Fun Stuff > CHATTER
The military history thread
LeeC:
Chesapeake–Leopard Affair
Looks like the Brits did fire first.
The Seldom Killer:
Someone always has to fire first, that doesn't make it unprovoked. The Chesapeake had refused to turn over deserters wanted on a warrant. Overreaction would maybe be a better description.
To be fair, unprovoked is usually a misleading term of propoganda that glosses over the nuances of the situation that it is supposed to describe.
Akima:
Did the "warrant" have any legal validity in the United States of America?
The Seldom Killer:
Not sure what the cross border legal arrangements would have been at that time and can only imagine that military and naval agreements might only serve to complicate rather than clarify matters. I'm not sure whether However, the presence of a warrant indicates that the Captain of the Leopard wasn't acting unilaterally which might impact on how a diplomatic resolution may have played out. The Captain of the Chesapeake apparently ruled that out by acting unilaterally though.
Akima:
--- Quote from: The Seldom Killer on 26 Jun 2015, 06:24 ---However, the presence of a warrant indicates that the Captain of the Leopard wasn't acting unilaterally
--- End quote ---
I am not certain that you are using the word "unilaterally" correctly. A unilateral act is not one performed without authority. A unilateral act is simply one undertaken by or on behalf of one side, or party only, without the agreement or involvement of any other. The warrant was certainly issued unilaterally, so it provides no shield to defend the captain of the Leopard from an accusation of acting unilaterally, I think.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version