February 12: "The War of 1812: National Honor and Aggressive Expansion"
From the primary sources, what do you make of the conflicting arguments for and against the War of 1812? And what of its outcomes according to Horsman and Dowd?
The arguments for and against the War of 1812 appear be closely tied to fears of hostile Native Americans. Anxiety of the threat Native Americans posed is explicitly mentioned in Document 2, where Gundy denounces the impressments of American sailors and especially the British manipulation and incitement of the “savage tribes” to violence. It is also worth noting that Gundy is an American from the Western frontier, where the threat of Native American attacks against Americans remained high and where the British could readily supply them from Floridian and Canadian outposts. These people had a real stake in a war to push Great Britain out of America, but there was also a sense of inevitability amongst the other pro-war documents. John Quincy Adams laments that war could not be avoided, but failing that the only recourse faced by the new nation was war against an imperious Great Britain, elaborated upon by Document 1 in the sense that since Great Britain is the greater oppressor they should be opposed in alignment with the lesser evil France. The anti-war arguments suggest a deeper anxiety of British designs and Native American incitement among the war hawks than pro-war sources do. Webster in document 4 criticizes the impressments of American sailors, but essentially paints the war hawks as eager for war, exaggerating the impacts of impressments and commercial interdiction, for why should those who don’t feel the effects of these actions feel more passionately than those losing family and friends? This divide suggests to me that anxieties over Native Americans drove the war hawks more than a sense of injustice over British actions on the high seas. These auxiliary anxieties really reflect well in the essays. Horsman is undoubtedly correct in stating that an American victory was improbable. Jefferson left the nation virtually defenseless, yet America still went to war against Great Britain hoping to rectify the situation on the seas and especially on the Western frontier. As incapable as America was, Great Britain largely fought to a draw due to inept leadership and more pressing matters at hand in Europe. Despite the tenuous stalemate the U.S managed to secure and the burning of the capitol, I agree that the war fostered a sense of national identity. None of the stated war aims were accomplished in the war, but fantastic victories against Native Americans and especially against the British in the Battle of New Orleans had the effect of vindicating the war and affirming the ability of the United States to stand up to outside threats. Dowd has legitimate points as well, although I doubt that the War of 1812 was the event that determined the success or failure of Native Americans to resist American expansion westward. It is fair to say that the conflict expedited their defeat, but to say that it led to their defeat and disunity is overstating things drastically. There is no real evidence to suggest that Native Americans could truly resist American expansion, and his argument rests on the premise that the demise of Tecumseh and the Prophet during the war ended any hope of a pan-Indian confederation that might resist expansion. The war did divide and weaken them for later conquest, but what evidence is there that there that they could stand against the Americans at all? He is reaching in hi argument.
The conflicting arguments for and against the War of 1812 in the primary sources were once again mostly based around opposing views from the Republicans and Federalists. The argument for the war was extremely strong on the side of the Republicans who also had evidentiary support as to why war was the only solution. I felt like the Republicans absolutely had a stronger case for the war than the Federalists case for not going to war. The Republicans had three big points to support their case that to me seemed only natural that something would need to be done to help these situations out. The argued that the British impressments, naval freedom of the seas for American ships, and the pride of the American citizens, were big factors in 1812 in America that needed to be taken care of so American could completely gain the freedom from Britain they fought for around thirty years before. The Republicans knew that just letting their citizens get impressed off of American ships and continuing to letting it happen would have probably caused great distrust among the citizens. They needed to lay their foot down and tell the former mother country that they could not just capture people like that without consequences. The Republicans also understood that if something was not done about Britain taking American ships and continuing to control the seas and commerce, there was a possibility that it would continue like this for years to come. The Federalists played all this down like it was just trivial little issues that were not important to the welfare of their country. Their real reason becomes clear that it was just an attempt to prohibit the national government from taking more control. In Daniel Webster’s segment I felt almost as if he was defending England and saying that the British had done nothing wrong. That seemed traitor-ish to me. I feel like the Federalists could almost be considered traitors for not wanting to protect the government that they spent so much time making. Webster sounded so single minded and sure of himself that his words were the truth. It was almost like he was lying to himself about the situation. He did not give and evidentiary support worth defending why the decision to go to war would turn out negatively. The Federalist were ready to sacrifice the safety of the country rather than give the government more control. That sounds selfish to me. The outcomes according to Horsman and Dowd were agreeing with each other on the fact that the war would have consequences both good and bad in later years. Horsman seemed to me like he was more concerned with how the war changed America for the better. Dowd to me was more concerned with showing that America was oppressive to the Indians and how it was to severely change Indian culture and the Indian people forever. I agree with Horsman on his point that after the war, instead of America just showing an on the face reaction to something that they disliked, they began to act on that dislike. I feel like this probably proved to the American citizens that the government was strong enough to hold itself together during a war. I think that even if Britain did not really feel anything from this war it gave America a new sense of pride and made the people have a firmer belief in their new nation. It is also hard not to agree with Dowd that America treated the Native Americans terribly. I think the point of his essay was to show that the American militias were stronger during the war than anyone could have imagined and that all the winning battles were almost just pure luck. I really enjoyed the reading this week.
After reading the primary sources I find the War of 1812 as confusing as before. The conflicting arguments of the War of 1812 from the primary sources were in my opinion, fairly weak. The primary argument both for and against the war was the impressments of American sailors and ships by British ships. Those advocating the war stated that the lawless invasions of personal liberty called for immediate government involvement. Felix Grundy stated, “I am not prepared to say that this country shall submit to have her commerce interdicted or regulated by any foreign nation. Sir I prefer war to submission.” People like Grundy who advocated the war I feel had more of a nationalistic sense towards its justification, more U.S. bravado. Advocates also claimed that with victory the war would drive the British from America. They would no longer have the opportunity of intriguing the neighboring Indians to “tomahawk our women and children.” Britain would also lose their trade with Canada and have no resting place in the United States. Those opposing the war state simply that the impressments of sailors does not call for all out warfare. Daniel Webster claims that the number of these cases has been extravagantly exaggerated and a great misrepresentation to the American public. He also claims that those supporting the war are delegates from states who have no seaman of their own, while those states with three-fourths of the mariners of the U.S. are by great majorities, against the war. He also states that the war could have been avoided had the United States government adhered to British policy prohibiting American officers from granting protections, of certificates of citizenship to British subjects. The outcomes of the war were different for many groups of people including Americans, Brits, Canucks, and Indians. The War of 1812, according to Dowd, stands as pan-Indianism’s most thorough failure. The Indians were all but crushed and dispersed following the war. The Red Sticks in particular suffered great losses during the Creek War; Dowd states that between July 1813 and April 1814 close to half of all Red Stick men had met violent deaths. The war brought a sense of national pride to the Canadians. The failure of the United States to conquer Canada, according to Horsman, enhanced the sense of Canadian identity and helped create a long-lasting suspicion of the United States. The war seemed to have less of an impact on the large countries fighting it, the U.S. and Great Britain. According to Horsman within one hundred years the well-educated Englishman had never heard of it. However, during the war the British public grew fearful seeing American ships passing unscathed in the Channel and the Irish Sea. They now realized how vulnerable they were to this new power across the Atlantic. As for Americans it represented their strength and the aftermath of the war even gave a stimulus to the infant American industries.
