives, and the Americans paid a higher price in blood and treasure. Clearly a US victory. US war aims were to make the British renounce search and seizure, and to occupy Canada. They failed at both. British war aims were to retain the right of search and seizure in future wars, and retain Canada. They succeeded at both, When one side meets all its war aims and the other fails at all of its own, we don’t usually call the former the loser and the latter the victor.

[@TheIceman567]

@@johnpeate4544 yeah you stating that all 2 million people owned guns 😂 that’s like saying today every single Americans an owns a gun. That’s the dumbest that’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard. The governor had no control over militia the states did and many like in New England alone refused to put them into the war. Please learn how the militia worked 😂😂

[@johnpeate4544]

@@TheIceman567 Can you explain what bankrupt means?

[@TheIceman567]

@@johnpeate4544 yeah what Lambert himself even stated “Russia was bankrupt, why it fought Napoleon.” The Russian beat Napoleon😂

[@ejdotw1]

Sorry, but the overriding analysis is ridiculous. If the Brits were only or primarily concerned with only Europe, they have a funny way of showing it. Sending 30,000 troops, two invasion fleets, and reinforcement to Canada was a huge expense and undertaking only met in their fight in Europe. They were embarrassed in Canada, pummeled at New Orleans, challenged at sea and had NO prospect of fulfilling their war aims.

[@andrewwhalley6172]

Erm, I think you should maybe listen to the lecture before posting your views. Just sayin'.

[@ejdotw1]

Happy to debate you, anytime.@@andrewwhalley6172

[@gregorybrennan8539]

Is it me, or is this guy in a pissy mood?

[@WmThomasSherman]

Rather tellingly Lambert complete ignores the naval battles of Erie and Lake Champlain, historically the only actions in British naval history where entire fleets were taken. For such an overwhelming victory as he asserts, Lambert and those like him "do protest too much."

[@TheIceman567]

Agreed.

[@JustVinnyBlues]

Absolutely. Also, if one knows anything about the British Empire, they never went into action for just a modest reason as getting somebody to mind themselves. They did not send their best Naval Officers just to quiet things down. They sent them to see if they could turn this rather minor incursion into an opportunity. As stated here, the British were very motivated to take prizes and booty because they did need the money. If they could have established a Naval stronghold in America and create a steady flow of goods it would have served their purposes in Europe. No doubt their defeats on the Lakes would have convinced them that establishing such a foothold would be too major a commitment. It would not have been that great an effort to simply defend Canada's border with the force of the British Empire. They were the greatest opportunists in history, and every conflict in the world was exploited for potential British gain. If they win those battles on the Lakes, one would expect a permanent British Naval contingent there, provided a steady flow of seized goods and prizes to Britain. To defend Canada, it would have been far easier to send a solid contingent of ground troops to defend the border. But strategically they saw the absence of American forces an opportunity. That is the way they saw things. Likewise in the Crimea, they did not just try and get the Russians to quiet down. They destroyed their entire Baltic Fleet, and immediately tried to establish a permanent British Naval presence there which would have expanded trade routes. So this soft peddling of British intent is rather insipid. The British Empire became what it was because the were proactive and ruthless opportunists.

[@martinidry6300]

@@JustVinnyBlues If they'd been that ruthless, they'd have used their Navy to starve and bankrupt America into complete submission and dictated terms of unconditional surrender. Just like the U.S.A. did to the C.S.A. with the Anaconda Plan. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

[@JustVinnyBlues]

@@martinidry6300 Well I'm not a kettle and the British Empire was not a Pot. Nor did I imply the British was interested in crushing America. But I am skeptical of the theme that runs through here that Britain only wanted this problem to go away. The British Empire was expert at exploiting situations to their own advantage and expanding their command of trade routes. They did not send those forces across the ocean just to "break even." If they're naval forces had not been defeated they would have certainly maintained a naval presence there. They were taking "prizes"; ships and cargoes. This actually diverts resources from actual combat. It was not cruel, it was strategic, and British Naval Commanders were trained, taught and encouraged to use their own judgement anywhere and anytime to take advantage of any such opportunity. You can see this pattern repeated for hundreds of years. A Naval presence there would allow them to control trade routes. Even with a peace agreement, they would still want to retain any gains made in the conflict. That's why the sun never set on the British Empire.

