Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: On this day 24 December - The signing of the Treaty of Ghent

  1. #1
    Retired Admiral of the Fleet
    Admiral
    United States

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago/Bloomington IL
    Log Entries
    5,095
    Name
    Eric

    Default On this day 24 December - The signing of the Treaty of Ghent

    The Treaty of Ghent (8 Stat. 218), signed on December 24, 1814 in the Flemish city of Ghent, was the peace treaty that ended the War of 1812 between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The treaty restored relations between the two nations to status quo ante bellum - that is, it restored the borders of the two countries to the line before the commencement of hostilities. The Treaty was ratified by Parliament on December 30, 1814 and signed into law by the Prince Regent (the future King George IV). Because of the era's lack of telecommunications, it took weeks for news of the peace treaty to reach the United States. An American army under Andrew Jackson won the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815 . However, the Treaty of Ghent was not in effect until it was ratified by the U.S. Senate (unanimously) in February 18, 1815.

    After the abdication of Napoleon in April 1814 British public opinion demanded major gains in the war against the United States. The senior American representative in London told Secretary of State James Monroe:

    There are so many who delight in War that I have less hope than ever of our being able to make peace. You will perceive by the newspapers that a very great force is to be sent from Bordeaux to the United States; and the order of the day is division of the States and conquest. The more moderate think that when our Seaboard is laid waste and we are made to agree to a line which shall exclude us from the lakes; to give up a part of our claim on Louisiana and the privilege of fishing on the banks, etc. peace may be made with us.

    However the Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, aware of growing opposition to wartime taxation and the demands of Liverpool and Bristol merchants to reopen trade with America, realized Britain had little to gain and much to lose from prolonged warfare.

    After rejecting Russian proposals to broker peace negotiations, Britain reversed course in 1814. With the defeat of Napoleon the main British goals of stopping American trade with France and impressment of sailors from American ships were dead letters. Negotiations were held in Ghent, Kingdom of the Netherlands, starting in August, 1814. The Americans sent top leaders, including Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and Albert Gallatin, while the British sent minor officials who kept in close touch with their (much closer) superiors in London.

    As the peace talks opened, the British demanded the creation of an Indian barrier state in the American Northwest Territory (the area from Ohio to Wisconsin). It was understood the British would sponsor this Indian state. They also demanded that Americans not have any naval forces on the Great Lakes and that the British get certain transit rights to the Mississippi River in exchange for continuation of American fishing rights off Newfoundland. The U.S. rejected the demands and there was an impasse. American public opinion was so outraged when Madison published the demands that even the Federalists were willing to fight on.

    During the negotiations the British had three invasions underway. One force carried out a burning of Washington, D.C., but the troops and fleet failed to capture Baltimore in the Battle of Baltimore. The British fleet sailed away when the army commander was killed. In northern New York State, 10,000 British troops marched south until a decisive defeat at the Battle of Plattsburgh forced them back to Canada. Nothing was known then of the fate of the third large invasion force that intended to capture New Orleans and the southwestern territory (at that time. E.g. Louisiana and Mississippi). The British Prime Minister wanted Arthur Wellesly, the Duke of Wellington, to go to command in Canada and with the assignment of winning the War. Wellesley replied that he would go to America, but he believed that he was needed in Europe. He also stated:

    I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success, and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.

    The British Government dropped all of its demands, and then the negotiators agreed to a treaty that called for no change in territory. Prisoners would be exchanged, and captured slaves returned to the United States or be paid for by Britain (who paid for them).

    On December 24, 1814, the members of the British and American negotiating teams signed and affixed their individual seals to the document. It didn't end the war itself—that required formal ratification by their governments, which came in February 1815. The treaty released all prisoners and restored all captured lands and ships. Returned to the United States were approximately 10,000,000 acres (40,000 km2) of territory, near Lakes Superior and Michigan, and in Maine. American-held areas of Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) were returned to British control. The treaty thus made no significant changes to the prewar boundaries, although the U.S. did gain territory from Spain. Britain promised to return the freed black slaves that they had taken. In actuality, a few years later Britain instead paid the United States $1,204,960 for them. Both nations also promised to work towards an ending of the international slave trade.