During TJ's presidency just preceding the second war with the British, there were some major issues that began to develop for the Americans. Most of Europe was in the middle of defending itself against Napoleon who seemed bent on conquering all of it. With the British stretched pretty thin militarily, it looked for some unusual ways of making up for losses. To the British, the idea of impressments looked like a viable option. They boarded numerous American merchant ships headed for Europe and forced many men aboard those ships to join the mighty British navy. In primary source document four, Daniel Webster makes a case that impressment is not all that bad. That is ridiculous. I don't care which way you look at the situation. The main point is that Britons were kidnapping hundreds of American citizens. This seems like a necessary cause for war. Webster claims that the number of impressment cases is exaggerated which is probably true, but even if it were 100 cases and not 1,000 that is still just cause for some sort of retaliation. The English were taking advantage of a much weaker country that they still hold contempt for losing to thirty years earlier. However, Webster does make a number of good points worth noting about the public opinions in New England at the time. He says that most of the men taken by the alleged impressments would be mariners from New England, which adamantly opposes the war. Shouldn't they be more upset if their brothers, husbands, and fathers are missing? I honestly don't know a good response to this having not done more research into the impressment situation and their geographical places of residence. Anyway, in my opinion, I believe that war was inevitable and the War Hawk argument may not have been better, but it was the most reasonable reaction to another country's blatant acts of aggression. Felix Grundy in document two gives us a clear picture of what the real War Hawk mentality must have been. He believes that the annexation of Canada to the United States is within our reach (which apparently military strategists later take to heart and try to actually do many times and fail).
J.Q. Adams makes a much clearer argument for war in document three, saying that there is no other option except it or the "abandonment of our right as an independent nation." That's pretty serious stuff, especially coming from the son of Federalist President Adams. Besides impressment, the other issue of major importance was the Indian Problem in the Old Northwest and in the Mississippi Territory. Reactionary Americans believed that they were being instigated and armed by the British. They could not accept the fact that Tecumseh was actually doing an incredible job attempting to form a pan-Indian confederation to oppose the Americans; this had to be the work of the British! Well, William Henry Harrison thought otherwise, after meeting Tecumseh, he knew that this man was a natural born leader that would have formed an empire "were it not for the vicinity of the United States." So, the next step was war. The Democratic-Republican leadership was hasty in declaring it. Somehow and ill-equipped army and a small but well-trained navy actually helped the U.S. obtain a victory. But with victory came no results that they had originally intended. Horsman states that "the failure of the United States to achieve her aims in the peace treaty was passed over in the rejoicing that the war ended with a complete American victory on land." I had to quote that because I could not sum it up any better. The U.S. wanted to stop impressments (which it did kinda), conquer Canada (the attempts made a future annexation nearly impossible), and get rid of the Indian problem (which it slowed down not by victory over the British, but with the death of Tecumseh). The results of the war meant the end for the seemingly anti-Patriotic Federalists in New England thanks to the bad timing of the Hartford Convention and a renewed sense of nationalism. I found the combination of primary documents and the two essays the most interesting of the readings so far because within a period of three years (1811-1814) so many policies and ideas radically changed; not to mention the people that gained fame in battle that would later be high ranking political figures (i.e. W.H. Harrison, Jackson, Taylor)
A few of the arguments for war against the British seem to be specific to the nature of the British history with the Americans. The thought was, “The British oppressed us forty years ago, and true to their nature, they’re trying to do the same again. War was right and justified then, and war is right and justified now.” Much of the discourse centered on rights that were inherent and could not be abridged, and this seems similar to Jefferson’s language in the Declaration of 1776. The impressment of American sailors by the British is used by proponents of war as a direct affront to American life and liberty. The United States was therefore obligated to protect those rights through war. Additionally, it was perceived by war proponents that the British were inspiring natives to unify against the Americans. This constitutes a direct threat to the American government. If the British are inciting insurrection against the United States they are the enemy of the United States. Not only will war, when won, prevent any insurrection from occurring, but it will also drive the British from the continent for good and will make any attempt at insurrection in the future impossible. John Quincy Adams is a noteworthy proponent for war against Great Britain. His father, as a Federalist, was pro-British and seemingly anti-war given his refusal to engage in war with France. John Quincy proposes war against the British because, to him, there is no other option; the war is “unavoidable.” Daniel Webster gives pretty good arguments against war with the British. He precedes his arguments with a reminder to war proponents that opposing war with the British does not make one a coward or unpatriotic, and if they thought the war justified they would be ready to fight alongside their countrymen. He argues that the impressment of sailors by the British is overstated by war proponents. He states that the severity and quantity of instances are not true, and that most of the impressed sailors are from states represented by opponents to the war. He also believes that other arguments in favor of war have been hyperbolized and the prospect of a “ruinous war” is too dangerous to give in to hysterical fears. I find it hard to have a firm opinion on the arguments for or against war. The arguments presented by the war hawks are legitimate, and if the nature of the offenses and threats of the British were as they make them, war seems to be very legitimate. But men like Webster had their doubts for good reason, and it seems very likely that, like today, those who bang the drums of war do so more loudly than reality would dictate. All in all I probably default towards the war proponents because of John Quincy Adams. I find him to be a reasonable man from a very reasonable background, and therefore I give great credence to his pro-war stance. In terms of the aftermath of the War, Horsman and Dowd make a few observations. Horsman says that the war gave the United States a sense of pride that would propel it to dominate the hemisphere in the years to come. This seems highly significant within the context of the Monroe Doctrine and American foreign policy was forever changed. Dowd talks about the consequences of the War within the context of the Natives, and that hopes of successful pan-Indianism would be forever crushed. The fate of the Native Americans was firmly planted as a result of the American success in the War of 1812.