[@martinidry6300]

@@JustVinnyBlues It's an English expression. If you had a sense of humour, you'd know I was not being literal. You ought to know that. The lecture explicitly states what you'd simply blank out - the Brits DID want this American War to end. You just do not appreciate that the Brits didn't have the resources to have a naval presence .... exactly where? Yes, we were opportunists - and your point about that is ...? The Yanks started this war in a blatant attempted THEFT, dressed up in a tissue of self righteous LIES. Force of habit that's carried on to contemporary times. You have nailed your argument to the undoubted pattern of the R.N.'s liberty of initiative being used as a tool to gain a permanent presence. You very conveniently forget that they could have easily used that power to destroy the ability of the U.S.A. to be a viable nation state by naval blockade. The Brits always refrained from that as they were all too conscious that it would inflict a huge amount of harm on Americans in general and on their own economy as well. Humanity and pragmatism displayed here. America's was being fought to a standstill and lying about it ever since. You are just desperate to hold onto any faint trace of decency, naval capability and honour out of a spoilt, entitled country. The problem of America is that it lies to itself as much as it does to others.

[@exarmydoc]

Andrew Lambert may have been awarded a medal by the Society for Nautical Research for "The Challenge: Britain against America in the Naval War of 1812. The validity and quality of his scholarship are open to question. Andrew Lambert claims the Royal Navy captured 34 American Warships in the War of 1812(Lambert, Andrew (2012-04-03). The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812 (Kindle Locations 7731-7733). Faber & Faber. Kindle Edition.) He gives a reference for that statement: List of Ships taken etc., Treasury to Admiralty, 15 Nov. 1814: ADM 1/4297., Lambert, Andrew (2012-04-03). The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812 (Kindle Locations 7915-7916). Faber & Faber. Kindle Edition. He does not provide any comprehensive list of names of ships taken. The following information comes from Howard I Chapelle's the History of the American Sailing Navy, New York, Konecky and Konecky, 1949. This is a history of the design, procurement and ultimate fates of US Sailing Warships. The Page numbers refer to entries on each ship in the index giving how each ship was procured and each ship's ultimate fate. In 1812, the US Navy consisted of the following Vessels: Constitution(Pg. 536), United States(pg. 556, President(pg. 550), Constellation(pg. 536, Congress(pg. 536), Chesapeake(pg. 535), Essex(pg. 539), Adams(pg. 531), John Adams(pg, 5), Hornet(pg. 543), Wasp(pg. 557), Argus(pg. 533), Syren(pg. 555) Nautilus(pg. 547), Enterprise(pg. 538), Vixen(1st)(pg. 556), Viper(pg. 539 and pg. 556). Frigates New York(pg. 547), Boston(pg. 533) and General Greene(pg. 541) were laid up in the Washington Navy Yard, too rotten to be repairable. All three were burned when Captain Thomas Tingey burned the Washington Navy Yard when the British captured Washington. During the War of 1812, the US Navy added the following vessels, by capture, purchase or building: Caledonia(pg.534), Alert(pg. 531), Alligator(pg. 531), Guerriere(pg. 542), Java(pg. 544, Independence(pg. 543), Washington(pg. 557), Franklin(pg. 540), Wasp(2nd)(pg. 557), Frolic(pg. 540), Erie(pg. 539), Ontario(pg. 548), Peacock(pg. 548), Epervier(pg. 539), Macedonian(pg. 546), Boxer(pg. 534), Vixen(2nd)(pg. 556), Rattlesnake(pg. 557), Flambeau(pg. 540), Torch(pg. 555), Spitfire(pg. 554), Spark(pg. 554), Cyane(pg. 536), Essex Junior(pg. 536), Louisiana(pg. 545), Caroling(pg. 534), Tom Bowline(pg. 555), Nonsuch(pg. 548) Dispatch(pg. 537), Prometheus (pg. 550), Roanoke (pg. 552). Of the US Navy vessels present at the start of the War of 1812, the Royal Navy captured President, Chesapeake, Essex, Wasp, Argus, Syren, Nautilus, Vixen(1st) and Viper(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_War_of_1812_Battles) Of the vessels