pector@ihuxw.UUCP (11/11/83)
Last night when I got home, I checked to see what books I had that referred to the War of 1812. I only had 2, William McNeill's "World History" and Peterson's "Thomas Jefferson," that might. The former turned out not to refer to the War at all (what a waste product of a book; it was only interested in historical patterns and trends). The latter referred to the War only as concerned Jefferson's involvement. It pointed out that in 1806 or 1807, the British warship, the H.M.S. Leopard, stopped the U.S. warship, the U.S.S. Chesapeake, at sea to check for any British deserters that might be serving on that ship. The British justification at the time was that they were blockading Napoleon-controlled Europe and that Napoleon refused to allow any European nations to trade with Britain. As a result, they needed all the men they could get for the British Navy. When the American captain refused to allow the British to search for deserters, the Leopard immediately opened fire on the Chesapeake, killing 3 and wounding 18. At that point, the search was permitted and 4 sailors were taken from the Chesapeake onto the Leopard. The U.S. protested this action to the British government, but the British rep, Canning, refused to make amends and in fact defended the action. The U.S. government, under Jefferson, started an embargo against Britain, particularly when there were reports in British papers that the King was going to push for more laws (orders of council) allowing greater use of impressment, which had already been used by the British for years. There were other actions on the high seas by the British that further enraged the U.S. over the next few years, leading to the U.S. declaring war on Britain in 1812. At that point, the only way for the U.S. to carry out war was to attack the British where they were, and that being in Canada, in order to get them off the North American continent. This was what I was able to find about that War. I hope it points out that it was not just a "war of conquest" undertaken by the U.S. Scott Pector
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/15/83)
I appreciate your efforts to put forward the background to the War of 1812. Since I posted the article to which you have been responding, I thought I should get back to you directly. History is always different depending on which side of a war your ancestors were on, and whose books you are taught at school. My article was from memory and from the general perception of the 1812 War in this neighbourhood. I did not look up what a respectable historian had to say about it, and I accept your factual revisions. Perhaps I will go and look it up for myself in a British or Canadian history. It would be interesting to see whether professional historians, as opposed to school propagandists, agree. But the point I was trying to make was that it really doesn't matter that each side perceives the other as having not always been friendly. The foundations have been friendly through most of the time both before and since 1776 (there was a big pro-colonist party in Britain during the Revolution, if I have my history right). The essential point is that good friends should be able to remain that even though there are occasions when they fight. Britain and the USA have the same committment to freedom (and sometimes the same willingness to run roughshod over freedom in the name of expediancy). The US Bill of Rights is a shining beacon for all of us (even though polls in the streets sometimes suggest that not all US citizens agree). On second thoughts, I think I should post this rather than just mail it. Martin Taylor