Comments on: War of 1812: ‘Swarms of Privateers’ http://www.historynet.com/war-of-1812-swarms-of-privateers.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Fri, 24 May 2013 11:21:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Harry http://www.historynet.com/war-of-1812-swarms-of-privateers.htm#comment-815521 Harry Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:01:16 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13685675#comment-815521 Fascinating article about some of the actions of the US privateers. Thanks for writing this. I do have a few reservations about it. The US militia did not defeat veteran British troops at Baltimore. The British won the battle at North Point. It is certainly valid to point out that the US privateers had some success and may have been a contributing factor to the British decision to drop their early demands at Ghent and finally accept status quo ante bellum. However, other factors such as 20 years of war, high taxes, unrest in France, and problems at the Congress of Vienna with Russia were all important. Its more than a little misleading to suggest that privateers defeated the Royal Navy and drove "Britain to its knees by hamstringing its merchant marine." Even if you are obviously only suggesting that this was the view of the privateers men you should have pointed out it is not accurate. For the most part this is a good article. A note on the suggestion by a commentator that Andrew Lambert's recent book on the War of 1812 is a good choice to read. I read this when it first came out (Kindle edition), but I agree with Piers Brendon who wrote in The Independent that "Lambert is tendentious about the causes of the war" and that the book is "seriously flawed." The book appears to be written to appeal to nationalists in Britain not unlike the way some books in the US are written to appeal to nationalists there. Fascinating article about some of the actions of the US privateers. Thanks for writing this. I do have a few reservations about it. The US militia did not defeat veteran British troops at Baltimore. The British won the battle at North Point. It is certainly valid to point out that the US privateers had some success and may have been a contributing factor to the British decision to drop their early demands at Ghent and finally accept status quo ante bellum. However, other factors such as 20 years of war, high taxes, unrest in France, and problems at the Congress of Vienna with Russia were all important. Its more than a little misleading to suggest that privateers defeated the Royal Navy and drove "Britain to its knees by hamstringing its merchant marine." Even if you are obviously only suggesting that this was the view of the privateers men you should have pointed out it is not accurate. For the most part this is a good article.

A note on the suggestion by a commentator that Andrew Lambert's recent book on the War of 1812 is a good choice to read. I read this when it first came out (Kindle edition), but I agree with Piers Brendon who wrote in The Independent that "Lambert is tendentious about the causes of the war" and that the book is "seriously flawed." The book appears to be written to appeal to nationalists in Britain not unlike the way some books in the US are written to appeal to nationalists there.

]]> By: DM http://www.historynet.com/war-of-1812-swarms-of-privateers.htm#comment-815091 DM Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:06:36 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13685675#comment-815091 I've just been pointed to this article by a friend. Oh dear, it really isn't all that good. Could I suggest Professor Andrew Lambert's recent book on the War of 1812 for a much more rational and realistic coverage of privateer operations? I've just been pointed to this article by a friend. Oh dear, it really isn't all that good. Could I suggest Professor Andrew Lambert's recent book on the War of 1812 for a much more rational and realistic coverage of privateer operations?

]]> By: Michael http://www.historynet.com/war-of-1812-swarms-of-privateers.htm#comment-815085 Michael Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:14:14 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13685675#comment-815085 What a dreadful article. Very poorly researched. Tub thumping tosh that might have passed muster in the late 1800s but which any modicum of reading on the subject will show to be riddled with falsehoods. Privateers accomplished very little to the war other than to help build up the yankee mythology of victory. True, they took over 1000 ships, but from a British merchant fleet of over 24000. At the same time they suffered 200 losses. By 1814 they were unable to land their catches in the US due to the effectiveness of the RN blockade which was bankrupting the country. the blockade was so effective that privateers were burning their prizes rather than risking capture. And that destroyed any profit motive for the privateers. The piece mentions privateers shifting operations from the Chesapeake to the South. Why was that? because the Royal Navy had closed of the Chesapeake completely, burning Washingon and roaming on shore at will. Britain wasn't driven to the negotiating table - that would be President Madison. His Treasurer realised the war was lost in mid 1814, the country brought to its knees by the effect of the blockade. the Treaty of Ghent saw EXACTLY the terms the British wanted - a return to the antebellum situation. Madison could have achieved this in 1812. in fact he could have achieved his stated "victory conditions" without a war, as the British had repealed the Orders in Council that were Madison's stated causus belli. But of course "free trade and sailors rights" was no more than a smokescreen for the real purpose, which was a poorly concealed (and dreadfully executed) "land grab" aimed at Canada, on the assumption that the Canadians would roll over, that Britain was weary of war and weak, and that Napoleon would support the American cause - all three assumptions proving to be entirely false. What a dreadful article. Very poorly researched. Tub thumping tosh that might have passed muster in the late 1800s but which any modicum of reading on the subject will show to be riddled with falsehoods. Privateers accomplished very little to the war other than to help build up the yankee mythology of victory. True, they took over 1000 ships, but from a British merchant fleet of over 24000. At the same time they suffered 200 losses. By 1814 they were unable to land their catches in the US due to the effectiveness of the RN blockade which was bankrupting the country. the blockade was so effective that privateers were burning their prizes rather than risking capture. And that destroyed any profit motive for the privateers. The piece mentions privateers shifting operations from the Chesapeake to the South. Why was that? because the Royal Navy had closed of the Chesapeake completely, burning Washingon and roaming on shore at will. Britain wasn't driven to the negotiating table – that would be President Madison. His Treasurer realised the war was lost in mid 1814, the country brought to its knees by the effect of the blockade. the Treaty of Ghent saw EXACTLY the terms the British wanted – a return to the antebellum situation. Madison could have achieved this in 1812. in fact he could have achieved his stated "victory conditions" without a war, as the British had repealed the Orders in Council that were Madison's stated causus belli. But of course "free trade and sailors rights" was no more than a smokescreen for the real purpose, which was a poorly concealed (and dreadfully executed) "land grab" aimed at Canada, on the assumption that the Canadians would roll over, that Britain was weary of war and weak, and that Napoleon would support the American cause – all three assumptions proving to be entirely false.

]]> By: Brian http://www.historynet.com/war-of-1812-swarms-of-privateers.htm#comment-808379 Brian Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:23:45 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13685675#comment-808379 An interesting article, though with a very flawed conclusion. Privateers "driving Britain to its knees"? Sorry but no. The British wanted an end to the war because the public was sick of war in general and Britain didn't think fighting America was worth the trouble. The actions of privateers played a role in pushing for peace but was hardly the driving force. Plus British power only increased after the war, greatly increasing their empire. Hardly the actions of a crippled nation. The author should let the actions of the privateers speak for themselves without trying to artificially build them up. An interesting article, though with a very flawed conclusion. Privateers "driving Britain to its knees"? Sorry but no. The British wanted an end to the war because the public was sick of war in general and Britain didn't think fighting America was worth the trouble. The actions of privateers played a role in pushing for peace but was hardly the driving force. Plus British power only increased after the war, greatly increasing their empire. Hardly the actions of a crippled nation.

The author should let the actions of the privateers speak for themselves without trying to artificially build them up.

]]>