added to the Navy after the outbreak of the War, the Royal Navy captured Frolic, Vixen(2nd), Essex Junior. Junior(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_War_of_1812_Battles) The Royal Navy did recapture HMS Frolic and HMS Levant. Neither vessel was ever commissioned in the US Navy. HMS Frolic was so damaged in its battle with the first USS Wasp it was not repairable(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Frolic_(1806) USS Columbia and USS Argus(2nd) were burned at the Washington Navy yard to prevent capture but were never completed and never commissioned in the US Navy. USS Carolina was destroyed by shore battery fire during the campaign for New Orleans(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Carolina_(1812)) USS Adams was burned in the Penobscot to prevent its capture by the British((en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Adams_(1799). The Royal Navy did capture a number of small vessels on the Great Lakes, USS Ohio, USS Somers, USS Julia, USS Growler, USS Tigress and USS Scorpion(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_War_of_1812_Battles) The Royal Navy did capture USS Eagle and another USS Growler on Lake Champlain. Both vessels were recaptured at the Battle of Lake Champlain(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Eagle_(1812), and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Growler_(1812_sloop). So, the Royal Navy captured 12 US Navy warships on the high seas during the War of 1812 and 6 small vessels on the Lakes. The Royal Navy also captured 5 gunboats and 3 tenders on Lake Borgne(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Borgne) In 1813, the US captured HMS Caledonia and HMS Detroit at Fort Erie Erie(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_War_of_1812_Battles). Detroit was destroyed(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Detroit_(1812). Caledonia was taken into the US Navy. Between the Battle of Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, the Royal Navy lost 22 ships to the US Navy((en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Erie,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh). On the High Seas the Royal Navy lost Alert, Guerrierre, Frolic, Macedonian, Java, Peacock, Boxer, Reindeer, Avon, Epervier, Pictou, Cyane, Levant, and Penguin, 14 ships, of which Levant was recaptured and returned to service in the Royal Navy(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_War_of_1812_Battles) What these figures add up to is the Royal Navy took 27 US Warships on the Lakes, on the High Seas and on Lake Borgne, two of which were recaptured. The US Navy captured or destroyed 38 British ships on the high seas or on the great Lakes, of which the Royal Navy recaptured 1. All the vessels captured by the US Navy were taken in Battle except Pictou and Alert. Of the vessels captured by the Royal Navy, only Chesapeake and Argus were taken in battle. The remainder, including President and Essex, were taken by overwhelming force. These details are not part of Lambert's book, "The Challenge: Britain against America in the Naval War of 1812. Andrew Lambert cites two books written by Howard I Chapelle, The Baltimore Clipper: Its Origin and Development, Salem, Mass., 1930 and The History of American Sailing Ships, Bonanza Books, New York, 1935, as source material. He does not cite The History of the American Sailing Navy: The Ships and Their Development. That book could have provided him with an excellent, comprehensive source of information about the ships of the US Navy in the War of 1812. Why did Andrew Lambert not consult The History of the American Sailing Navy: The Ships and Their Development? Was it because he did not want to know the information? If so, the quality of Andrew Lambert's scholarship is questionable.

[@FortunaFortesJuvat]

+exarmydoc Waaah! Why didn't he use the source I wanted!

[@exarmydoc]

FortunaFortesJuvat What source?

[@FortunaFortesJuvat]

The History of the American Sailing Navy: The Ships and Their Development What is so significant about that one? What are your qualifications?

