Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:53:11.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Laws of War in the 1812 Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Robin F. A. Fabel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Few American wars have been as closely tied to international law as the Anglo-American conflict of 1812. The legality or otherwise of impressment and cargo confiscation, definitions of contraband, blockade and the permissible limits of neutrality have all been endlessly argued. Such questions concern the causes of the war. What has attracted little attention, despite the keen contemporary awareness of the existence of laws on the conduct of nations, is the extent to which legal restrictions were observed in the actual waging of the War of 1812.

The notion that there were any limits at all is against the trend noted by those historians and specialists in military affairs who have observed that “restricted war was one of the loftiest achievements of the eighteenth century,” but that “the doctrines of the French Revolution brought a new intensity to warfare,” that unlimited war was reborn in August 1793, so that “by the beginning of tlie nineteenth century…the limitations on the violence of war that had been imposed by the small-scale eighteenth-century armies had already disappeared.”

However true these generalizations may be for Europe, the idea of limited war still thrived in North America in 1812 and throughout the subsequent war there.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , August 1980 , pp. 199 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Robin F. A. Fabel is Associate Professor of History at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 36830.

1 Ferrero, Guglielmo, Peace and War (London: Macmillan, 1933), p. 8Google Scholar.

2 Mackesy, Piers, The War for America 1775–1783 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1964), p. 5Google Scholar.

3 Fuller, J. F. C., The Conduct of War 1789–1961 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1961), p. 37Google Scholar.

4 Buchan, Alastair, War in Modern Society (London: Watts, 1966), p. 100Google Scholar.

5 Palmer, Thomas H., ed., The Historical Register of the United States (Philadelphia: G. Palmer, 1816), 1, 77Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as Palmer and suffixed by O.D. if the page number refers to the official documents following Palmer's narrative.

6 Winthrop, William, Military Law and Precedents (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1920), pp. 18–23Google Scholar. I am grateful to Mr. Dale E. Floyd of the National Archives Library, Washington, D.C. and Dr. Frank L. Owsley, Jr., of Auburn University, for their help in confirming which American articles were in use in 1812.

7 Brierly, J. L., The Law of Nations (1936; rpt. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963), P. 37Google Scholar.

8 de Vattel, Emmerich, The Law of Nations (1758; rpt. Philadelphia: Johnson, 1859), p. 349Google Scholar.

9 Cushing, Harry A., ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams (New York: Putnam, 1904–1908), 2, 258Google Scholar; Edmund Randolph to Thomas Jefferson, 9 February 1781, in Boyd, Julian, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1950– ), 4, 131Google Scholar; 11, 409; Koch, Adrienne and Peden, William, eds., The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams (New York: Knopf, 1946), p. 298Google Scholar.

10 Wharton, Francis, ed., Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1889), 2, 64Google Scholar.

11 De Conde, Alexander, A History of American Foreign Policy (New York: Scribner, 1963), p. 55Google Scholar, and his The Quasi-War (New York: Scribner, 1960), p. 240Google Scholar; Nussbaum, Arthur, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1947), p. 161Google Scholar.

12 James Orm, Joseph Cook, Thomas Humphries and others to House Committee on the Manner in which the War has been waged, American State Papers: Military Affairs, Class 5, Vol. 1, 13, Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1832), p. 341Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as ASP.

13 Niles' Weekly Register, 4 (20, 27 03 1813), 49, 66Google Scholar.

14 Casselman, Alexander C., ed., Richardson's War of 1812 (Toronto: Historical Publishing Company, 1902), p. 153Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as Richardson.

15 Palmer, O.D., 2, 35.

16 The Times (London), 11 09, 1812Google Scholar.

17 Cruikshank, Ernest A., “The Employment of Indians in the War of 1812,” American Historical Association Annual Report for 1895 (Washington: A.H.A., 1896), 2, 323, 333Google Scholar.

18 Richardson, p. 142.

19 Vice-Admiral Cochrane to James Monroe, 18 August, 1814, Palmer O.D., 4, 181. According to the Kentucky Reporter of 18 October, 1814, Cochrane was finally admitting what Cockburn had long practised.

20 ASP, p. 363 and Horsman, Reginald, The War of 1812 (New York: Knopf, 1969), p. 77Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as Horsman.

21 The Author of the Subaltern (Gleig, George R.), A Narrative of the Campaigns of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans (1827; rpt. London: Murray, 1889), p. 160Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as Gleig.

22 Mahon, John K., The War of 1812 (Gainesville: Univ. of Florida Press, 1972), p. 312Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as Mahon.

23 SirNapier, William, The Life and Opinions of Sir Charles James Napier (London: Murray, 1857), 3, 212Google Scholar. Cited hereafter as Napier.

24 Mahon, p. 312.

25 Napier, 2, 224.

26 ASP, p. 377; Horsman, p. 80. A Short History of Anglo-Saxon Freedom (New York, 1890), pp. ix, 7, 275, 362Google Scholar.

27 Hansard, T. C., ed., Parliamentary Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time, 41 vols. (London: Hansard, 1803–1820), 29, 16, 23, 30, 46, 58Google Scholar; 30, 527, 606; Palmer, 4, 52. If the attempt on Ross had been authorized, Bathurst would have made a valid point since Vattel denied the right to quarter of any adversary stooping to such means (p. 460).

28 Gleig, p. 148.

29 Palmer, 4, 57.

30 The Annual Register for 1814 (London, 1815), p. 182Google Scholar.

31 Ross to Bathurst, 30 August 1814, The Times, 26 September 1814.

32 Gleig, p. 125.

33 Palmer, 4, 43.

34 Royall, Anne, Sketches of History, Life and Manners in the United States (1826; rpt. New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1970), p. 174Google Scholar.

35 Palmer O.D., 4, 158, 160.

36 Adm. 1/508, f. 1155, Public Record Office, London.

37 Horsman, p. 155.

38 Napier, p. 369.

39 Horsman, p. 228.

40 Latour, A. Lacarrière, Historical Memoir of the War in West Florida and Louisiana in 1814–15 (1816; rpt. Gainesville: Univ. of Florida Press, 1964), p. 201Google Scholar.

41 Perkins, Bradford, Castlereagh and Adams: England and the United States 1812–1823 (Berkeley: Univ. California Press, 1964), p. 166Google Scholar.

42 The Annual Register for 1814, p. 182Google Scholar; Robinson, Ralph, “Retaliation for the Treatment of Prisoners in the War of 1812,” American Historical Review, 49 (1943), 65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 The Times, 12 August, 3 October, 1814; The Annual Register for 1813 (London, 1814), pp. 184–85Google Scholar.

44 Napier, 3, 223.

45 The Times, 26 February, 1814.

46 Fenwick, Charles D., “The Authority of Vattel,” American Political Science Review, 7 (1913), 405CrossRefGoogle Scholar.