dxp@pyuxhh.UUCP (D Peak) (11/14/83)
THE WAR OF 1812
================
Whilst respecting Scott Pectors research his use of references through
Jeffersons biography must be questioned somewhat.If Scott had used another
source for his material he might have presented a more balanced picture.
My source was the Encyclopedia Americana,whilst admittedly not one of the
greatest pieces of literature,does draw its information from several sources
and presents a more balanced picture.
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
============================
In 1793 Britain became engaged in a war with France(Napoleon) which was to last
until 1801,and then resumed 1803 until 1814.
The United States was undecided which country it would side with.
Washington was pro-British whilst Jefferson was pro-French which pretty much
led to a stalemate and a policy of neutrality (The Jay Treaty).
U.S. merchants traded with both Britain and France during this period
Contraband(materials of war) were not permitted to be traded to the two
belligerents as this was (and still is contrary to the fundamentals of
neutrality).This trade increased U.S. merchant tonnage from 363,100 tons
in 1791 to 848,300 tons in 1807.
When Nelson destroyed the French and Spanish Fleets at the Battle of
Trafalgar(1805) this left Britain as the only military sea power.
The trade that U.S. merchants had enjoyed so far was now going to be
encumbered by a law passed in 1805.This law did not in fact blockade
European(read French) ports but demanded that neutrals wishing to deliver
goods to European ports must first put into a British port and pay duty
on the goods(ie make your enemy pay you for allowing him his goods).As France
now had no navy and certainly did not wish to subsidize Britains war efforts
upon them retaliated by passing their own law.This law stated that any
neutral vessels stopped by a British vessel or that had stopped at a
British port was deemed to be an agent of the British and was liable to
confiscation.
This led to stopping of U.S. vessels by the British Navy in the English Channel
AND the seizure of U.S. vessels and their cargo in French controlled ports.
At this time Britain redefined its interpretation of contraband to include
strategic war materials (livestock and foodstuffs).
DOMESTIC CONSIDERATIONS
=======================
Around the turn of the century an Indian chieftain Tecumseh was establishing
a confederation of Indian nations to stop or slow down the incursion onto
Indian lands by frontier expansionists.British Canada traded heavily with
Tecumsehs confederation (as well as with Canadian Indians).Tecumseh wanting
and getting munitions in its trade with British Canada.
This particular event was particularly repugnant to the U.S. government
(12th Congress),especially the new frontier states,which bordered on Tecumsehs
confederation.
[A LITTLE GEOGRAPHY IS WARRANTED NOW.Tecumsehs confederation approximated
the states of Indiana,Southern Michigan,Illinois and Douthern Wisconsin.
The new frontier states were Kentucky,Tennessee & Ohio.Thus Tecumsehs
confederation would haverestricted any northern expansion of the U.S. if it had
remained intact.Tecumseh even travelled to southerntribes to try and persuade
tribes not to sign treaties with the government on an individual tribe by tribe
basis.]
TIME CONSIDERATIONS
===================
The "blockade" situation was not a problem in the time period 1793-1805.Indians
had always been a problem but Tecumseh did not rise to prominence until 1805-07
when he started his proposed "confederacy".Jefferson was elected president and
served two terms 1801-1809,he was strongly pro-French (having served 5 years
in Paris as U.S. Minister for France he knew and admired the French,BTW also a
new republic).The 12th Congress (1810) included new frontier states into the
legislature(known at the time as "The War Hawks").Madison (Jeffersons choice
to succeed him) was elected president in 1810.
THE DECLARATION OF WAR
======================
Madison went before Congress with three reasons for declaring war.
1)Impressment of American citizens into British Navy
2)Interference of trade by the British Government(& Navy)
3)Intrigues with western indians
Maritime interests were opposed to war pointing out British superiority
on the water.
Britain : 600+ warships U.S. : 16 (sixteen)
In a war they would be the most likely to be attacked and most difficult to
defend.Remember these are the interests that are supposedly the first two
reasons for going to war.Also remember France seized U.S. ships and cargo(see
reason 2).
Congress voted as follows;
House : for war : 79 against : 49
Senate : " " : 19 " : 13
Not exactly overwhelming ?
Congress then went on to provide for the war effort as follows :
Voting for providing an army of 36,700 men whilst in reality only
11,000 man army was ever commissioned.
NO provisions made for a Navy !!!
States militia were expected to provide the bulk of the armed forces.
New England states responded to this twofold.
1) Refused to allow state militia to leave state boundaries.
2) Called for a convention(Hartford Convention) to force the federal
government to back down or the New England states would withdraw
from the union.
THE END OF THE WAR(TREATY OF GHENT)
===================================
In 1814 after an initial peace proposal by Russia was rejected,Britain and
the U.S. met in Ghent,Belgium.
Britain exhuberent after finally defeating Napolean and able to send more
experienced troops to the war felt it was dealing from a position of strength
and demanded the following concessions.
1) redrawing of U.S. - Canadian border (to reflect minimal British gains)
2) An independant Indian nation in the north-west for the permanent and
sole use of the indian tribes.
The U.S. rejects these claims and calls for a return to the status quo.
Under pressure from allies and internally Britain withdraws propasals.
Treaty was unanimously passed by Congress.
OVERALL PICTURE
===============
As seen from the above excerpts(check it all out yourselves) I can't see
this as being the simple black/white war that it was first painted to be
I see the viewpoint from both sides and think the only sad part was that
the British did not hold firm on the formation of an indian nation centred
on the great lakes area.
Sorry it was so long but there was quite a bit to it and I hope I havn't
butchered the content too much by compressing the information.
Dave Peak(pyuhh!dxp)pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector) (11/15/83)
I'd like to thank Dave Peak for supplying a more complete account of the causes of the War of 1812. I think that if you take his account and add to it several items I referred to (British need for sailors for its fleet against Napoleon, the "Chesapeake" incident, American strategy, impressment of American sailors, etc.), it is clear (I hope) that the War of 1812 was not just a "war of conquest" by the US. Our motives with regard to the American Indian were not always admirable, but certainly the US position towards Britain had some justification. It should be remembered that wars typically can not be characterized in 3 word phrases. Scott Pector (Dave and others: sorry about using just a Jefferson source for many of my statements; but, as I said in an earlier article, that is all I had and I unfortunately did not have easy access or time to obtain another source. Thus, I requested others for information.)