UK wins Battle of New Orleans bigtime

Slaves? Really? [1] Do you also refer to the conscripted members of all WWII militaries as slaves? [2] How about the draftees in Vietnam? Were they slaves? [3]

1] Yes, really. How else do you define being kidnapped against your will by a foreign nation that forces you at gunpoint to fight and die for their wars? The principle of conscription has been understood as a military measure since ancient antiquity, and specifically meant for your own people. If no Impressed American ever set off the magazines of a British warship while it was engaged against an American vessel, it was either because they kept him far away from the ammunition, left it heavily guarded, or they were just plain lucky.:mad:

2] You're snarking. You've been around too long to pretend to be one of our younger members, so you can't plead ignorance. Yes, conscripts represent the less willing members of society going off to war. But you can't fight wars with a volunteer army alone. Not when wars of attrition begin. By employing Impressment, London was trying to engage in its Total War with Bony if not on the cheap, certainly by exacting a lower political price back home than one might have expected. By using fewer Britons than would otherwise have been necessary.

3] Impressment was at gunpoint, literally. You had options regarding the Vietnam War, or any American Draft. Either by applying for status as a conscientious objector or joining the Peace Corps. And I can just imagine the laughter of the British if an Impressed American told them (honestly!) that he was a Quaker.:mad::p

Impressment, conscription, the draft are all essentially the same thing. The involuntary recruitment of men into a nations military. It's something that all nations do. The only difference between a letter from the draft board and a press gang is the level of force being used and that changes if you ignore the letter.

God I hate it when things get this extreme, but you don't know what you are talking about. I'll try bigger letters.:rolleyes: The difference is: IMPRESSMENT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ALGERIAN CORSAIRS RAIDING THE IRISH AND BRITISH COASTLINES FOR SLAVES AND SELLING THEM FOR PROFIT IN THE MAHGREB. THE DIFFERENCE THERE WAS THAT EVEN THE CORSAIRS WEREN'T STUPID ENOUGH TO USE THESE SLAVES IN COMBAT UNLESS THEY CONVERTED TO ISLAM.

AND STILL, EVEN BY YOUR OWN BAROQUE LOGIC, THESE VIETNAM 'SLAVES' OF WHICH YOU SPEAK COULD CHOOSE OTHER OPTIONS, INCLUDING AT WORST ACCEPTING CONVICTION FOR "EVASION OF SERVICE", MEANING A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FOR FIVE YEARS IN A FEDERAL PENITENTIARY. FAR FAR BETTER A CHOICE THAN SERVING (PERHAPS UNTIL DEATH) IN THE HELLHOLE BOWELS OF THE NAPOLEONIC ERA ROYAL NAVY.:mad:

The US draft applied to everyone residing in the country, citizen or not.

Non-citizens are certainly free to ENLIST, but have never AFAIK been subject to the Draft. Source?

By this logic, Enemy Aliens could be subject to the Draft.:eek:

A number of countries with mandatory military service regard those who take out citizenship in other countries without having completed that service as having an outstanding military service obligation that they will enforce.

If they can. I'm sure there are many defectors from the Cold War who would be surprised to hear this.

I knew one guy a number of years ago who kept getting notified by the country his parents emigrated from that he was required to report for military service and that his Canadian citizenship did not exempt him as they regarded him as a dual citizen.

All that proves is that said country (you didn't say which one?) has some idiots in its civil service. Surprise. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, NO country on the face of this Earth allows its citizens to be drafted by another power against their will, dual citizenship be damned. Also, many countries tend to be picky as to who they will recognize as being eligible for dual citizenship status, especially if in this case (apparently) the other country was not in the Commonwealth.
 
All that proves is that said country (you didn't say which one?) has some idiots in its civil service. Surprise. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, NO country on the face of this Earth allows its citizens to be drafted by another power against their will, dual citizenship be damned. Also, many countries tend to be picky as to who they will recognize as being eligible for dual citizenship status, especially if in this case (apparently) the other country was not in the Commonwealth.

While this shouldn't be taken as endorsement of the rest of the previous poster's position, there certainly is one such country that imposes conscription on dual citizens, and even on people who are eligible for citizenship in that country even if they're not actual citizens.

Greece does exactly this. I quote from the website of the Australian embassy in Greece (http://www.greece.embassy.gov.au/athn/milit_svc_gr.html)

"Dual citizen Australian/Greek males, as well as males eligible for Greek citizenship, may be subject to compulsory military service and other obligations when in Greece. If you believe you may qualify for military service you may be eligible, as a temporary Australian resident, for temporary exemption from your obligation to enable short term travel to Greece.