[@exarmydoc]

FortunaFortesJuvat "The History of the American Sailing Navy: The Ships and Their Development What is so significant about that one?" This is a work which details the history of each and every sailing ship ever commissioned by the US Navy, how the ships were acquired, either by building, capture, purchase, each ship's service, each ship's fate. It is a source for determining what happened to each ship of the US sailing navy. It demonstrates clearly that the US did not lose 34 warships to the Royal Navy in the War of 1812. The US Navy captured 38 ships of the Royal Navy on the high seas or on the Lakes, one of which was recaptured.The Royal Navy captured 27 US Ships on the high seas or lakes, two of which were recaptured. So far as qualifications, when you start throwing around someone's CV, instead of debating the issue, you admit you have lost.

[@FortunaFortesJuvat]

Nope, it's usually a sign that someone has an inflated sense of their own knowledge of the topic. So you say the numbers differ? What primary sources does your book cite? Also, whether it's 34 or 27, it still has no effect on the outcome of the war. Cling to Lake Erie, your Trafalgar in a puddle if it makes you feel better, but don't try to pass it off as scholarly research.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Smug and patronising. ! It's why we threw them out in first place...!

[@caratacus6204]

We? Said the descendant of some Ellis Island refugees from the 1890s…

[@exarmydoc]

Lambert argues that President surrendered to Endymion. "Between 7.40 and 7.50 President bore away from Endymion and ceased fire. At 7.58 she displayed a light in her rigging, the recognised night signal of surrender." Lambert, Andrew (2012-04-03). The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812 (Kindle Locations 7176-7177). Faber & Faber. Kindle Edition. This is based on William James account: “...the President, now evidently much shattered, replied with a discharge from one stern gun. In ten minutes the American frigate kept more away, firing but at intervals, and at fifty-eight minutes past seven ceased altogether and shewed(SIC) a light. Conceiving that the President had struck, the Endymion also ceased firing, and began to bend new sails, her present ones having been cut into ribands by the President's bar and chain shot; one of which had torn away twelve or fourteen cloths of her fore-sail, stripping it almost from the yard.” This is William James’ account quoted at this URL:www.1812privateers.org/NAVAL/president.html. More from Lambert: “Never one to miss an opportunity, Decatur kept under way, sliding past the near-stationary Endymion at 8.30, and resumed his course of east by north. Hope did not fire; his men were busy aloft and he believed the action was over. However, he had overestimated his enemy’s integrity. Decatur hoped to escape into the night under royal studding sails. Although it was quite dark when President started this bid for freedom, the clouds soon cleared and the stars revealed her to the pursuing Pomone, which had made up a considerable distance during the action. Having completed shifting sails, fitting a new main topsail, jib, fore topmast staysail and spanker, Endymion trimmed sails and bore up to close on the enemy at 8.52, just after the Pomone and Tenedos passed. Hope could see President heading east, under a press of sail, and at 9.05 observed one of the squadron run up on her larboard beam, and fire into her. President then shortened sail, luffed up, and hoisted the light in her rigging higher.” Lambert, Andrew (2012-04-03). The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812 (Kindle Locations 7184-7191). Faber & Faber. Kindle Edition. “As Pomone came into action Tenedos was closing fast, hastily shedding sail to avoid over-running the concluding scene. At 9.45 Hope hailed Hyde Parker to let him know that the enemy had surrendered, but he did not have a boat to take possession.” Lambert, Andrew (2012-04-03). The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812 (Kindle Locations 7205-7207). Faber & Faber. Kindle Edition. More from www.1812privateers.org/NAVAL/president.html: “We are, upon the whole, inclined to think that the Endymion was mistaken as to the hoisting of the light; especially, as the president, in the relative condition of the two ships aloft, had it in her power to escape from the Endymion, and, by persevering in her efforts, might even hope to escape from the remainder of the squadron.” And: “The deposition of the late schoolmaster of the President, Mr. Bowie, taken before the surrogate at Bermuda confirms this[that President struck after President had left Endymion behind and had come under fire fromHMS Pomone]: he says: ‘When the Endymion dropped astern, we were confident of escaping. Shortly after, discovered two ships coming up; (Pomone and Tenedos;) when Commodore Decatur ordered all hands below to take care of their bags. One of the ships commenced firing; Commodore Decatur called out, ‘We have surrendered,’ and gave this deponent the trumpet to hail, and say, they had surrendered. The Pomones's fire did damage to the rigging, but neither killed nor wounded any person. The President did not return the Pomone's fire, but hoisted a light in the mizen-rigging, as a sign of submission.’ Again: ‘When the two ships were coming up, a light was hoisted in the mizen-rigging of the President, as this deponent conceived at the time, as an ensign or flag, but, as he afterwards had reason to believe, as a sign that they had surrendered; for this deponent observed to the Commodore, that, as long as the light was hoisted, the ships would fir(sic): upon which the Commodore Decatur ordered it to be taken down.’ ” There are accounts of the battle other than William James’ account upon which Andrew Lambert bases his claim that, President surrendered to Endymion, noted in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_USS_President There are other accounts of the President/[Endymion action other than Andrew Lambert's: Daughan, George C. (2011-10-04). 1812: The Navy's War (p. 395). Basic Books. Kindle Edition. Forester, C. S. (2012-05-28). The Age of Fighting Sail (Kindle Locations 4226-4236). eNet Press Inc.. Kindle Edition. Utt, Ronald (2012-12-03). Ships of Oak, Guns of Iron: The War of 1812 and the Forging of the American Navy (p. 458-463). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition. Toll, Ian W. (2008-03-17). Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy (p. 438-439). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition. McCranie, Kevin D. (2011-10-01). Utmost Gallantry: The U.S. and Royal Navies at Sea in the War of 1812 (Kindle Locations 5367-5404). Naval Institute Press. Kindle Edition. Tucker, Spencer C. (2013-12-15). Stephen Decatur: A Life Most Bold and Daring (Library of Naval Biography) (Kindle Locations 3023-3124). Naval Institute Press. Kindle Edition. Adams, Henry (1999-09-28). The War of 1812 (Kindle Locations 7815-7890). Cooper Square Press. Kindle Edition. None of those accounts record that Decatur surrendered to Endymion. What all accounts agree upon, including Lambert’s account are the following: Endymion ceased firing; Endymion made no attempt to take possession of President. Lambert compares this to Isaac Hull in Constitution moving off to make repairs before taking possession of Guerriere. Guerriere was not capable of moving. President was. President was capable of getting under way. Endymion was not. President and Endymion lay in close proximity for more than a half hour before President got underway again; Endymion did not attempt to pursue President; Endymion did not attempt to prevent President from getting underway. More than an hour after President got under way, Captain Hope said he had not been able to take possession of President because he had no intact boats. What it all comes down to, again, that President struck to Endymion is Lambert’s opinion, not historical fact.