After reading this weeks primary sources about The War of 1812, it is clear to see each sides opposing arguments on why or why not the war would take place with the mother country. I wasn’t fully aware of the altercations that the United States and Great Britain had in the times after the American Revolution until coming to this University. It is almost as if America feels that they do not have to teach and analyze the War of 1812 because of its lack of importance, which doesn’t make sense to me. The Primary sources have different views on why this immature nation should yet again prove their independence and fight for the rights they had jus earned no more than 50 years ago. With there being constant publicity about the British Impressments, the Republican Party was completely for the war and had all the Pros as to why this needed to be settled in warfare. As a Republican Newspaper put it, “Thefts of American Citizens” the Brits wasn’t taking a barrel of whiskey or a bail of cotton, they were taking American lives and the Republicans just added fuel to the fire with issues like these as to why The War of 1812 was just. Felix Gundy exemplifies heart in his battle cry to the War Hawks’ saying, “for many years past they have been in the practice of impressing our seaman, from merchant vessels; this unjust and lawless invasion of persona liberty, calls loudly for the interposition of this Government.” John Quincy Adams also knew that the last alternative had been taken, War. It wasn’t an overpowering king declaring war on a inferior nation, it was congress having over whelming evidence of impressments and British support to Native Americans as to why the war was declared. Now it seemed if you were against the war, then you must be willing to surrender your right as an independent nation. The Federalist made it abundantly clear that War should not take place. In Daniel Webster’s document, He seems it exceptionally hard to find a relevant reason for the declaration of war. This seems odd to me because if I was a relative of one of the US citizens taken captive by British Ships and nothing was being done about it, it would seem as if all the lives lost in the American Revolution was lost in vein. He claims that the America lives taken by the Royal Navy and help captive have been “misinterpreted.” Personally, I hardly see relevance in his argument because if they are willing to take ten men, then they are willing to take thousands. He also compares the decision of war among the last presidents that served which still remains in politics today. Of course the past presidents like Washington, Adams and Jefferson did not deem impressments just for war, however should America let these continue on and on? My answer would be no because eventually, sooner or later something had to done about the wrongful actions of Great Britain. In Horsman’s essay, he makes it clear that the United States was extremely inferior to the British navy and just because America won the war didn’t mean they got anything in return. They received none of their demands they had wished for but personally I think they got something just as important, more American Nationalism. They had proven their self not once but twice and had every reason to feel a sense of pride. Dowds’s essay seemed to be derogatory towards the united States at this time because of the overwhelming Native American oppression. He makes it seem that this was the time, this was the date that the Native Americans would make their push against the western expansion onto their lands but this would be their epic fail. The war of 1812 to Dowds was not the victory for American but the dismemberment of the pan-Indian movement. After this had taken place, it only confirmed to American citizens the weakness of the Native Americans.
The argument for war made by the War Hawks proclaimed the British aggression on the US’s neutral trade rights as unacceptable and cause for war. Impressment, unfair trade restrictions, and encroachment on the US coast are certainly reasonable concerns, but it’s pretty obvious that these were RED HERRING arguments.
While Felix Gundy said “Sir, I prefer war to submission” and John Quincy Adams said that there may be “no alternative left but war or the abandonment of our right as an independent nation.” I question whether these men really believed America’s long-term stability was threatened from all the way across the Atlantic. The truth, as these documents reveal, is that the West (the interior) and the North (Canada) were the real concerns. The first evidence of the over-used historical buzzword MANIFEST DESTINY seems to be the real motivation for War.
Gundy continued to say “My mind is irresistibly drawn to the West.” The War Hawk Democrats believed that Great Britain was ‘intriguing’ the Native population into resisting the American western expansion. Of course these Native peoples did not want to keep losing their homes and having their treaties broken. And, of course Great Britain had an interest (especially when concerning their Canadian trade) in weakening the American interior. But, the War Hawk agenda was an aggressive offensive plan and not the imperiled defensive act that it was portrayed to be. The move west was the motivation, not the protection of the Atlantic.
The interaction between William Henry Harrison and Tecumseh is interesting. Harrison calls him “one of those uncommon geniuses.” Tecumseh’s lofty goals and powerful confederation forced the western governments (and eventually the national government) to actively remove them, rather than gradually swindle the natives in the way that Jefferson had endorsed. The War Hawks were right to think that Tecumseh could not be ignored. The Native’s had every right to the land that they fought for, but by provoking the full might of the United States’ aggression they stood no chance in the long run. The Natives would have been removed either way, but by naming Great Britain as the enemy in war the Hawks made the removal of natives a part of an idealism that all Americans could get behind. They made Indian removal an extension of the revolution itself.
The Federalist reaction was rightfully suspicious. Daniel Webster recognized that impressment was neither new nor extreme, he said: “the number of these cases has been extravagantly exaggerated.” Rather than argue for transparency from the Democrats, and requiring them to either provide sufficient evidence of British impressments or admitting that the focus of the war was pushing Natives off of their land, the Federalists fumbled a great opportunity.
The Federalists don’t appear to have had an idealistic objection to the war. They simply wanted to take advantage of what they believed was a foolish move. The Federalist agenda was not to stop the war, but to use the failure of the war as an example of the Democratic incompetence. The amendments of the Hartford Convention are an example of the Federalists wanting only to limit their political disadvantage. They sought to undo apportionment and limit the Democrat’s monopoly of the Executive. If they had their 2/3 majority amendments there would likely never be war again, or any other meaningful act of congress. The Federalists let the Democrats off the hook by not addressing valid discrepancies and crippled their own interest by overplaying their hand at a very bad time (just as the war was ending).
Horsman’s essay really fails to make sense of the War Hawk agenda. Horsman sees the War as a no gain, because it did nothing to change the British actions in the Atlantic, but as a good thing because it made the population feel a sense of nationalism. He says that the U.S. should have expanded the navy to fight “an undeclared war at sea.” That would have addressed the claims of British impressments and the fear that American liberty was being threatened at sea, but the War Hawk concern with the interior and Indian removal would not have been addressed. Horsman does not see the War of 1812 as an aggressive play for expansion, instead he sees it as a defensive stalemate. I would disagree.
Dowd’s essay sides completely with the Indian perspective. It’s hard not to agree that Indians were swindled, lied to , aggressively removed, and often unjustly massacred. Who would argue that Manifest Destiny justifies ignoring human rights in our contemporary world view? Still, Dowd’s arguments are transparently one sided. It’s interesting that he calls the Indian and Briton victory at Fort Dearborn and Detroit as “Stunning” but he calls Jackson’s triumphs “a dreadful victory.” Dowd is right, the American war against the Indians could (in my mind) be called evil. But, his essay does not (for me) provide an accurate picture of the War of 1812 because he goes too far to sympathize with the Indian perspective. It’s a really useful article, but not the best way to give a ‘big picture’ analysis of the war.
After reading the sources and the historian’s perceptions of the War of 1812, I agree with the introduction to the chapter when saying that this is one of the most overlooked wars in American history. The war was a major test on the new republic. Britain seemed as if it could walk in and take back what they had lost from the Revolutionary War. Indian forces in the west were opposing everyone who were encroaching on their land, and really having to side with the best option for their survival if pushed far enough. American’s were and desperately trying to maintain a government that wouldn’t crumble under the first sign of trouble. Above all I think this was just a tremendously sad period of time that had to be exploited by the American’s to increase nationalism.The first source expresses the question of which side to help? Jefferson’s Embargo Act tried to help solve this problem. The second source calls the North American continent an EMPIRE! This is astonishing to me. I think Grundy highlights the possible outcomes very well but only to secure this “American Empire.” This idea had to be terrifying to those who perceived their new country an actual Republic. When Webster calls to criticize the war I feel like he does a pretty poor job. After reading this I would side with those of the previous who were calling for war. I would at least feel some security in my own land fighting than letting the possibility of being taken over again. When Tecumseh addresses Harrison I think this is very moving. Although a war chief, he presents a solid argument of simplicity when he talks about purchasing from all. He avidly supports the idea that the land is for everyone and no one single race of people has the right to claim stake to a particular piece of land if they do it should be approved by all. I think this is very admirable. Harrison’s reaction to Tecumseh proved exactly what I thought. There was no care for the native people, only how to deal with them. You can also tell how scared he was of him as well talking so highly of him. I feel like he would only do that if he was scared deep down. As for the secondary sources, Horsman highlights the ineptness of the American people in this time and how unready they were for a war. But to the American’s surprise and advantage, they succeeded in their victories and lost no land. Horsman explains how this turned into a nationalism that escaladed into natural feeling. People genuinely believed in their own government after the war and were capable of being an independent nation. Dowd’s piece sums up the destruction of the Native uprisings in the midst of the turmoil. Americans were fighting multiple enemies in multiple locations stemming from multiple directions. This reading only makes me more empathetic to those who defended themselves against the evils that were manifesting at this time. I could think of no greater fall of emotional stability than to be a Native and go through the turmoil of dealing with white settlers and armies, or for a white settler to deal with the spreading government and expansion of a country based on piracy pretty much. There it seems were a few people possibly(?) who were completely against this and knew what was going on, but we never really hear of those folks. Tecumseh comes closest in my mind from what I have read. The word empire rings in my head still while reading this. I can’t help but think that contemporary history highlights these types of times as victorious, or omits them from common knowledge. Reasons for that are clear when this period of time is examined. There are lots and lots of people getting killed, and for what? Essentially the outcome will only be an empire, either an empire of Natives to fight an empire of Whites, or an empire of America against the empire of Europe. Either way the formation of another empire is in the works at this point in time. After the war when the country erects the Second Bank of the United States, this I feel like would be the beginning of the end.
