Frank Herberts Dune vs the USA and UK

[Deepcrush]

My knowledge of US Navy recruitment techniques is non-existent, so my apologies if you were actually discussing them.

No, monroe was calling impressment the same as the life exchange for the British army. Its not even close.

The Royal Navy on the other hand, operated the press-gang in port, not at sea (except when retrieving deserters). The modus operandi was to go round the local pubs, round up any seamen without an exemption, and take them back to the ship. Once under way the entire crew was under identical disclipline, and rapidly became a cohesive force with no distinction between the volunteers and the pressed men.

I'm assuming (and hoping) that this statement is based from the Treaty of Ghent and forward? Since during the 1812 war British ships pressed every American they came across. Also, if everyone was so happy on board why were there so many deserters from the Royal Navy? This seems to have been a major problem for England and France as both pressed crews off of foreign ships.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm assuming (and hoping) that this statement is based from the Treaty of Ghent and forward? Since during the 1812 war British ships pressed every American they came across.

No, it's based on RN pressing techniques throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. True, there were examples of men being pressed while at sea but they were pretty rare - either to top up numbers if the ship in question had been particularly badly affected by disease, or to recover deserters such as those aboard the Chesapeake.

Also, if everyone was so happy on board why were there so many deserters from the Royal Navy? This seems to have been a major problem for England and France as both pressed crews off of foreign ships.

I never used the term "happy", I specifically referred to the ships' crews being cohesive, without pressed/volunteer distinctions. Desertion, common among all armed forces of the time, was due largely to ship-specific conditions, such as bad food, poor commanders, lack of prizes, etc.

You also seem to be under the impression that pressing foreigners was a common occurence - it wasn't, indeed it was illegal. While I won't say it never happened, as there were unboubtebly times when short-crewed commanders paid lip service to ban on pressing foreigners, pressed men were all (in theory) British subjects.

[Deepcrush]

No, it's based on RN pressing techniques throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. True, there were examples of men being pressed while at sea but they were pretty rare - either to top up numbers if the ship in question had been particularly badly affected by disease, or to recover deserters such as those aboard the Chesapeake.

Uhh, the Chesapeake was the USS Chesapeake, a navy frigate assigned to tax collection. She was given no orders to allow a foreign power aboard. Claims such as this should have been sent to the White House first. The final numbers from impressment is over 6,000 confirmed US citizens. Also, the Leopard shouldn't have opened fire and should have followed the USS Chesapeake to port and filed a claim of Intrest and Merit.

I never used the term "happy", I specifically referred to the ships' crews being cohesive, without pressed/volunteer distinctions. Desertion, common among all armed forces of the time, was due largely to ship-specific conditions, such as bad food, poor commanders, lack of prizes, etc.

In the US that problem wasn't so bad since people weren't paid until their contracts were completed. If they jumped ship then they lost everything and the Ship would keep the money. Then again we only had a dozen or so ships to begin with.

You also seem to be under the impression that pressing foreigners was a common occurence - it wasn't, indeed it was illegal. While I won't say it never happened, as there were unboubtebly times when short-crewed commanders paid lip service to ban on pressing foreigners, pressed men were all (in theory) British subjects.

It was pretty common over here for a number of years. Again 6,000 is a lot of men from such a small nation.

[Captain Seafort]

Uhh, the Chesapeake was the USS Chesapeake, a navy frigate assigned to tax collection. She was given no orders to allow a foreign power aboard. Claims such as this should have been sent to the White House first. The final numbers from impressment is over 6,000 confirmed US citizens. Also, the Leopard shouldn't have opened fire and should have followed the USS Chesapeake to port and filed a claim of Intrest and Merit.

When you say "US citizens" do you mean US citizens by birth or RN deserters and/or British subjects given US passports to try and bluff their way through the blockade?

The Leopard's handling of her search orders was ham-fisted certainly, but the fact remains that the Chesapeake was harbouring RN deserters. Also, she certainly was ordered to allow the Leopard's search party on board - by the Leopard herself.

[Deepcrush]

When you say "US citizens" do you mean US citizens by birth or RN deserters and/or British subjects given US passports to try and bluff their way through the blockade?

Well, in truth we should say both as only one of the four men taken were british. The other three were americans.

The Leopard's handling of her search orders was ham-fisted certainly, but the fact remains that the Chesapeake was harbouring RN deserters. Also, she certainly was ordered to allow the Leopard's search party on board - by the Leopard herself.

You should first make that 'deserter' as only one of those aboard was even confirmed british. Second, ham-fisted was me dealing with my cuz when he wouldn't give me his car keys since he was drunk. The Leopard's handling of the matter was a smash of stupidity. That whole period seemed to bring the retard gene from both the US and England in massed amounts.

