Could the War of 1812 have morphed into the US taking direct involvement in the Napoleonic Wars?

As cerebropetrologist said above, impressment only applied to British subjects. The fact that some British subjects also held paperwork (with varying degrees of validity) describing them as US citizens did not relieve them of their duty to the crown.

There were undoubtedly various cases in which unambiguously American citizens who had never taken an oath of allegiance to the British crown nor had been born in the Kingdom of Great Britain or United Kingdom were pressed into service as was documented by the meeting of family members with impressed children before and during the War of 1812 (without even raising the issue of whether it was possible to forfeit one's citizenship in the era). And the investigation process was very flawed; the sailor in question was assumed British until unambiguously proven otherwise, was not given any exemption from duty (and thus was punished with what any reasonable human would describe as torture if they refused to execute their duty) or aid in pursuing their case, and could not draw pay without forfeiting their right to appeal their impressment; even if they refused to draw pay and chose to appeal their duties were not modified and they faced flogging at best if they refused to carry them out. I'm pretty sure that being forced to work on threat to life and limb for an extended period of time is slavery by any reasonable standard, though it wouldn't have been chattel slavery (i.e. slavery where the slave is treated as property similar to livestock) but something more similar to serfdom on the German (as opposed to Russian) model. And there were certainly US sailors in the British Merchant Marine and Royal Navy (both volunteers and who had given allegiance in some form to the UK and thus were legitimately impressed), a number of whom even fought at Trafalgar. The Davis situation is rather ambiguous, as he was taken into service on a US soil (i.e. the US did not violate the sovereignty of the British flag); I find it possible that, considering that the USN was an all-volunteer service at the time (Lavery, 1989), Davis enlisted whilst inebriated (possibly having been deliberatly made drunk before being goaded into service by an officer or inkeep) and thus technically not impressed at all, though he certainly did not consent to serve by a modern standard. Many other British sailors did serve in the USN enticed by better pay and conditions; the issue of the legality of impressment here lies not in whether it would constitute slavery or forced labor in removing the sailors (as they were British subjects) but rather what right the Royal Navy had to halt and board a naval ship of a sovereign, neutral nation on the high seas. In no case did the American government deliberately and formally authorize impressment, whereas Parliament undoubtedly had. Might a US officer have impressed British subjects at some point? Possibly. But the United States, unlike Great Britain, never made it an instrument of policy to coerce citizens of other states into service (which was undoubtedly true as even when the appeals process existed it was certainly biased against the sailor in question).
 

Lusitania

Donor
I wonder what US army are you referencing? The soldiers who fought war of 1812 were state militia. So which state is going to pay for Their militia to get involved in Europe.

The US militia attacking Canada suffered from poor leadership, lack of supplies and logistics.

Can someone explain how those be resolved?

If we talking an earlier POD then we need a federal army and the states will not go for that. Heck even ACW was fought with militia troops on both sides.

We need POD during drafting of constitution to make federal troops possibility.
 
Take a look at this.It's one of my favorites.

Thanks for the TL shout! :)

But yeah, as the last page of replies has already said, the USA didn't really have the ability to do a lot past its own borders at this point in time. Too small and weak relative to the other great powers of the time. Any escalation in the American theatre would have to come from the UK, and if the UK escalates the war, it's going to be pretty bad for the Americans.

- BNC
 
'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; emphasis in original)
I don't find that surprising at all. From what I've read, the US was going through a big economic boom at the time, and workers of all kinds were in short supply... the merchant marine wanted sailors, towns wanted workers, farms wanted workers, mines wanted workers... just about everyone wanted workers. The navy was competing with the merchant marine for sailors, so British sailors who wanted to jump ship and make more money in the US were gladly welcomed. The labor shortage bedeviled the Brits through the War of 1812; sailors and soldiers were both prone to deserting to the Americans for better wages as sailors or day laborers, resulting in a slow trickle of troops from both services...
 
Thanks for the TL shout! :)

But yeah, as the last page of replies has already said, the USA didn't really have the ability to do a lot past its own borders at this point in time. Too small and weak relative to the other great powers of the time. Any escalation in the American theatre would have to come from the UK, and if the UK escalates the war, it's going to be pretty bad for the Americans.

- BNC


I don't necessarily agree that it would be automatically bad. If Madison plays it right ("the imperial tyrants return to subjugate you once and for all" etc etc) the states are then overwhelmed with militia volunteers. Every inch of US territory is sold at a bloody price, and Madison sends this ultimatum to London: " Leave us be. Refuse, and you may well conquer this land. But you will have conquered a tomb. Americans will never be your subjects again. And a greater part of this generation of your nation's men will join us in this tomb."
 
But the United States, unlike Great Britain, never made it an instrument of policy to coerce citizens of other states into service (which was undoubtedly true as even when the appeals process existed it was certainly biased against the sailor in question).
You're going to have to back up your claim that impressment of foreign citizens was UK policy here.
Impressment of British citizens certainly was but citizens unambiguously not British as you claim?
 

Lusitania

Donor
Two major issues with the scenarios proposed was that the British had no interest in fighting the USA and it was elements of the USA "war hawks" and those supporting the settlers in the Northwest that advocated for war. The British wanted to continue trading with the USA since they received a lot of taxes on trade with the USA. The issue was that the USA wanted to trade with Everyone and British wanted to cut off Napoleon and weaken him. SO just like Napoleon was willing to fight to impose him blockade against Britain, the British did the same.

The war was not without its detractors in the USA. The southern states were against the war because it disrupted their exports to Britain. While New England were most of the countries shipping companies were based were also against the war due to the economic damage it was doing to its economy.