The support and opposition to the War of 1812 once again in the early republic was found through the partisan divisions between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. The main argument of pro-war supporters came from the Republicans and the main call for arms was the British’s unconstitutional and immoral methods of impressment of American soldiers in international waters. “Thefts of American citizens! The greatest aggressor” proclaimed a Republican Newspaper in 1811, was a clear and the fundamental reason for going to war with the British. Another pro-war sentiment cried out by the War Hawk Republicans and Felix Grundy was that the British were supplying arms and inciting the Indians of the western frontier against the new American settlers of this area. Grundy writes, “We shall drive the British from our Continent- they will no longer have an opportunity of intriguing with our Indian neighbors, and settling on the ruthless savage to tomahawk our women and children.” The anti-war sentiment came from the Federalist side and was clearly shown in Daniel Webster’s letter of criticism. Webster does not argue against the horrible acts of impressment, but rather says they have been extremely exaggerated and the actual number of impressed American citizens was way lower than actually reported. Also Webster argues that the greatest voices arguing for war are “entertained by the representatives of those states, which have no seamen at all of their own; while those sections of the community, in which more than three-fourths of the mariners of the United States have their own homes, are, by great majorities, against that war.” Thus Webster’s and the Federalists main arguments against the war is that the number of impressments is extremely misrepresented and over-exaggerated and that the states who are in favor of the war do not even have seaman who can or have been impressed by the British. The War of 1812 was a success for the Americans although the Treaty of Ghent of 1814 made no major pre-war changes both in territorial boundaries owned by the Americans of the British or any other legislation regarding relations between America and Great Britain. According to the historian Reginald Horsman in his essay “The Improbable American Success” the War of 1812 was a success for America because “A war that was begun to win respect for American maritime rights by the conquest of Canada was finally viewed as a success in the United States because it resulted in the loss of no American territory, and did not bring about the collapse of the government.” Here Horsman along with many other historians argue the outcome of the War of 1812 successfully ended Great Britain’s entanglement in American affairs, especially out on the western frontier and demonstrated that this newly formed democratic republic could withstand the super power like Britain. The “victory” Americans achieved promoted the “protection of economic coercion and war had even given a stimulus to the infant American industries.” Historian Gregory Evans Dowd notes the importance of the War of 1812 in that the war crushed the Indian resistance to American western expansion and was the first major failure of the Indian tribes to create a united coalition against the expansion efforts of the United States. Dowd writes, “the War of 1812 stands as pan-Indianism’s most thorough failure, its crushing defeat, its disappointing anticlimax.” The major accomplishment spawning from War of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain was the successful defeat of the Indians on the western frontier and this defeat was the preliminary success for the U.S. government to begin their all-out seizure of western Indian lands and Jefferson’s dream of the expansion of the great empire.
The first four primary documents together provide contrasting justifications and criticisms of the War of 1812. The first, taken from a pro-war newspaper, decries the evils of impressment, or the “barbarous thefts of American citizens.” While the author of these words did not say that the U.S. should go to war with Britain because of impressment, the author did say that America should stand strong for its rights and attempt to be a friend to both France and England, as long as they both “do us justice.” The author of the next document is much more fervent in his desire to stand up to the British. While Felix Grundy acknowledges that impressment was an “unjust and lawless invasion” of American liberty, his focus is mainly on British presence elsewhere on the continent. He argues that the potential collaboration between the British and the Indians was a dangerous risk that the young nation could ill afford, an argument that William Henry Harrison later supports. His argument was mainly formed around the annexation of Canada and the Floridas; the annexation of these two territories, combined with the previous addition of the Louisiana territory, would have effectively ended Europe’s viable presence in North America. On the contrary, Daniel Webster, an anti-war Federalist, admits that impressment would have been the most valid reason for war, but that stories of it were greatly exaggerated and were in fact no different than they had been at the nation’s founding. More convincingly, Webster argues that the coming war was avoidable, would never be over quickly, and did not have a chance of accomplishing its goals (ostensibly of halting impressment and keeping Britain out of North America). Despite the fact that many Americans, including Grundy, were so staunchly supportive of war with Britain, I can’t help but wonder why they thought they had a chance of succeeding. Even though they had won their independence from Great Britain roughly thirty years earlier, it was a victory that came at a very heavy physical and economic price; it was also a victory that did not result in a total defeat of the enemy. Great Britain was still the world’s unchallenged naval power, and the mother country still had a strong commercial presence in North America despite the embargo. Combined with the alliance between the British and the Indians against the Americans, it’s hard to imagine that anyone, whether a supporter or a critic of the war, thought they would have a chance of victory. In fact, Horsman details all the things that the Americans had going against them in the War of 1812, including a laughably small navy, a lack of efficient planning in an invasion of Canada, and a lack of military consistency. Even after the war was over and the peace treaty was signed, America did not achieve any of its prewar aims (which came as no shock to Daniel Webster).
(continued) However, I would have to agree with Horsman when he says that the War of 1812 was a “war of survival.” First of all, the fact that America was able to make it through its first few decades is a miracle, but the fact that America did not immediately collapse in the face of another round with a much stronger opponent is equally impressive. I do agree that many of America’s successes were based mostly on luck, but the greatest success of the War of 1812 was not that we “won” but that we didn’t lose. By not losing to Britain, as Horsman writes, America was able to reassert its sovereignty and protect its economic interests on the continent. America became “active” instead of “reactive” and was given an extra push westward as the threat of a pan-Indian movement was quelled with the end of the war, according to Dowd. Overall, I think Horsman’s title, “The Improbable American Success” provides a perfect description of the War of 1812.
