Talk:Impressment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Perhaps something aboot 'taking the shilling' could be put in? With the trick that officers used to put the shilling at the bottom of a beer mug, offer it to seamen in the pub, and when they got to the bottom and discovered, the officer could claim the seamen had taken the 'payment'?(Halbared 08:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Taking the King's shilling, I think, belongs to the land services such as the army, artillery, and cavalry — I'm not sure it would be relevant to an article on impressment (impressment was a specific practice in the navy with official legal backing at the time, not just any attempt to trick or force people into military service). We also want to be careful to avoid repeating the 18th or 19th-century equivalent of urban legends, so we'd need some credible sources. David 01:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Taking the King's shilling is absolutely accurate and was a practice of the naval Impress Service, not just the land forces. If you follow the link at the bottom of the page, it shows a reproduction of an original impressment commission that specifies paying one shilling to each man pressed. The bit about putting the shilling in a beer mug is more questionable, but it does appear in secondary sources (check Stephen Bown, Scurvy, 2005), so it would appear to pass the minimum Wikipedia threshold for inclusion.
Pirate Dan 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In the Royal Navy, they called it a "bounty", if I recall correctly, not the King's shilling, and it was given after volunteering and entering a ship's books. What generally happened, at least according to reliable sources like N.A.M. Roger, is that seamen were sometimes offered a choice of volunteering or being pressed rather than just being dragged off — in that case, they'd choose volunteering to collect the bounty, as a small consolation.
The beer-mug trick wouldn't make sense in the Royal Navy, because there was no need to trick them into taking a shilling — the impress service was allowed just drag them off to the receiving ship regardless. Britain had no conscription for other military services like the army or artillery, so people had to at least appear to volunteer for those — it would make sense to try to trick someone there (whether the beer-mug trick is true or not).
Maybe your source is confusing impressment with the quota system, where some ports and counties supplied "volunteers" (often landsmen, criminals, old men, etc.) to get an exemption from the press. Each port or county could find its volunteers any way it wanted, and the volunteers received a fairly large bounty for joining — much larger than the bounty given for volunteering to the impressment service. David 13:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The shilling bonus was not just for volunteers; pressed men got it too. The impressment commission is crystal clear about that. The volunteers got a variable bounty over and above the one shilling that everybody got.
Nevertheless, I agree that there's no apparent sense in using the beer mug trick on sailors, as you're absolutely right that they could have pressed the man with or without his accepting the shilling. Even with the secondary source support, we'd better leave out the beer mug story for now. Pirate Dan 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Royal Navy

I agree with User:Jooler's reversion of "British Royal Navy" to simply "Royal Navy". For English-speakers, at least, "Royal Navy" always refers to the British Royal Navy (note also that the Royal Navy article title isn't qualified with "British"). David 12:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does army recruiting belong here?

I think that the section on mandatory army service for criminals and disorderly persons belongs in the Conscription article rather than here, since it doesn't really deal with impressment. Note that the similar program for naval service, the Quota System, has its own article, since it likewise doesn't involve boarding ships or sending out press gangs. David (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, impressment into all branches of the military belong in the same article. The reason why the "quota system" is split into a separate article is because the "quota system" was not impressment. And I don't agree that this article should be made part of the conscription article because it would be an anachronism. Forcible recruitment into the military at this time was authorized by "press acts", was call "pressing", and was carried out by "press gangs". BradMajors (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree -- I've withdrawn the merge tag. I have added more info to the army impressment section, moved it lower in the article, and rephrased the intro. Army impressment was a limited, two-year experiment (mostly in London and vicinity), while navy impressment lasted centuries, so it's important not to give a misleading impression that they hold equal historical importance. David (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, the revised article looks fine. Some points: it appears the army press gangs were not strictly following the law and they pressed persons who could not be legally pressed. In the Seven Years' War and the War of the Austrian Succession there was "very strong encouragement" used to get persons to enlist in the army. Research is needed on whether this "encouragement" should be called impressment, and I don't know about other wars. BradMajors (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the history of recruitment in the Western world includes a lot of bending of the law (e.g. getting men drunk and then having them wake up to find themselves enlisted, or offering a criminal the choice between jail or the army), even up to the world wars during the 20th century. From the source I cited, it looks like there was an appeals process for men who had been pressed into the army illegally, and that it erred on the side of releasing more people than it was strictly required to (e.g. apprentices in a trade), though without doubt some people did end up serving after being pressed illegally. On the other hand, as in the navy, many people likely volunteered when threatened with being pressed so that they could collect the bounty; as volunteers, however, they probably wouldn't be able to appeal if the initial threat of impressment was illegal. David (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legality

What act or law authorized and regulated naval impressment? BradMajors (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a book which states impressment in American waters was made illegal by a statute passed in the time of Queen Anne. BradMajors (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good addition to the article. Did the RN just ignore it, or did they come up with some justification for disregarding it? David (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would be a good addition, but the author just mentioned it in passing and he gave no citation and no details. I think some details are required before it is added since impressment was occurring in the colonies in the first half of the 1700's. A ban would make sense around 1700, since England was trying to get people to settle in the colonies and it would be crazy for the RN to then go and take them away. My guess is the relevant act is the Recruiting Act of 1703, but I have been unable to find a copy of this Act anywhere. BradMajors (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have found enough details to have it added to the article. It appears impressment in American waters was not legal. BradMajors (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it looks muddier than that. Here's what N.A.M. Rogers has:
"In the Americas seamen were often very scarce, and ill-drafted legislation made the situation worse. The Act of 1708, the 'Sixth of Anne', forbade pressing in the Americas, but it was not clear if it was perpetual (as the colonials believed), or expired with that war; and equally, whether it applied to the Navy only, or to the civil authorities as well. An Act of 1746, intended to clarify the situation, exempted the West Indies from pressing but not America, which naturally inflamed colonial opinion there." (N.A.M. Rogers, The Command of the Ocean, p.316).
In other words, the 1708 bill was ambiguous, but the 1746 bill explicitly allowed pressing in the Americas (but not the West Indies). David (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the article cited the relevant Acts enabling the exact law to be researched. I have read about the 1747 impressment riot in Boston, but I have not previously heard about its relationship to the 1746 Act. BradMajors (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're interested in British naval history, I strongly recommend N.A.M. Roger's books, especially The Wooden World and The Command of the Ocean, both in print as paperbacks. They're extremely readable and meticulously researched and cited, which is a rare combination. I'm waiting for Roger's book on the Royal Navy post 1815, whenever it comes out. David (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Something should be added concerning impressment in relation to Habeas Corpus. I can't find anything definitive on this subject. i.e. Was an impressed sailor allowed to contest his impressment in civil as opposed to military courts? BradMajors (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "origins" box?

I propose removing the "Origins of the War of 1812" box from the top of the article. Impressment was a major feature of British naval history for several centuries, and I don't think that its effect on public opinion in the U.S. leading up to the War of 1812 (a minor sideshow beside the Napoleonic wars going on at the time in Europe) is really its most notable feature. Comments? David (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not object, but I think it is unlikely a majority of those working on the Origins of the War of 1812 would agree. I think the United States' objection was not with impressment, but rather the boarding of an American vessel by the Royal Navy for any reason. The retrieval of British deserters is not impressment. So, the cause should be renamed from "British Impressment" to "British boarding of vessels". BradMajors (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair is already in the box — that seems to cover the boarding issue nicely. Does anyone object to removing the box? David (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The impressment of Americans in the article needs to be clarified. AFAIK, Britain did not impress anyone they considered an American. I have read that a majority of those on American vessels were British citizens who were former members of the British navy or British merchant marine and hence the British Navy had no need to impress Americans. AFAIK, leading up to the war only deserters were being retrieved which isn't impressment at all. But, this all needs to be supported with citations. BradMajors (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The opposition to impressment was at least as strong within Britain as from the United States. The United States section should be enlarged to include opposition to impressment from within Britain. BradMajors (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Any good sources? David (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Origins box from the page, since this article is not notable (primarily) as a cause of the War of 1812 — that was only a minor sideshow to the Napoleonic wars (involving a handful of regiments and no ship larger than a frigate) as far as Britain was concerned. David (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)