[Captain Seafort]

You should first make that 'deserter' as only one of those aboard was even confirmed british.

Nope - all four were RN deserters. Their country of origin is of no more relevence than if they were runners from the French Foreign Legion.

Second, ham-fisted was me dealing with my cuz when he wouldn't give me his car keys since he was drunk. The Leopard's handling of the matter was a smash of stupidity. That whole period seemed to bring the retard gene from both the US and England in massed amounts.

Leopard's error was in opening fire rather than negotiate when the Chesapeake refused to obey orders - other than that she had good reason to suspect that RN deserters were aboard the Chesapeake, the two countries were not at war, so why shouldn't she be allowed to search? Incidentally, this wasn't a one-sided demand for right of search - Leopard's orders specifically required her to consent to a US search for deserters should such a request be made.

[Deepcrush]

Nope - all four were RN deserters. Their country of origin is of no more relevence than if they were runners from the French Foreign Legion.

Conceded, though I feel that the Americans should have been arrested by Americans.

Leopard's error was in opening fire rather than negotiate when the Chesapeake refused to obey orders

You cannot give an order to those who are not under your command.

- other than that she had good reason to suspect that RN deserters were aboard the Chesapeake, the two countries were not at war, so why shouldn't she be allowed to search?

Search is one thing, but to take crew from a ship at sea criminal. It was a matter to be decided by a port master, not cannons.

Incidentally, this wasn't a one-sided demand for right of search - Leopard's orders specifically required her to consent to a US search for deserters should such a request be made.

But the USS Chesapeake didn't have those orders. England issued those orders but never confirmed them with the US.

What if I came over to Englan and tried to search your car without reason while holding up your plans for the day? If you weren't busy then most people wouldn't care. But, if you are not only busy but in a rush you might tell someone off. Think now if after you told me off I opened fire on your car with you still in it.

[Captain Seafort]

You cannot give an order to those who are not under your command.

The ships were in more than six feet of water - hence this applies.

Search is one thing, but to take crew from a ship at sea criminal. It was a matter to be decided by a port master, not cannons.

Not by a full-blown attack, certainly, but the individuals in question had committed a crime in British jurisdiction - Leopard was well within her rights to demand that said criminals be handed over for trial.

But the USS Chesapeake didn't have those orders. England issued those orders but never confirmed them with the US.

I was merely pointing out that to emphasise that Britain's attitude was one of equal right of search for both nations, rather than one of taking our deserters from US ships but hypocritically not allowing reciprocal searches.

What if I came over to Englan and tried to search your car without reason while holding up your plans for the day? If you weren't busy then most people wouldn't care. But, if you are not only busy but in a rush you might tell someone off. Think now if after you told me off I opened fire on your car with you still in it.

Your scenario involves you dictating on British sovereign soil - Leopard's orders applied only to international waters.

[Deepcrush]

The ships were in more than six feet of water

Again, why we hated you for so long. England mistaking itself for God.

Not by a full-blown attack, certainly, but the individuals in question had committed a crime in British jurisdiction - Leopard was well within her rights to demand that said criminals be handed over for trial.

Wrong, the people in question did commit a crime but that is for a judge to decide. Not British ego. Also, it was an American ship. The leopard had no rights. The Royal Navy has rights, again, in court. The Leopard violated an American ship and helped fuel a war that would later cost thousands of lives on both sides.

I was merely pointing out that to emphasise that Britain's attitude was one of equal right of search for both nations, rather than one of taking our deserters from US ships but hypocritically not allowing reciprocal searches.

I agree that such a thing would have been fair if BOTH sides knew about it. The US was not given such a notice.

Your scenario involves you dictating on British sovereign soil - Leopard's orders applied only to international waters.

They had just left Port of Norfolk and were heading to Baltimore Harbor. Both ships were in sight of land. There were no international waters back then. Even so, the Royal Navy has no rights to mount unlawful attacks in international waters, then or now. The high seas were free for any and all. In modern terms they were in US waters. In the times the were in free waters. The US called on her waters to be only 3 miles out so that ships could incase of storm or trouble, retreat to safety of port. The Leopard should have followed to Fort Carol and awaited the return of any person in question.

[Captain Seafort]

Again, why we hated you for so long. England mistaking itself for God.

Easy mistake to make, especially when the Royal Navy was involved.

Wrong, the people in question did commit a crime but that is for a judge to decide.

The crime was committed in British jurisdiction therefore it was for a British judge to decide.

Also, it was an American ship. The leopard had no rights. The Royal Navy has rights, again, in court. The Leopard violated an American ship and helped fuel a war that would later cost thousands of lives on both sides.