The War of 1812 was strictly disagreed upon by the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Much of this disagreement was due to their differences in ideology and favor towards foreign nations. In part, the War of 1812 was caused by the Napoleonic Wars in Europe--the Federalists tended to favor Great Britain while the Democratic-Republicans favored the French. With a great deal of impressment by the British government on the open seas, much of the United States' sovereignty as a nation-state was threatened. Along with that, much of the arms that were being taken from Native Americans at that time were branded with British make on them. This incitement for conflict with the Native Americans gave many more Democratic-Republicans (at a time where expansion into Native American territory was most important) a cause for stir, and they strongly advocated war. So much was this, that men such as Speaker of the House Henry Clay and Congressman Fellix Grundy rose as a leader of War Hawks within the Democratic-Republicans. The War Hawks were met by Federal opposition which claimed that "a nation may call home her subjects to her defence and protection, in time of war" (129). Also, they downplayed the degree of impressment upon American merchant vessels. Going further they compared it to the "time of Washington" where impressment was much higher (however, that's an odd argument considering those acts lead to war).
The war was a necessary evil of the eventual fate of the United States. I agree with Horsman's essay when he makes the main point that the War of 1812 was an enormous success for the United States. For one, "the War of 1812 stimulated the development of national feeling," (139). This togetherness (which was necessary to maintain a quick and strong settlement of the West) was highly beneficial to America. One would argue that it was not the roots of the believed Destiny that the United States would spread from Atlantic to Pacific. He makes the argument that after 1814, the United States has always taken the initiative in a conflict. Being the first to act, the U.S. has been able to maintain a position as a world power for an extended period of time.
At the same time, I also agree with Gregory Evans Dowd's essay. Down points out the many ways that the Native Americans were brushed aside in the sprawl West. Without the War of 1812, much of this would not have happened so quickly. For Native Americans, it was the nail in the coffin. According the Dowd, after the War of 1812, the tribes of the North and the tribes of the South had broken off most of their relations. In a way, the War of 1812 gave the United States a good excuse to remove the Native Americans from the lands that wished to be settled.
In the end, the best course for the United States, as a nation, was to proceed in the War of 1812 so as to maintain a new position on the world stage. Although it came with the grim implications of great mistreatment of Native Americans, much of this lead to the eventual stronger image of America in the world stage.
Grundy sums up the pro-war argument in one simple sentence, “Sir, I prefer war to submission (p.127).” The pro-war people felt like Brittan was trying to rule over them again and as people of a newly formed nation felt like they had to protect it at all costs. British impressments were one of the main reasons that some Americans wanted to go to war with Brittan; “this unjust and lawless invasion of personal liberty, calls loudly for the interposition of this Government (p.127).” The pro-war camp used this argument because it was sure to tug on the heart strings of every American. Every American could easily get mad over the fact that Brittan was boarding American ships, taking Americans off those ships, and killing some Americans in the process. The second reason that some people wanted to go to war with Brittan was due to the fact that they believed that Brittan was stirring up the Indians and supplying the Indians with weapons to kill Americans; “some powerful nation [Great Brittan] must have intrigued with them and turned their [Indians] peaceful disposition towards us into hostilities (p.127).” So once again, the pro-war camp is using the murdering of Americans to elicit an emotional response from all Americans in order to get them to cry out for war. The pro-war camp, especially the War Hawks, seemed like they were tired of a British presence in North America and wanted the British out of North America for good. The best way to get people to cry out for war is to make them feel like their lives or liberty is in danger. If America had not decided to go to war with Brittan I am pretty sure that the pro-war camp would have used the next tactic of calling everyone that opposed war un-American and say that they did not love liberty and freedom. But people like Grundy made sure they would not have to go as far as condemning their fellow Americans and used barbaric imagery to make sure they would condemn themselves if they did not support the war. Grundy uses barbaric imagery in his Battle Cry when he lists the benefits of removing British influence from America; “setting on the ruthless savage to tomahawk our women and children (p.127).” With a statement like that who in their right mind would not want to go to war with Brittan.
The anti-war camp basically just called the pro-war people crazy and they were exaggerating the circumstances to provoke a war. People like Daniel Webster thought that the War Hawks were exaggerating and inflating the numbers of Americans that were being affected by British impressments. Webster also explained that some American merchant ships were taking British runaways and providing them with documentation that said they were American. According to Webster, this was the captain’s fault and the British had every right to impress American ships to get their men back; “[Brittan] has a right to the service of her own subjects (p.129).” Webster made the claim that impressments were not out of the ordinary especially during war time in order for a country to get back their men. Impressments were a common thing among all nations during war time and “it it recognized by the public law of Europe, and of the civilized world (p.129).” This last excerpt from Webster’s essay, to me at least, was a huge slap in the face to all Americans that still felt like they were living in a city (country) on a hill. Webster said that impressments to get back troops during war time was recognized by the entire CIVILIZED WORLD and anyone with a brain can realize that he was calling America uncivilized because they were not respecting the right of a country to get back their troops. To me, that seems like a pretty strong statement. But calling someone uncivilized does not have the same impact as saying they are allowing babies to be killed. The pro-war camp had the upper hand in the battle for the Americans’ support because they were able to provide reasons for war such as Brittan is getting Indians to tomahawk babies and Webster’s anti-war argument that Americans’ were being uncivilized just does not compete with the savage imagery used by the pro-war camp.
By the time the United States entered the nineteenth century, it became evident that she would not be able to disentangle herself from European affairs as the first three presidential administrations had sought to do. The United States was far too dependent on Europe as an export market for American goods to withdraw their business from the continent, despite the growing agitations between France and Britain who each tried to influence American economic policies to best suit their political interests. The primary and secondary sources in this chapter reveal the controversy over the European conflict and the United States’ choice to officially got to war with the British in 1812.
In the United States, the War of 1812 became another divisive issue for the Republicans and Federalists, providing the final attempt for the Federalist Party to gain political strength and momentum before being finally forced from the political scene at the end of the war. Primary documents reveal the opinions of each side, showing another sticky foreign policy situation which divided Republicans who favored the war and Federalists who naturally disapproved. Perhaps one of the greatest push factors for war with Britain was Britain’s policy of impressment. Republican newspapers did not hesitate to share the news of “barbarous THEFTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS” with the general populace, sparking outrage and fear that if the United States did not respond, then the country would lose credibility abroad. John Quincy Adams who was serving abroad as an American diplomat, acknowledged the necessity of war given the information in the hands of Congress at the time (Congress was unaware at the time they declared war that a British minister had sent a letter in which he agreed to repeal the policy of impressment.): “I cannot be surprised that they [Congress] should have considered all pacific and conciliatory means of obtaining justice as exhausted, and no alternative left but war or the abandonment of our right as an independent nation” (Wilentz 129). Federalists like Daniel Webster, however, severely criticized the war and argued that impressment had been over exaggerated by the Republicans and media: The impressment of our seamen, which forms the most plausible and popular of the alleged causes of war, we believe to have been the subject of great mispresentation” (Wilentz 128). He continued by saying that impressment had not worsened since Washington’s administration and that the whole issue was being manipulated to get Americans involved in European affairs.
Secondary sources by Reginald Horsman and George Evans Dowd interpret the outcomes and consequences of the War of 1812 in different lights. Horsman primarily argues that the outcome of the war was relatively insignificant for the British, and though the Americans achieved none of their desired goals in the peace treaty of 1814, they did emerge from the war with a new sense of strengthened nationalism after three rocky presidential administrations which had furiously fought to keep the Republic together. Dowd takes a different angle on the outcome of the 1812 war by focusing on the consequences the war had on Native American tribes. He argues that the War of 1812 did more to defeat Indian resistance against white settlers than any other event, including the death of Tecumseh. Warfare and Indian violence in the west prompted American soldiers to destroy Indian corn and food supplies as they marched: “The soldiers did not destroy the nativists’ will to fight, but they pushed the nativists into a greater reliance upon the British” who were unable to support them (Wilentz 141). Though Dowd’s perspective is engaging to read, the value of Tecumseh as a unifying leader should not be underplayed. Tecumseh was instrumental in using both diplomatic and military solutions in the Indian/American conflicts until he finally confronted William Henry Harrison on the battlefield. I would argue that Tecumseh’s death was easily as defeating to the pan-Indian cause as the War of 1812.
The source material in the textbook illustrates that there were other motivations for entering the War of 1812 than simple impressments of American sailors. For instance source four, which presents a Federalist’s views on the origins of the conflict, rightly points out that most of the leading proponents for the war were not from coastal areas with large populations of mariners. Instead, the greatest call for war came from the people and representatives from the states in the interior of the country. This is represented by source two which excerpts a speech in the House of Representatives by Felix Grundy a “representative from the west.” However, there can be no doubt that the “war hawks” used the impressments and the suspicion of many in the country that the British were giving aid to Native American belligerents on the frontier, as shown in both sources one and three. Sources four and five shed light on two facts that played into the aforementioned suspicion. First, the Native American threat was real and very much at issue in the years before and during the War of 1812. Second, the threat was not amplified by British aid; rather it was stoked by charismatic Native American leaders who preached a message of “pan-Indianism” which Gregory Evans Dowd explored in his essay at the end of the chapter. Although men like Tecumseh, his brother “The Prophet”, and the Red Sticks in Louisiana and Mississippi were ultimately unsuccessful at defeating the United States, their struggles mark the accumulation of Native American resistance to white encroachment. Dowd argues that the conclusion of the War of 1812 marked the total annihilation of “pan-Indianism”, an often overlooked result of the war. Carrying on a theme which Reginald Horsman drives at in his essay, both sources eight and ten fit in nicely with Horsman’s argument that the “improbable American success” of the war lay in the new nationalistic pride and fervor that came out of the conflict. Francis Scott Key’s lasting lyrics to The Defense of Fort McHenry, better known today as The Star Spangled Banner, represented in source eight, are perhaps the War of 1812’s most enduring legacy to national pride. Additionally, source ten gives a vivid illustration of General Andrew Jackson’s newfound popularity that would sweep the country and change the course of United States’ history. “Old Hickory” would make his reputation first and foremost at the Battle of New Orleans which (although irrelevant to the outcome of the war given that the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed) would help to stoke the fires of nationalistic fervor and Jacksonmania. A rather peculiar source in this collection is number seven which gives a newspaper’s account of the burning of Washington D.C. It is quite possible that the country’s newfound nationalism was actually enhanced not only by the great victories of New Orleans and Lake Erie, but also by the shared outrage of having the nation’s capital sacked. One final outcome of the War of 1812 which Horsman also mentions and source nine bares witness to was the near complete destruction of the Federalist Party. Source nine is part of the Federalists’ Hartford Convention’s list of grievance which bemoaned the war and called for its in. However, very soon after the convention the war did end and the aforementioned wave of nationalistic emotion swept the nation. As a result of this convention the Federalists were henceforth viewed as unpatriotic and it resulted in the collapse of their party.
The arguments for and against war with Great Britain seem to center around the how often and who the British were actually impressing. The Republicans claimed that the British, “were the first aggressors upon our neutral rights” and were taking American prisoners. Republicans thought that America needed to take a stand against the British and even more moderate politicians like John Quincy Adams believed that there was, “no alternative left but war or the abandonment of our right as an independent nation.” The Republicans then, thought that war was the only way to save their young nation from being run by the British. The Federalists on the other hand thought that the Republicans were blowing their grievances out of proportion. They believed that the charges of impressments, “have been the subject of great misrepresentation,” and the “number of cases has been extravagantly exaggerated.” The Federalists argued that the US should sympathize with the British because they were simply calling their own citizens back to fight in a war or as Daniel Webster put it, “Are we to fight the battles of British seamen?” The Federalists argument is pretty weak and it displays why after the war of 1812 that they failed to be player in national politics. The Republicans also pointed to the increasing violence with Native Americans as cause to go to war with Great Britain. As Felix Grundy put it in 1811, “It cannot be believed by any man who will reflect, that the savage tribes, uninfluenced by other Powers would think of making war on the United States.” In other words the “savages” were being aided by the British to wage war on America. This argument held real weight especially with frontier dwelling Americans of the early republic. The Republicans, based on the documents available made the more convincing case for war with Great Britain. The outcomes on the war had different effects on the US, Great Britain, and the Indians. Horsman believes that the war could have ended in disaster for the Americans but ended up boosting its standing in the world. Following the end of the war, in 1815, Horsman believes that the “United States acted rather than reacted and herself posed a threat to all powers who held territory on the North American Continent.” He believes that the “disorganized” America that began the war emerged as a new world power following the war. Dowd argues that the failure of the Indians to quell the attacks of the US was the first step in their eventual removal. Dowd sees the end of the war as leading to the extinction of the Indians within the new United States. He focuses on how the war “dismembered the pan-Indian movement” and ended any real threat of the Indians being apart of the United States. Dowd makes the more convincing argument and I agree with him that the failure of the Indians to unite lead to the Americans removing them from their land. Dowd’s argument provides good information on how the US really screwed the Native Americans out of their land.
According to the primary sources, the arguments are split between one side which aggressively advocates for war with the former mother country and the other side which holds a skeptical view of the rationality of going to war. Anger at the “barbarous theft of American citizens” via the British practice of impressments seems to be the greatest slight offense the British navy has perpetrated against the American nation and its citizenry. Such an unjust and lawless invasion of personal liberty, in the words of War Hawk Felix Grundy, necessitates an immediate and military response to prevent submission from the British Empire once again. Likewise, John Quincy Adams also argues for the “tragic necessity of the war” when he said these words: “no alternative but war or the abandonment of our right as an independent nation.” Alternatively the opponents to war criticize the War Hawks staunch advocacy for war by asking the people to show proof of this overwhelming need for war with the greatest military and economic power in the world. Federalist Daniel Webster argues that the most common reason for the war, British impressments of American seamen, is grossly exaggerated and not greater than it was in the time of George Washington and the other presidents, and even they did not find it necessary to declare war. Webster calls on the War Hawks to present concrete and tangible evidence that such claims against the British are valid and he and the nation will vehemently defend, with their lives if need be, the country they call home.