    Pierre Berton wrote of the treaty, "It was as if no war had been fought, or to put it more bluntly, as if the war that was fought was fought for no good reason. For nothing has changed; everything is as it was in the beginning save for the graves of those who, it now appears, have fought for a trifle:...Lake Erie and Fort McHenry will go into the American history books, Queenston Heights and Crysler's Farm into the Canadian, but without the gore, the stench, the disease, the terror, the conniving, and the imbecilities that march with every army."

    News of the treaty finally reached the United States after the major American victory in the Battle of New Orleans and the local British victory in the Second Battle of Fort Bowyer, but before the British assault on Mobile, Alabama. Skirmishes occurred between U.S. troops and British-allied Indians along the Mississippi River frontier for months after the treaty, including the Battle of the Sink Hole in May 1815.

    Carr argues that Britain negotiated the Treaty of Ghent with the goal of ending the war, even though it knew a major British expedition had been ordered to seize New Orleans. Carr says that Britain had no intention of repudiating the treaty and continuing the war had victory been theirs at the Battle of New Orleans.

    The U.S. Senate unanimously approved the treaty on February 16, 1815, and President James Madison exchanged ratification papers with a British diplomat in Washington on February 17; the treaty was proclaimed on February 18. Eight days later, on February 26, Napoleon escaped from Elba, starting the war in Europe again, and forcing the British to concentrate on the threat he posed.

    Fighting continued sporadically in and near Spanish Florida, leading to the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819.

    The signing of the Treaty

    Name:  24 800px-Signing_of_Treaty_of_Ghent_(1812).jpg
Views: 276
Size:  106.9 KB


    Today's event is taken directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent

  2. #2
    Master & Commander
    United States

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Log Entries
    2,027
    Name
    Chris

    Default

    It misses the important feature of the War: The "greatest nation on Earth" got its head handed to it by "a bunch of backwoodsmen", land and sea.

  3. #3
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    In your dreams, maybe

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    It misses the important feature of the War: The "greatest nation on Earth" got its head handed to it by "a bunch of backwoodsmen", land and sea.
    Now that is an understatement!

  5. #5
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    No, its bollocks, as we've discussed before

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    No, its bollocks, as we've discussed before
    To quote the great Ronald Reagan:

    "There you go again"

  7. #7
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    Ronnie was, of course, one of my favourite Americans (the ridicule that your countrymen heap upon him now is quite sad, since he did so much to save the US from itself)and even he knew that was bollocks

  8. #8
    Retired Admiral of the Fleet
    Admiral
    United States

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago/Bloomington IL
    Log Entries
    5,095
    Name
    Eric

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    Ronnie was, of course, one of my favourite Americans (the ridicule that your countrymen heap upon him now is quite sad, since he did so much to save the US from itself)
    One of my favorites, as well. I hope we see more like him in the future. In our bifurcated country, one side ridicules him; the other side respects and admires him.

    I have been very disappointed with the nature of political discourse over the last ten or so years, here, and think it is getting worse. As I read more about U.S. history, I must confess how little aware I was how politicians spoke of each other in the past (pre-mid-19th century). They really blasted each other, via cartoons, editorials, etc.

    The first time I have watched a session of British Parliament, forgive me if that is not the correct term, I was amazed at the degree of banter, booing, etc. In a way, it was refreshing, as well as entertaining.

  9. #9
    Master & Commander
    United States

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Log Entries
    2,027
    Name
    Chris

    Default

    No bollocks, except for watching British people trying to cover their being beaten by a backwater colonial power twice in two generations.

    One need look no further than this paragraph: "During the negotiations the British had three invasions underway. One force carried out a burning of Washington, D.C., but the troops and fleet failed to capture Baltimore in the Battle of Baltimore. The British fleet sailed away when the army commander was killed. In northern New York State, 10,000 British troops marched south until a decisive defeat at the Battle of Plattsburgh forced them back to Canada. Nothing was known then of the fate of the third large invasion force that intended to capture New Orleans and the southwestern territory (at that time. E.g. Louisiana and Mississippi). [Result of this third endeavor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans .]" [Emphasis added.]