A war triggered half a decade later by a blatant US land-grab. And in which the Chesapeake again got bolshy with the Royal Navy and came second.

I agree that such a thing would have been fair if BOTH sides knew about it. The US was not given such a notice.

The Chesapeake was - a copy of said orders was sent across along with the request to search the vessel.

They had just left Port of Norfolk and were heading to Baltimore Harbor. Both ships were in sight of land. There were no international waters back then. Even so, the Royal Navy has no rights to mount unlawful attacks in international waters, then or now. The high seas were free for any and all. In modern terms they were in US waters. In the times the were in free waters. The US called on her waters to be only 3 miles out so that ships could incase of storm or trouble, retreat to safety of port. The Leopard should have followed to Fort Carol and awaited the return of any person in question.

The specific orders issued to the Leopard were as followed:

the captains and commanders of His Majesty's ships and vessels under my command are, therefore, hereby required and directed, in case of meeting with the American frigate Chesapeake at sea, and without the limits of the United States, to show to the captain of her this order, and to require to search his ship for the deserters from the before-mentioned shops, and to proceed and search for the same. And, if a similar demand should be made by the American, he is permitted to search for deserters from their service, according to the customs and usages of civilized nations, on terms of peace and amity with each other.

Important bits bolded - the first shows that it applied outside US territorial waters, and the latter shows firstly that reciprocal searches were allowed, and secondly that these stop-and-searches were customarily allowed.

[Deepcrush]

Easy mistake to make, especially when the Royal Navy was involved.

The Royal Navy was a bit anal about things weren't they!

The crime was committed in British jurisdiction therefore it was for a British judge to decide.

True, but in order to take those involved you needed an American judge to sign off for custody. England didn't have such.

A war triggered half a decade later by a blatant US land-grab.

Which used matters like this to spark the war hawks party.

And in which the Chesapeake again got bolshy with the Royal Navy and came second.

We had a starfleet captain at the time, it wasnt' our fault.

The Chesapeake was - a copy of said orders was sent across along with the request to search the vessel.

But DC wasn't. That capt has to follow orders from DC, not London. No American force is allowed to surrender without permission of or pardon for cowardice from the Commander and Chief. As the Chesapeake was under these orders which still stand today and had not been sent any orders to counter. The Capt did what he should have done. He refused.

If the Leopard had followed to port, they could have had the men turned over without any trouble. Most American ports were friendly to the british, both navy and trade ships since they did a lot of business together. No man in office would risk his port being put off the trade list.

[Captain Seafort]

The Royal Navy was a bit anal about things weren't they!

Given the drubbing it'd given all comers for decades, the RN had earned a bit of hubris.

True, but in order to take those involved you needed an American judge to sign off for custody. England didn't have such.

We did after the Leopard had finished.

We had a starfleet captain at the time, it wasnt' our fault.

It was pure gunnery, no fancy tactics involved - just lay two 38s alongside each other and keep shooting until someone gives up.

Incidentally, I've always found it somewhat amusing that the US Navy has made a big deal about Lawrence's "don't give up the ship", ignoring the fact that Chesapeake surrendered less than five minutes later.

If the Leopard had followed to port, they could have had the men turned over without any trouble. Most American ports were friendly to the british, both navy and trade ships since they did a lot of business together. No man in office would risk his port being put off the trade list.

The British consul had already tried that approach, with a distinct lack of sucess, so a slightly more coercive approach was needed.

[Mikey]

As an observer to this conversation, and nowhere near the historian that wither Deep or Seafort is, I'd like to ask for a bit of clarification. Seafort - I understand your point about the HMS Leopard having orders to request and conduct a search for deserters, and I understand your point about the wording of said orders (since you posted them here.) However, it seems that you are making the point that the USS Chesapeake was bound to follow those orders. Why would this be?

[Captain Seafort]

Point 1) "the HMS" is bad grammar. It's saying "the His Majesty's Ship". Sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine.

However, it seems that you are making the point that the USS Chesapeake was bound to follow those orders. Why would this be?

The key part of the orders, I believe, is the instruction that "if a similar demand should be made by the American, he is permitted to search for deserters from their service, according to the customs and usages of civilized nations on terms of peace and amity with each other".

The bolded bit, to me, implies that the "customs and usages" in question refered to naval forces not at war with each other searching each others' ships for deserters - a common law extradition treaty if you will.

[Mikey]

#1 - didn't mean to upset you. I know what "HMS" stand for, but I had always assumed that the usage was more as part of the name, in which case the article would be appropriate.

#2 - I do see what you're saying - assuming that those customs and usages were actually in custom and usage with other nations, rather than falsely assumed or rhetorically devised merely to justify those orders. And even if they were common usages, is a fusillade the proper response to a denial?