The American Merchant fleet suffered staggering loses during the war which it would take years to rebuild. This left the US coast subject to continued British attacks.

The British had no intention of conquering the USA it simply wanted the war over ASAP. But throughout the war it had the ability to lunch attacks against any American coastal city. Continued British attacks / raids would of placed the entire East coast on edge, While the states were able to recruits large state militia they did not have the funds to supply and arm the troops. Never mind that the USA had no navy to challenge the RN. British attacks along the coast would of left the country devastated and economically hurt.
 
The soldiers who fought war of 1812 were state militia... If we talking an earlier POD then we need a federal army and the states will not go for that. Heck even ACW was fought with militia troops on both sides. We need POD during drafting of constitution to make federal troops possibility.
Fortunately, you don't.

The US militia attacking Canada suffered from poor leadership, lack of supplies and logistics. Can someone explain how those be resolved?
It's far more difficult if the US is fighting alongside France. However, if the US is only sending a single brigade to the Peninsula army, you only need one good brigadier (which you have in the form of Winfield Scott) and the British will handle the levels above with a reasonably consistent level of adequacy. They also had decent logistics- in large part due to foodstuffs purchased from the US- and there's no language barrier.

I'm pretty sure that being forced to work on threat to life and limb for an extended period of time is slavery by any reasonable standard,
Not in the Royal Navy, where it's 'business as usual'. And, indeed, in the US navy, where flogging was twice as common as in the RN and the practice of 'starting' (beating men with the end of a rope to force them to work) wasn't banned until almost half a century after the Royal Navy had prohibited it. So by 'any reasonable standard,' we're in fact proposing a completely ahistorical standard that fails to acknowledge how the prevalence of violence in everyday life has fallen over time.

even when the appeals process existed it was certainly biased against the sailor in question
Well, of course. What you're proposing- that a sailor could claim to have been impressed wrongly, and thereby evade work on full pay and without any threat of punishment until the case was thrashed out between the United States and Britain at a time when it took two months for a single message to cross the Atlantic- would have been the end of the Royal Navy. It's as if the Union Army of the Civil War had allowed its recruits to contest their enlistment on the grounds that they were British citizens, and relieved them from duty until the case was decided: Lee would have been in New York by the time the Adjutant-General had even finished cataloguing the claims.

the sailor in question was assumed British until unambiguously proven otherwise
Presumably, the alternate position - that all sailors aboard US ships should be assumed American without any opportunity for the British to contest this claim - would be equally risible. And yet, that was the official US government line, despite - or rather because of - the fact that they knew there were nine thousand British sailors working on those ships. 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 would be damaging for the US economy, of course, but that's what happens when you build an industry on something that doesn't belong to you.

Of course, there's the germ of a deal present- probably involving the US giving proper documentation to its merchant seamen (an act which would also make the appeals process much more straightforward), and the British restricting their visits and streamlining appeals. However, that requires a US government willing to make a deal rather than use the issue in the most emotive and simplistic way.
 
Right...because using the citizens of another nation, who owe no allegiance to the UK, as forced labor is totally a legitimate act and not enslavement and an act of war on said nation.
It may possibly be the 2nd, but was clearly not the first, as for people not owing allegiance to Britain well that's doubtful if you look at the American's own words at the time..
 
Realistically, if the US sided WITH Napoleon (which is what I take as "morphing into involvement" to mean), then frankly, the US is opening itself up to trouble.

Basically, they'd have to deal with some (not necessarily a lot) of military expeditions taken by Spanish Mexico. I say some because of the dubious loyalty of some of the Juntas, but effectively direct involvement would mean a more serious war for the Americans, which they wouldn't have a chance to win. In fact, this would be one of those situations that I believe could lead to the dissolution of the United States, as it isn't a vast amount of resources required for the time, and as Britain is restoring Spain, Spain would certainly be willing to assist in "Restoring" BNA, at leas to drag the war out to such a point that Britain can direct more forces to the USA.

The key thing here is that declaring to be on the side of Napoleon, is to declare against the established powers of Europe, and OTL shows that it is dangerous at the very least.

So yeah, I can't see this being a rational decision by the US Congress, but a mad one, as the repercussions are undoubtedly dire. (although, the emergence of a more unified Spanish Colonial Army could be an interesting butterfly. Whether this makes rebellion, or survival of the Spanish Empire post war more likely, I don't really know).
 
Realistically, if the US sided WITH Napoleon (which is what I take as "morphing into involvement" to mean), then frankly, the US is opening itself up to trouble.

Basically, they'd have to deal with some (not necessarily a lot) of military expeditions taken by Spanish Mexico. I say some because of the dubious loyalty of some of the Juntas, but effectively direct involvement would mean a more serious war for the Americans, which they wouldn't have a chance to win. In fact, this would be one of those situations that I believe could lead to the dissolution of the United States, as it isn't a vast amount of resources required for the time, and as Britain is restoring Spain, Spain would certainly be willing to assist in "Restoring" BNA, at leas to drag the war out to such a point that Britain can direct more forces to the USA.

The key thing here is that declaring to be on the side of Napoleon, is to declare against the established powers of Europe, and OTL shows that it is dangerous at the very least.

So yeah, I can't see this being a rational decision by the US Congress, but a mad one, as the repercussions are undoubtedly dire. (although, the emergence of a more unified Spanish Colonial Army could be an interesting butterfly. Whether this makes rebellion, or survival of the Spanish Empire post war more likely, I don't really know).
New Spain might be a bit too busy dealing with an open rebellion to worry about that.
 
Top