    Three separate British invasion forces -- three absolute, overwhelming, and complete British defeats. This after 2.5 years of war which according to some had "crippled" the American economy and fighting forces; this suggests that far from being "crippled", the US was still a force to be reckoned with -- so much so that instead of getting the Indian buffer-state, and restrictions on US use of the Great Lakes, they wanted, Britain had to settle for status quo ante bellum (and pony up for a bunch of slaves they'd taken with them).

    The US faction who wanted Canada didn't get it -- but then, most of the US didn't want Canada either. The background on how Clay and the rest of those idiots steamrollered the opposition has been covered by Stagg and others.

    But the big deal -- the one ignored by the article, and by most Europeans (especially these days) is this: Britain learned there was a new player in town on the naval side -- one which they flat-out could not defeat as easily as they'd run over most opposition; one which had everything the British had in terms of morale, training, and such (lacking only size -- and that would be dealt with in a couple generations: http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.c...nce_1500.jpg); in short an actual competitor -- an equal. And it would only get worse as time passed.

    The Treaty of Ghent may have been based on the notion of "status quo ante bellum"; but while notional national borders could be reset, what could not be reset was the dent in British political hegemony made by the US, nor the destruction of the aura of British invincibility (particularly at sea).

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    No bollocks, except for watching British people trying to cover their being beaten by a backwater colonial power twice in two generations.

    One need look no further than this paragraph: "During the negotiations the British had three invasions underway. One force carried out a burning of Washington, D.C., but the troops and fleet failed to capture Baltimore in the Battle of Baltimore. The British fleet sailed away when the army commander was killed. In northern New York State, 10,000 British troops marched south until a decisive defeat at the Battle of Plattsburgh forced them back to Canada. Nothing was known then of the fate of the third large invasion force that intended to capture New Orleans and the southwestern territory (at that time. E.g. Louisiana and Mississippi). [Result of this third endeavor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans .]" [Emphasis added.]

    Three separate British invasion forces -- three absolute, overwhelming, and complete British defeats. This after 2.5 years of war which according to some had "crippled" the American economy and fighting forces; this suggests that far from being "crippled", the US was still a force to be reckoned with -- so much so that instead of getting the Indian buffer-state, and restrictions on US use of the Great Lakes, they wanted, Britain had to settle for status quo ante bellum (and pony up for a bunch of slaves they'd taken with them).

    The US faction who wanted Canada didn't get it -- but then, most of the US didn't want Canada either. The background on how Clay and the rest of those idiots steamrollered the opposition has been covered by Stagg and others.

    But the big deal -- the one ignored by the article, and by most Europeans (especially these days) is this: Britain learned there was a new player in town on the naval side -- one which they flat-out could not defeat as easily as they'd run over most opposition; one which had everything the British had in terms of morale, training, and such (lacking only size -- and that would be dealt with in a couple generations: http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.c...nce_1500.jpg); in short an actual competitor -- an equal. And it would only get worse as time passed.

    The Treaty of Ghent may have been based on the notion of "status quo ante bellum"; but while notional national borders could be reset, what could not be reset was the dent in British political hegemony made by the US, nor the destruction of the aura of British invincibility (particularly at sea).

  11. #11
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    《sigh》 we've been through that delusional fantasy several times before, I'm not going to waste my time reminding you again. (although I'm amusex at the idea of a "US faction" wanting to take Canada - since that was the President and it was his primary objective, one that his army attempted three times)

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    《sigh》 we've been through that delusional fantasy several times before
    And we keep trying to bring you back to reality.

  13. #13
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coog View Post
    And we keep trying to bring you back to reality.
    There you go again

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    There you go again
    Since you quote Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan on the War of 1812:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=kuY...201812&f=false

  15. #15
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    He loved a good story, did our Ron. Its about time you had another like him in the White House

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •