The First Korean War of 1871

[APACHERAT]

Since America's schools no longer teach history except liberal revisionism, most Americans today are some what uninformed or misinformed because of revisionism. They are unaware that America has fought over 240 wars, most were small wars like the one this thread is about.

Before the War Powers Act of 1973, the President needed approval of Congress to send the U.S. Army to war. But not the U.S. Navy. So the vast majority of America's wars were fought by U.S. Navy "blue jackets" (sailors) and U.S. Marines.

Below is a description of America's first Korean War.


The 1871 U.S.-Korea Conflict: Cause and Effects

Thomas Duvernay

Preface

>" The 1871 United States-Korea conflict is one of the least known and understood actions in both Korea and the United States. At the same time, it was a pivotal event in not only the histories of the United States and Korea, but arguably in the world. The failed diplomacy that led to the “Weekend War” set Korea up for a fall just a few short years later, which forever changed the direction of life in Korea, Asia, and the rest of the world, as Japan gained a foothold on the Asian continent. Korea, the xenophobic society, was forced into international relations, which ultimately led to its colonization, then division. Asia saw the rise of Imperial Japan after that point, and then the world was led into a global war. In this paper, I would like to show a few of the main events in the years leading up to the 1871 conflict and how they impacted upon it, including the opening of Japan, the European/American “disturbances” in 1866 and also initial United States military contact in the years between 1866 and 1871. Also, I would like to introduce some of the main participants, on both sides of the issue. Even though there were a couple thousand people involved, there were certain names that appear time after time, especially on the American side. As the paper’s core is related to the military conflict between the United States and Korea in 1871, I will go over the course of events before, during and after the fighting. I have often thought about how history might have changed if the meeting in 1871 had concluded amicably, instead of in bloodshed; I will give a short supposition of how history might have changed, if that had been the case. "<


continue:

I suggest to click on "Battle."

1871 Korea Campaign

 

[Wiseone]

Most people don't consider any and every hostile engagement to be a "war."

Also the War Powers Act applies to the entire military not just the US Army, the Navy/Marines didn't exist under different rules prior to that law they were just more often involved in minor conflicts like this one in Korea because of their forward presence not because they had different legal standing than the US Army.

 

[APACHERAT]

Most people don't consider any and every hostile engagement to be a "war."

Also the War Powers Act applies to the entire military not just the US Army, the Navy/Marines didn't exist under different rules prior to that law they were just more often involved in minor conflicts like this one in Korea because of their forward presence not because they had different legal standing than the US Army.

Exactly, the Constitution doesn't mention that Congress must approve sending the U.S. Navy in to harms way.

If Congress hadn't authorized the President to use the U.S. Army after the Spanish American War during the Philippine Insurrection, the President could have just deployed the Marines to fight that small little war that cost the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers, Marines and sailors.

 

[Wiseone]

Exactly, the Constitution doesn't mention that Congress must approve sending the U.S. Navy in to harms way.

If Congress hadn't authorized the President to use the U.S. Army after the Spanish American War during the Philippine Insurrection, the President could have just deployed the Marines to fight that small little war that cost the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers, Marines and sailors.

Look dude, the Army and the Navy are mentioned exactly twice in the Constitution with the Marine Corps receiving none. In the first instance the Constitution merely says the President is the Commander and Chief of the Army and the Navy, the second time comes in the enumerated powers section where it simply says

"Congress shall have the power to...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

There's not a damn thing in the Constitution that says the Army cannot be sent into a conflict without Congressional approval but he can send the Navy and Marines anywhere, unless of course you would care to show me exactly where it says that.

 

[APACHERAT]

Look dude, the Army and the Navy are mentioned exactly twice in the Constitution with the Marine Corps receiving none. In the first instance the Constitution merely says the President is the Commander and Chief of the Army and the Navy, the second time comes in the enumerated powers section where it simply says



There's not a damn thing in the Constitution that says the Army cannot be sent into a conflict without Congressional approval but he can send the Navy and Marines anywhere, unless of course you would care to show me exactly where it says that.

Until 1947, the Marine Corps was a part of the Navy, not a seperate branch of the services.

But I digress.

Navy Clause of the Constitution:

“The Congress shall have Power To ...provide and maintain a Navy....”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 13

Teacher's Companion Lesson (PDF)
Because the Founding generation considered navies to be less dangerous to republican liberty than standing armies, the Navy Clause did not elicit the same level of debate as did the Army Clause (see Article I, Section 8, Clause 12). Their experience taught them that armies, not navies, were the preferred tools of tyrants. Readers of Thucydides could view a navy as particularly compatible with democratic institutions. They were also aware of how much the economic prosperity and even the survival of the country depended upon sea-going trade. Consequently, the Framers of the Constitution imposed no time limit on naval appropriations as they did in the case of the army.

Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists believed that maritime trade was necessary if the United States was to maintain its independence of action, but they disagreed over how to protect this trade. After the Revolution, the United States possessed one of the principal merchant fleets in the world, but it was largely defenseless. In June 1785 Congress voted to sell the one remaining ship of the Continental Navy, a frigate, leaving the fledgling nation with only a fleet of small Treasury Department revenue cutters for defense.

Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton argued for a federal navy, which "if it could not vie with those of the great maritime powers, would at least be of respectable weight if thrown into the scale of either of two contending parties." Hamilton argued that without a navy, "a nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral." The Federalist No. 11.

Anti-Federalists argued that instead of defending American commerce and guaranteeing American neutrality, creating a navy would provoke the European powers and invite war. They were also concerned about the expense of maintaining a navy and the distribution of that expense. During the Virginia ratifying convention, William Grayson argued that, despite the fact that a navy would not appreciably reduce the vulnerability of southern ports, the South would bear the main burden of naval appropriations.

The wisdom of granting Congress the power to provide and maintain a navy became evident during the two decades after the framing and ratification of the Constitution. As Europe once again erupted in war, American merchantmen increasingly found themselves at the mercy of British and French warships and the corsairs of the Barbary States. Only the rapid creation of a navy permitted the United States to hold its own in the Quasi War with France (1798–1800) and the War of 1812 with the British.

The Navy Clause has changed little, if at all, in practice. Neither have the arguments for and against naval power. Indeed, many of the major debates over foreign policy that have taken place since the middle of the nineteenth century were adumbrated by those between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the framing of the Constitution.

Similarly, despite vast technological changes, the character of the Navy as a service, in contrast to the Army, has also changed very little. While the "citizen soldier" envisioned by the Founders has virtually disappeared from the Army of today, today's sailor, both officer and enlisted, has much in common with his predecessor who manned the Navy of the Constitution, technical expertise of course excepted. Although service reforms beginning in the latter decades of the nineteenth century created a powerful Navy, the foundation of this Navy was laid by the likes of Hamilton, Benjamin Stoddert, the first Secretary of the Navy, and other Federalists who recognized the shortcomings of a navy limited to coastal defense alone..."< continue -> Guide to the Constitution

Why your at it, you might want to read the "Army Clause" Article I, Section 8, Clause 12.


I digress even more and go back to the topic of this thread, America's first Korean War.

As you may have figured out, that America waged a war against a sovereign nation without to approval of Congress or even receiving orders from the President of the United States. That it was the policy of every U.S. naval ship captain to carry out the foreign policies of the United States and to protect American citizens and American interest abroad. That the navy would take it on it's own to punish those who violated the safety of American citizens without waiting six months for approval of the President or Congress.

I could list another hundred or more little wars that the navy fought like the first Korean war in 1871. My favorite was the war fought against the Polynesians in the Society Islands before France took possessions of these islands in the South Pacific. The U.S. Marines actually built and manned a fort on one island in the South Pacific.

 

[Grand Mal]

Until 1947, the Marine Corps was a part of the Navy, not a seperate branch of the services.

But I digress.

Navy Clause of the Constitution:

“The Congress shall have Power To ...provide and maintain a Navy....”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 13

Teacher's Companion Lesson (PDF)
Because the Founding generation considered navies to be less dangerous to republican liberty than standing armies, the Navy Clause did not elicit the same level of debate as did the Army Clause (see Article I, Section 8, Clause 12). Their experience taught them that armies, not navies, were the preferred tools of tyrants. Readers of Thucydides could view a navy as particularly compatible with democratic institutions. They were also aware of how much the economic prosperity and even the survival of the country depended upon sea-going trade. Consequently, the Framers of the Constitution imposed no time limit on naval appropriations as they did in the case of the army.

Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists believed that maritime trade was necessary if the United States was to maintain its independence of action, but they disagreed over how to protect this trade. After the Revolution, the United States possessed one of the principal merchant fleets in the world, but it was largely defenseless. In June 1785 Congress voted to sell the one remaining ship of the Continental Navy, a frigate, leaving the fledgling nation with only a fleet of small Treasury Department revenue cutters for defense.

Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton argued for a federal navy, which "if it could not vie with those of the great maritime powers, would at least be of respectable weight if thrown into the scale of either of two contending parties." Hamilton argued that without a navy, "a nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral." The Federalist No. 11.

Anti-Federalists argued that instead of defending American commerce and guaranteeing American neutrality, creating a navy would provoke the European powers and invite war. They were also concerned about the expense of maintaining a navy and the distribution of that expense. During the Virginia ratifying convention, William Grayson argued that, despite the fact that a navy would not appreciably reduce the vulnerability of southern ports, the South would bear the main burden of naval appropriations.

The wisdom of granting Congress the power to provide and maintain a navy became evident during the two decades after the framing and ratification of the Constitution. As Europe once again erupted in war, American merchantmen increasingly found themselves at the mercy of British and French warships and the corsairs of the Barbary States. Only the rapid creation of a navy permitted the United States to hold its own in the Quasi War with France (1798–1800) and the War of 1812 with the British.

The Navy Clause has changed little, if at all, in practice. Neither have the arguments for and against naval power. Indeed, many of the major debates over foreign policy that have taken place since the middle of the nineteenth century were adumbrated by those between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the framing of the Constitution.

Similarly, despite vast technological changes, the character of the Navy as a service, in contrast to the Army, has also changed very little. While the "citizen soldier" envisioned by the Founders has virtually disappeared from the Army of today, today's sailor, both officer and enlisted, has much in common with his predecessor who manned the Navy of the Constitution, technical expertise of course excepted. Although service reforms beginning in the latter decades of the nineteenth century created a powerful Navy, the foundation of this Navy was laid by the likes of Hamilton, Benjamin Stoddert, the first Secretary of the Navy, and other Federalists who recognized the shortcomings of a navy limited to coastal defense alone..."< continue -> Guide to the Constitution

Why your at it, you might want to read the "Army Clause" Article I, Section 8, Clause 12.


I digress even more and go back to the topic of this thread, America's first Korean War.

As you may have figured out, that America waged a war against a sovereign nation without to approval of Congress or even receiving orders from the President of the United States. That it was the policy of every U.S. naval ship captain to carry out the foreign policies of the United States and to protect American citizens and American interest abroad. That the navy would take it on it's own to punish those who violated the safety of American citizens without waiting six months for approval of the President or Congress.

I could list another hundred or more little wars that the navy fought like the first Korean war in 1871. My favorite was the war fought against the Polynesians in the Society Islands before France took possessions of these islands in the South Pacific. The U.S. Marines actually built and manned a fort on one island in the South Pacific.

Innerestin'.
Used to be, in England, that the Royal Navy was, uh, the ROYAL Navy, available to the King, whereas the British Army was a creature of Parliament. The relationship of the Royal Marines, being part of the navy, was similar to what you describe, too.
Here in Canada we're taught that the US Navy was mostly on paper until the War or 1812- that was when the navy came into prominence.

 

[APACHERAT]

Interesting'.
Used to be, in England, that the Royal Navy was, uh, the ROYAL Navy, available to the King, whereas the British Army was a creature of Parliament. The relationship of the Royal Marines, being part of the navy, was similar to what you describe, too.
Here in Canada we're taught that the US Navy was mostly on paper until the War or 1812- that was when the navy came into prominence.

Mostly correct. After the Revolutionary War the "Continental Navy" was disbanded but in 1796 President Washington asked Congress for money to build six frigates to sail the the Mediterranean Sea to deal with the Barbary pirates. There was also the Quasi-War with France 1798-99 and of course the War of 1812.

What's interesting, the United States had to actually build a navy from scratch to fight on the Great Lakes during the war of 1812. How many navies had a salt water navy and a fresh water navy ?

The United States Marine Corps was the only branch of the American military that required every Marine to be an American citizen and remained so until after WW ll.

Probably the most famous naval ship in history to be used as a merchant raider was CSS Alabama during the American Civil War. The ship was built in England and armed and outfitted by the British. The officers and Confederate Marines were all American citizens and so were the petty officers but the rest of the crew was mostly British.

 

[Grand Mal]

Mostly correct. After the Revolutionary War the "Continental Navy" was disbanded but in 1796 President Washington asked Congress for money to build six frigates to sail the the Mediterranean Sea to deal with the Barbary pirates. There was also the Quasi-War with France 1798-99 and of course the War of 1812.

What's interesting, the United States had to actually build a navy from scratch to fight on the Great Lakes during the war of 1812. How many navies had a salt water navy and a fresh water navy ?

The United States Marine Corps was the only branch of the American military that required every Marine to be an American citizen and remained so until after WW ll.

Probably the most famous naval ship in history to be used as a merchant raider was CSS Alabama during the American Civil War. The ship was built in England and armed and outfitted by the British. The officers and Confederate Marines were all American citizens and so were the petty officers but the rest of the crew was mostly British.

The Alabama, yes, I remember it from high school history. A lot of the crew were Maritimers, from the Canadian colonies- they'd be counted as British at the time. It was sunk off France by the Keersarge who got lucky when a shell that hit her rudder post was a dud.

 

[apdst]

The Alabama, yes, I remember it from high school history. A lot of the crew were Maritimers, from the Canadian colonies- they'd be counted as British at the time. It was sunk off France by the Keersarge who got lucky when a shell that hit her rudder post was a dud.

There were very few, if any Canadians serving on The Alabama.

 

[APACHERAT]

For those who are unfamiliar with the Alabama and her captain, Capt. Semmes.

C.S.S. ALABAMA
(A Brief History)


>" During the American Civil War, Confederate ships such as the Alabama, Shenandoah and Florida, attacked northern commerce and warships, damaging the Union's economy with considerable success. International law permitted neutrals to build ships for belligerents; but restricted any such vessels from being armed. Many British shipyards circumvented this restraint by allowing the ships they built, to simply slip away on some believable pretext. With the British government turning a blind eye, the future CSS Alabama, arguably the greatest Confederate commerce raider of them all, was built on the Mersey and launched amid considerable controversy.

Commander James Dunwoody Bulloch, the Confederate agent in England was instrumental in procuring several ships for the Confederate Navy. Amongst them, hull #290 under final construction at the John Laird shipyard in Birkenhead, England, was destined to become the most famous and feared. The purchase and ordering of the #290 was under a private contract between Bulloch and Laird; but the south had numerous agents in Europe procuring supplies and equipment at this time. To aid Bulloch and others active in Britain; whilst functioning as financiers and unofficial embassy for the Confederate States, the firm of Fraser, Trenholm Company, prominent cotton brokers and shipping agents, opened their offices in Liverpool.

Following her launch in May 1862 and fitting out, Bulloch engaged a civilian crew and captain to sail the 'Enrica' (as the 290 had been named) to the Azores. Here she received armament, coal, and provisions from the merchantman, Agrippina.

Captain Rapael Semmes took command of the ship in the Azores, off the island of Terciera and commissioned her after fitting-out was complete on August 24h 1862 as the CSS Alabama. Semmes later wrote: '< continue -> https://sites.google.com/site/290foundation/css-alabama


Over the next 22 months the Alabama cruised the whaling grounds around the Azores, the shipping lanes along the eastern seaboard of the U.S., the Carribean, the Brazilian coast, along South Africa, the Indian Ocean, South China Sea and the Bay of Bengal. She stopped 447 vessels, capturing 65 Union merchant vessels and sinking the U.S.S. Hatteras. She was at sea for 534 out of the 657 days of her life. During this time she took 2,000 prisoners with no loss of life. Until the final engagement with the USS Kearsarge, she lost none of her crew as a result of accident or disease aboard the ship.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

240-wars again? Seriously, give it a break.

 

[APACHERAT]

240-wars again? Seriously, give it a break.

Wont give you a break but will enlighten you.

Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2013: -> www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42738.pdf

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Since America's schools no longer teach history except liberal revisionism, most Americans today are some what uninformed or misinformed because of revisionism. They are unaware that America has fought over 240 wars, most were small wars like the one this thread is about.

Before the War Powers Act of 1973, the President needed approval of Congress to send the U.S. Army to war. But not the U.S. Navy. So the vast majority of America's wars were fought by U.S. Navy "blue jackets" (sailors) and U.S. Marines.

Below is a description of America's first Korean War.


The 1871 U.S.-Korea Conflict: Cause and Effects

Thomas Duvernay

Preface

>" The 1871 United States-Korea conflict is one of the least known and understood actions in both Korea and the United States. At the same time, it was a pivotal event in not only the histories of the United States and Korea, but arguably in the world. The failed diplomacy that led to the “Weekend War” set Korea up for a fall just a few short years later, which forever changed the direction of life in Korea, Asia, and the rest of the world, as Japan gained a foothold on the Asian continent. Korea, the xenophobic society, was forced into international relations, which ultimately led to its colonization, then division. Asia saw the rise of Imperial Japan after that point, and then the world was led into a global war. In this paper, I would like to show a few of the main events in the years leading up to the 1871 conflict and how they impacted upon it, including the opening of Japan, the European/American “disturbances” in 1866 and also initial United States military contact in the years between 1866 and 1871. Also, I would like to introduce some of the main participants, on both sides of the issue. Even though there were a couple thousand people involved, there were certain names that appear time after time, especially on the American side. As the paper’s core is related to the military conflict between the United States and Korea in 1871, I will go over the course of events before, during and after the fighting. I have often thought about how history might have changed if the meeting in 1871 had concluded amicably, instead of in bloodshed; I will give a short supposition of how history might have changed, if that had been the case. "<


continue:

I suggest to click on "Battle."

1871 Korea Campaign

Bleh. Korea was in no state to have their own Meiji Restoration. A quick overview of late Joseon history pretty much confirms it. Mind-boggingly corrupt and incompetent with its government devoted to texts centuries old and rather than debate practical matters, only discusses obscure morality, loyalty, and such. Well, we paid the price at the following century