The essay by Reginald Horsman interprets the War of 1812 as “limited victory” for the Americans. Grossly unprepared and divided, the new American republic was not ready for a war against the British and chance circumstances allowed the Americans to pull a victory out of the War of 1812 instead of total and humiliating defeat. Horsman argues that the Napoleonic Wars back in Europe caused the British to divert a large portion of its time and energy to winning that conflict and not throwing its full might at the United States. Also the lack of support for the war, most critically in New England, made the decision to go to war a poor one. The potential of a disastrous outcome for the Americans was very great, but somehow this “debacle” was turned into a near success. “Although the war aims had not been gained, nothing had been lost,” specified Horsman in his essay. The United States had a stunning and unexpected victory on land against the British regulars but failed to take the Canadian provinces in the north, leading to many Canadians to grow suspicious of their southern neighbors. Commerce flowed once again, American identity and independence grew stronger and more definite, and the British were soundly defeated for a second time. A time of crisis which has spanned the last twenty years before the war has passed according to Horsman, and the American nation is finally free from the shackles of the British. In Gregory Dowd’s essay speaks on the matter of the war with the Native Americans in the South and North of the country. The British were to blame for the aggressive actions of the Indians in both areas of the nation and this act would have to be met with swift American retribution. Tecumseh and his brother, the Prophet, aimed to create a pan-Indian movement to unite the Native American tribes in North America that were slowly being pushed out and exterminated. Instead of created this wide Indian confederacy, the War of 1812 according to Dowd, “stands as pan-Indianism’s most thorough failure”. Valiant and brave, the Indians in the south and north were able and willing to fight but did not have the promised support and in the quantity they hoped for from the British and Spanish. The War of 1812 was a great test of the Native Americans in North America that were in close proximity to the United States. But a serious technological disadvantage, a lack of unity, and a reneging of support from the British helped speed up the demise of Tecumseh and his dreams of a united Indian confederacy which could stand against the white man.
The arguments for war are interesting. The war hawks seem to function on the idea that impressments need to be dealt with and that war is the only way. That argument does have some validity. The impressments of American sailors were a major strike against the young nation. The number of ships seized and impressed by the British navy is substantial. However the argument against war brings up a good point. They seem to downplay the actual number of impressments by the British, however, the valid point they bring up is why the congressman and people from the west are getting upset at these strikes against American when the majority of the sailing or at least commercial trading people are from the northeastern coastal states. The people in the northeastern coastal states are trying to avoid war at all costs. Those people do not seem to be upset at the loss of American sailors nearly as much as the western states. Document 1 in the book contradicts the coastal theory presented above and in document 4. This is because in a Republican newspaper in Boston goes on to support a war and also the level of impressments dealt against America. This contradiction is mostly likely due to the paper being a republican sided newspaper. The republican were for the war since there was no alternative. John Quincy Adams brings up the point that due to the repealing of the British Orders in Council; there would be no choice for going to war. The new growing nation of America could not stand if they did nothing to protect its rights. Then when looking at the outcomes presented by Horsman and Dowd, you are presented with a look at American approval and strength through determination and luck and also America as a greedy land grabbing opportunistic nation. Both points have strong value. With Horsman, he is correct when he goes on to say that the hopes of the war were not achieved by America. They were not able to annex Canada and the Capital was burned to the ground. He does provide a strong American sentiment throughout his essay. America lost some battles but was able to defeat the British in others as well as defeated them at sea at times. The sea battles affected the moral of the British people due to British naval superiority. Horsman places this war as a major point in American history at least in shaping its existence. It can be agreed that the war strengthened the federal government along with military power. The belief that America strikes fear into the hearts nations wanting to maintain power in the northern continent is overestimated. Dowd brings up a good point against the Indian portion of the war. He brings up that the Indian resistance was decimated by the war. The Indians won some battles but was ultimately destroyed in favor of the better equipped United States. He also supplies that some Indians fought on auxiliary cores in the military. He doesn’t supply why they fought with the United States but it can be thought that the Indians were ever trying to show support so that they may keep some lands or that they had long grievances against the other groups.
By the War of 1812, a sense of nationalism was becoming firmly entrenched in the American psyche. The impressment of American naval men, and the lack of respect for American trade rights brought many to clamor for war.
Two main causes were given to justify the war. The first of which was the British inciting of Indians. This rationale seems questionable. It is true that the British were aligned with certain Indian tribes, but there was also a clear movement among native tribes to resist expansion. The largest resitance by native tribes was the Shawnee led by Tecumseh and the Prophet. From the account of Tecumseh's confrontation with William Henry Harrison it is clear that many Native Americans had their own goals and grievances independent of the British. In addition Dowd makes the argument that hte Indian threat was overstated and that they were on the decline after early defeats.
The expansion into the west appears to have been the main goal of the "war hawks". However my initial assumption was that the argument against impressment would be based in New England. However thiw as not hte case. Daniel Webster drives this point home saying that most clamoring for war were from places where they did not actually have many sailors. He also cites the unwillingness of hte government to try to work things out with the British and to address teh claims the British made about the alleged impressments.
The Hartford Convention's grievances also interested me a great deal. It rightly noted the inflated power of hte south due to the 3/5 compromise. Ironically though it actually wanted to weaken the government which was a reversal from their ideas in earlier times when they ahd been in power. The threat of secession mirrored the later attitudes of southerners. The contrasts from traditional roles associated with New England are quite ironic.
Whether the war was justified or not, it did solidify the country's identitiy. We had stood up to the British a second time, and they could be portrayed as an enemy with the burning of the capitol and impressments. The war gave us a national identity, and it did set the stage for land expansion into Indian lands even if we didn't really win anything from the British.
The War of 1812, as stated by the book, is believed to be the "least remembered major military conflict in U.S. history." Just as shocking as its apparent unpopularity in grade school history classes, the war itself was widely debated upon by Federalist and Republicans as to whether it was just or not. While it is noted that there were certainly other factors that attributed to the declaration of war, the Republicans use the british policy of impressment to spearhead their arguement for war. Throughout the years since Washington, Great Britain had enforced a policy of impressment on U.S. ships by taking american citezens of the ships and forcing them to serve in Her Majesty's navy. This particular policy was veiwed as the single most used arguement by Republicans in favor of war. Within the Republican newspaper clipping, the reader gets a very good sense as to the emotional vigor with which the Republicans opposed impressment, as they name it as the main distinguishing feature between Great Britain and France, yeilding England to be the "greatest agressor". In addition to the "barbarous" acts of impressment by Great Britain, Felix Grundy enumerates another arguement for the war with England, which lies in the threat from native Americans from the west. While Grundy does cite impressment as an atrocity, even more awful is his belief that England (and possibly France) were heavily influencing the native Americans to wage war and attack the United States from the west. Again England is weeded out as the MAIN culprit for the increase in native violence as they were well known to have ties to Northern tribes. With the widespread hatred of impressment and the growing tension and distrust from the West, the Republicans were able to piece together an extremely solid arguement for the necessity of war. I did think however that the Federalist Daniel Webster's criticism of the war was, in contrast to that of the Republicans, very weak. In stead of finding his own reasons to oppose the war, he simply seems to downplay the problems that the Republicans made known. He in fact recognizes that impressment occurs often but he writes about it as if it is nothing bad and he clearly believes that England is in the right. The Horsman and Dowd essays both agree on many aspects of the war as a general success for the United States, but there was certainly a down-side as well. While the U.S. triumphed in the war, devastation was brought to the native Americans and the confederation was all but destroyed. Tribes and leaders were scattered or brutally murdered and all hope for native rebellion was lost. Further to the north, the Canadiens were also vastly impacted by the effects of the war. Canada had successfully repelled attacks from the United States and therefore set out distinguishing themselves from the U.S. and creating a lasting uneasiness about their neighbor to the south. It is clear to see why so many Americans held strong opinions about the war (both for and against), as problems on the coast and frontier were in the minds of all Americans leading up to 1812.