[snip details of how to apply for exemption]

It is important to note that if you qualify for compulsory military service you may be denied exit from Greece until you have fulfilled your obligation. The Embassy is unable to assist in this matter."

Granted, in practice Greece can only enforce this in people who actually set foot on Greek soil. But if you do, there's not much that another country can do to help you, regardless of dual citizenship.
 
While this shouldn't be taken as endorsement of the rest of the previous poster's position, there certainly is one such country that imposes conscription on dual citizens, and even on people who are eligible for citizenship in that country even if they're not actual citizens.

Greece does exactly this. I quote from the website of the Australian embassy in Greece (http://www.greece.embassy.gov.au/athn/milit_svc_gr.html)

"Dual citizen Australian/Greek males, as well as males eligible for Greek citizenship, may be subject to compulsory military service and other obligations when in Greece. If you believe you may qualify for military service you may be eligible, as a temporary Australian resident, for temporary exemption from your obligation to enable short term travel to Greece.

[snip details of how to apply for exemption]

It is important to note that if you qualify for compulsory military service you may be denied exit from Greece until you have fulfilled your obligation. The Embassy is unable to assist in this matter."

Granted, in practice Greece can only enforce this in people who actually set foot on Greek soil. But if you do, there's not much that another country can do to help you, regardless of dual citizenship.

That was exactly what I was talking about. When I was living in Melbourne I knew some Greeks who on one hand had Greek passports and wanted to keep them for visa free travel in the EU but who also wanted to avoid getting conscripted into the Greek Army.

As to impressment I think we can all agree that it was a primitive and random form of conscription and that conscripting foreign nationals is wrong and incidentally under British law during the Napoleonic war illegal.

In practise the difficultly of telling whether a white, native English speaking sailor on a ship in trading with British colonies in the Caribbean or on the trans-Atlantic routes was a "genuine" American who was not eligible for conscription or someone born a British subject and thus eligible was insurmountable and thus a lot of mistakes were made. But the Royal Navy wasn't raiding New York for recruits, almost all cases of impressment happened in British or Colonial ports.

As for the rights and wrongs of it I believe in principle conscription is justified even if Napoleonic era Impressment was a dreadful form of conscription.
 
As to impressment I think we can all agree that it was a primitive and random form of conscription and that conscripting foreign nationals is wrong and incidentally under British law during the Napoleonic war illegal.

Dumb too. For all the US nationals taken for the Royal Navy, was it worth sparking, and getting, the War of 1812 over it?

In practise the difficultly of telling whether a white, native English speaking sailor on a ship in trading with British colonies in the Caribbean or on the trans-Atlantic routes was a "genuine" American who was not eligible for conscription or someone born a British subject...[1]

1] Problem: AFAIK, the British didn't recognize American naturalization of British subjects at any time and at any age. Once English, always English.

...and thus eligible was insurmountable and thus a lot of mistakes were made.

Which leads to American minds (by the sheer number of Americans impressed) that many were very "convenient" mistakes.

But the Royal Navy wasn't raiding New York for recruits,

Well that would have been an unquestionable Casus belli, and left no doubt to America's war goals (not invasion of Canada).

almost all cases of impressment happened in British or Colonial ports.

I think it was having all those Trent Affairs happening so often on the high seas that so infuriated Americans, and tickled them pink in 1861:p when the shoe was on the other foot, wrong or not.:(

As for the rights and wrongs of it I believe in principle conscription is justified even if Napoleonic era Impressment was a dreadful form of conscription.

Of course in wartime conscription is vital, especially in a near total war like Britain's against Bony.

Impressment was an accepted system of recruitment in the Royal Navy for British civilian seamen since time immemorial, as conditions in the Senior Service were so brutal that the RN could never hope to fulfill its manpower needs by volunteer service.

It was the practice of Impressment of Foreign Nationals (regardless of their being able to speak English) where the wheels came off the wagon for Britain, both legally and morally. Even as a matter of practicality, it just plain wasn't worth it.
 
While this shouldn't be taken as endorsement of the rest of the previous poster's position, there certainly is one such country that imposes conscription on dual citizens, and even on people who are eligible for citizenship in that country even if they're not actual citizens.

Greece does exactly this. I quote from the website of the Australian embassy in Greece (http://www.greece.embassy.gov.au/athn/milit_svc_gr.html)

"Dual citizen Australian/Greek males, as well as males eligible for Greek citizenship, may be subject to compulsory military service and other obligations when in Greece. If you believe you may qualify for military service you may be eligible, as a temporary Australian resident, for temporary exemption from your obligation to enable short term travel to Greece.