[@exarmydoc]

HomeGuard E9 Battery Gunner You should feel sorry for yourself and for all others who think Andrew Lambert should be a respected scholar.

[@exarmydoc]

HomeGuard E9 Battery Gunner He is anything but. He is a great distorter.

[@exarmydoc]

HomeGuard E9 Battery Gunner I acknowledge only that he is a great distorter. Either that or he is ignorant. The events he purportedly describes have already been described by other historians. He has come up with totally different descriptions.

[@exarmydoc]

HomeGuard E9 Battery Gunner Come on nothing. Andrew Lambert is a great distorter, not a great historian.

[@exarmydoc]

HomeGuard E9 Battery Gunner You are sadly deluded if you think Andrew Lambert is a great historian.

[@mkstg12345]

He’s too opinionated. He’s more of a Royal Navy enthusiast than he is a naval historian.

[@martinidry6300]

Nothing he says can be refuted. Try it. The War of 1812 was an attempt by the USA to steal British North America while Great Britain was involved in a life and death struggle with the French 1'st Empire. Refute that if you can. Mention sailor's rights & you'll go down in flames. Try it.

[@TheIceman567]

Martin Lee it was about sailors rights. There isn’t any evidence the war was over Canada.

[@originalkk882]

@@TheIceman567 Really, so why did the US attack Canada, rather than just address "sailors rights"?

[@TheIceman567]

Original KK because it couldn’t challenge the Royal Navy on the high seas. Could only challenge the British in her North American colonies. I love how you think the US Navy was the size it is today 😂Please learn about the war before you comment, thank you.

[@TheIceman567]

Original KK kzbin.info/www/bejne/faOmq5Z_ZcR9l7s

[@exarmydoc]

Andrew Lambert's history of the Naval War of 1812 is a compendium of distortions, nothing more.

[@MrBandholm]

You really like this Lecture, given how many comments you make :P

[@exarmydoc]

As much as I liked it when I got rear ended by someone going 50-55 miles an hour.

[@MrBandholm]

So that also happened 3 times?

[@exarmydoc]

What happened more than 3 times was Lambert presented distortions in his book as history.

[@MrBandholm]

Or you just claims that he distorts history...

[@stevehurrell651]

Lots of tedious details, but there doesnt seem to be any indication of why GB would care to embark upon such a foolish undertaking - the textbook explanation of getting Europe back on its feet seems irrational, especially in light of the closure of the First Bank of the USA which ruined the country while enriching the owners. After congress refused to renew its charter Nathan Rothschild, of the Bank of England, issued an ultimatum: “Either the application for the renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.”

[@edrichardson1001]

Britain didn't start the war. The USA did.

[@SeaToby11]

The British were impressing our sailors long before the war started... A act of war...

[@edrichardson1001]

No they were not. Britain only recovered deserters, they had NO policy of impressing Americans. Madison's argument was just an excuse It is not supported by American law. During the Vietnam war Draft dodgers who gained Canadian citizenship could never allow themselves to fall under American authority again or else they would be subject to arrest. (Like trying to pass through an American blockade.) Until Carter issued a general pardon for all deserters. Thus Modern US law supports British actions, which means Madison was full of crap.

[@SeaToby11]

Madison got a majority of Congress to agree... Madison could not have declared war by himself, if you know anything about the US Constitution. From Wiki: The United States declared war for several reasons, including trade restrictions brought about by the British war with France, the impressment of as many as 10,000 American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support for Native American tribes fighting European American settlers on the frontier, outrage over insults to national honor during the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, and interest in the United States in expanding its borders west. The primary British war goal was to defend their North American colonies; they also hoped to set up a neutral Native American buffer state in the US Midwest that would impede US expansion in the Old Northwest and to minimize American trade with Napoleonic France, which Britain was blockading. Notice the US did fulfill its Manifest Destiny, won freedom of the seas, and stopped the impressment of American sailors... America learned it needed a standing army and navy, state militias were not going to defend the US...

[@edrichardson1001]

The War Hawks were pushing for war before Madison made his argument. The speech was meant to sway the Federalists from New England who were the ones mostly effected by Merchant trade.(They voted Against the war because declaring war on the worlds most powerful Navy would be even worse for their business interests And it was.) As with all political speeches it was meant for public consumption. It is in the private letters of those congressmen that their true motives are shown & there was greed for land & American expansion. The wiki entry has been heavily influenced by an American bias & is not reliable. Britain did nothing but protect its people. The buffer Native nation was NOT a goal until AFTER the USA proved itself to be a threat. Manifest destiny did NOT exist until 1815 after the plan to take the entire content of North America failed. The belief that the United States would eventually encompass all of North America is known as "continentalism" "The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union." John Quincy Adams 1811 Since the USA started the war by Attacking Natives to the west which were only defending themselves & Spanish in Florida who had nothing to do with British trade policies during the Napoleonic wars. Since the only proclamation issued by the USA promised to liberate Canadians from British tyranny. Since none of those excuse for war were brought up by Americans at peace negotiations the evidence does not support them as true American goals.. Impressment continued till 1815 when Britain began reducing its navy. Britain retained the right to blockade in times of war & did so during WW1 & WW2. Also The USA also used the exact same policy several times as well which means Madison's argument was nonsense. The USA achieved NOTHING by the war which it could not have done far more easily with out loss of life by pursuing sound governing polices.