[snip details of how to apply for exemption]

It is important to note that if you qualify for compulsory military service you may be denied exit from Greece until you have fulfilled your obligation. The Embassy is unable to assist in this matter."

Granted, in practice Greece can only enforce this in people who actually set foot on Greek soil. But if you do, there's not much that another country can do to help you, regardless of dual citizenship.

Greece has a...funny...history on the subject of citizenship. Like emigrating, renouncing your citizenship, swearing unwavering loyalty to your new country, then later renouncing your renunciation and getting your original Greek citizenship back without a hint of this being seen as having anything wrong with that. So much so that the ex-Prime Minister of Greece followed this route via the USA, and went on to become one of the most Anti-American Greek political leaders of the 20th century. And that's saying a lot.
 
Dumb too. For all the US nationals taken for the Royal Navy, was it worth sparking, and getting, the War of 1812 over it?

Probably not.

1] Problem: AFAIK, the British didn't recognize American naturalization of British subjects at any time and at any age. Once English, always English.

I actually agree with the British position and ironically so does the US government, while naturalisation should obviously be recognised unless you also renounce your previous national allegiance then it's not unreasonable for your original country to continue to regard you as one of it's citizens. Which is very relevant with the current US tax system where as long as you have a US passport you must pay US taxes, no matter where you live and earn.
 
Impressment was at gunpoint, literally. You had options regarding the Vietnam War, or any American Draft. Either by applying for status as a conscientious objector or joining the Peace Corps.

Perhaps you should inform the thousands of conscientious objectors that were imprisoned in the US during WWII for rejecting the draft about their options (6000 if Wiki is to be believed)

Also from Wiki, 17 US servicemen were sentenced to death during WW1 for allegedly falsely claiming conscientious objector status.

God I hate it when things get this extreme, but you don't know what you are talking about. I'll try bigger letters.:rolleyes: The difference is:

Good to see you upholding modern standards of debate... SHOUT LOUDER.

IMPRESSMENT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ALGERIAN CORSAIRS RAIDING THE IRISH AND BRITISH COASTLINES FOR SLAVES AND SELLING THEM FOR PROFIT IN THE MAHGREB. THE DIFFERENCE THERE WAS THAT EVEN THE CORSAIRS WEREN'T STUPID ENOUGH TO USE THESE SLAVES IN COMBAT UNLESS THEY CONVERTED TO ISLAM.

AND STILL, EVEN BY YOUR OWN BAROQUE LOGIC, THESE VIETNAM 'SLAVES' OF WHICH YOU SPEAK COULD CHOOSE OTHER OPTIONS, INCLUDING AT WORST ACCEPTING CONVICTION FOR "EVASION OF SERVICE", MEANING A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FOR FIVE YEARS IN A FEDERAL PENITENTIARY. FAR FAR BETTER A CHOICE THAN SERVING (PERHAPS UNTIL DEATH) IN THE HELLHOLE BOWELS OF THE NAPOLEONIC ERA ROYAL NAVY.:mad:

I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning. Impressment was understood to be customary usage at the time and was used on UK citizens. The only relevant point is the difference between the US and the UK in the definition of US/UK citizen.

Working and living conditions were the same for all seamen aboard and I think I'd rather face a Napoleonic ship and at least get paid instead of facing an 1800s prison, in either country.

The point being that conscription is not slavery, a point upheld by the US Supreme Court (Arver v. United States) who actually relied partially on the history of conscription (impressment) in the UK in making the decision.

Non-citizens are certainly free to ENLIST, but have never AFAIK been subject to the Draft. Source?

By this logic, Enemy Aliens could be subject to the Draft.:eek:

Taken from the US Selective Service web site https://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm

"Almost all other male non-citizens are required to register, including undocumented immigrants, legal permanent residents, and refugees. The general rule is that if a male non-citizen takes up residency in the U.S. before his 26th birthday, he must register with Selective Service."


All that proves is that said country (you didn't say which one?) has some idiots in its civil service. Surprise. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, NO country on the face of this Earth allows its citizens to be drafted by another power against their will, dual citizenship be damned. Also, many countries tend to be picky as to who they will recognize as being eligible for dual citizenship status, especially if in this case (apparently) the other country was not in the Commonwealth.

The country was Portugal and I believe others have mentioned Greece. In respect of dual citizenship most countries that recognize it (including the US) take the stance that if the individual is in one of the countries of which he is a citizen then that countries rules and obligations apply.


In any event I was objecting to the characterization of impressed men as "slaves". That is a emotionally charged word with a lot of baggage attached that I suspect was used with malice aforethought. Hell I would not have objected nearly as strongly to the terms kidnapped or shanghaied but slavery goes too far.
 
Top