I find the War of 1812 to be a very confusing conflict because of the different causes of the war. In most wars, there seems to be a singular cause that can be pointed to as the reason for the war. At the very least there seems to be a common enemy. However, in the War of 1812 it seemed as if the United States just chose to fight the United Kingdom in large part because they were the lesser of two evils with the French. Also, as pointed out by Gregory Dowd, there was a large influence on the war by Native Americans. I thought it was nice to hear the two extremes of the opinions about the war, one from the "war hawks" and one from the Federalists with what seemed to be a moderate opinion in the middle by John Quincy Adams. I think the War Hawk opinion was quite prideful and very deserving of the title which is given to the group. Grundy made it seem as if Native Americans were commissioned to brutally attack American settlers by British. Though reports show that the British were allied in there sentiments toward American expansion prior to the war, it seems Grundy did not take into account that the settlers were stealing the land of these people. I found his message quite ambitious as well, calling for the addition of Louisiana, Florida, and even Canada to the United States. Daniel Webster's criticism of the war, in the same respect was a little ridiculous. He claims that impressments were not occurring by the British, only that they were claiming "the right to the service of her own subjects, in a time of war. . ." He also claims that Great Britain had been "amicable" about fixing this problem, which was a patently false. I though John Quincy Adams had a good opinion on the subject, in which I most likely would have joined. His opinion that the war was tragic but necessary seemed to touch the most realism. Horsman's take on the outcome of the war was interesting, and frankly one that I had not ever considered. When speaking of the conclusion of the war, he noted the failures of America to gain what they had desired in the declaration of war, namely lands in Canada. I did think that Horsman borderlined on giving too little credit to the American army in their victory. It should be noted, this was the same country that had already defeated Britain once only thirty years prior. Dowd's alternative perspective of the outcome of the war paints quite of different picture of America's "success." The conclusion of the war is typically seen as a British loss, but in this reading it seemed all the more a Native American loss, because the British really did not lose anything in particular, they simply failed to gain. On the contrary, groups like the Red Sticks lost leaders, lands, and their faith in allies like the British. Because of this unique perspective, I liked Dowd's take the best, though both commentaries this week were very good.
During the time before the War of 1812, impressments and the “Indian threat” made up a majority of the claims why America should go to war with Britain. Impressments were mentioned in both documents one and two, though they made up all of the argument in the first one while only providing the introduction in the second. The British are actually not mentioned much in the documents at all, making it seem like the war was more of an excuse to attack the natives and claiming some land. Document seven denounces the evils of the British at Washington DC, but makes the president into more of a heroic figure, as he was on horse back for the whole day and would not leave until he had to. The news paper was probably propaganda to incite more hatred against the British. Impressments are a completely understandable reason for American citizens to get angry with the British. Thinking that the Indians were allied with the British to attack Americans seems like a flimsy argument, as the only evidence that document two provides is the claim that the Indians were not smart enough to cause a war without the influence of a European power. In fact, document five makes it seem more likely that the Indians are out on their own, as Tecumseh claimed all whites of being evil and needing to be removed from America. The British were also white. Document six just has William Henry Harrison trying to build up the threatening nature of the Indians so he could have a reason to attack them and take their land. Adam’s citations of National pride as a reason looks like the least likely reason to go to war, but it was a feeling that people like the Warhawks wanted to protect, so it’s a reason none the less. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the northerners like Daniel Webster disapproving of war. Webster refutes the impressments as reasons for war, saying that they have been over exaggerated, but he then kind of seems to be way too inline with Britain, saying that they actually have the right to do so. I could see how some people of the time were distrusting of this. The Hartford Conventions List shows the pettiness of the Federalists at the time, declaring that they had to have things their way. As of the results of the war, Reginald Horsman describes how it affected Britain, Canada, and America. The war hardly affected the British, because their huge defeats of the super power France came soon after the war was over. This makes sense since France was perceived as a threat to British sovereignty. Napoleon’s defeat ensured that he could not conquer Europe. Canada and America received a boost in national identity. Canada kicked America’s butt, so the increase in their national pride seems valid. It seems funny that America would, as they could not win the war and the treaty did not really solve any of their needs. The war also showed the weakness in Jefferson’s small army and navy. Gregory Evans Dowd discusses American and Indian relations. The war ended any further alliances between northern and southern Indians, making sure that it took around seventy years before any pan-Indian movement occurred. It also made sure that there was no serious Indian threat to the American government again. As the title of his argument suggests, it was a total and utter defeat for the Indians. Dowd clearly backs up his opinion with many instances of Indian military defeat. The Indians had only the reservations to look forward to.
Source 1 and 3 contrast nicely, demonstrating that the major stated cause for war was completely removed by the British government before the beginning of the conflict. J.Q. Adams accepts the necessity of war but if we'd listened to him earlier and recognized that Napoleon was at least as much of an offender as Britain we probably could have avoided the whole mess. Source 2 shows the major cause for war and the most important change created by the war between Britain and the U.S: an end to organized Indian resistance. Tecumseh comments to W.H. Harrison that they will decide the real outcome of western expansion while the president sits in his house. He was mostly right, although Madison was forced to observe the western and eastern sections of the War of 1812 from outside Washington, since his home was on fire. The Federalist criticism of the war in Source 4 doomed their proposed constitutional amendment in Source 9 (which were too ambitious anyway and contrary to the interests of Southern voting power and western expansion). I thought that Horsman's article was an interesting observation of the growth of both American and Canadian nationalism, while Dowd's article reflects the centrality of sources 2, 5, and 6: the end of organized Indian resistance was brought about through an otherwise inconclusive war.
The war of 1812, and the subsequent arguments for and against it are closely tied to typical and partisan, American politics. Once again, as seen during the presidency of John Adams, the federalists, based in the industry and shipping of the East coast (and particularly the North East), were opposed to war-chiefly to protect their interests in European trade. At the same time, the new war-hawk sect of the Republican party, led by the rambunctious Westerner Henry Clay and South Carolinian John C. Calhoun would make the call for war, citing the actions of aggressive British foreign policy-impressments, Indian relations, etc. Looking at our documents, we can see both sides of the argument. First, in reading Webster, his arguments do not really translate to someone reading in retrospect; the idea that America should look past British hostilities doesn’t really make sense to the post war reader. Sure he was protecting American trade interests, and sure Great Britain was the most powerful nation in the world (a power to feared and not likely defeated twice in one half century), but the British were philandering in interior relationships with American Indian populations, and kidnapping citizens. Gundy makes more sense. For one of the first time the ideals of American destiny and empire are readily available; and again looking in retrospect, one can see how the Republican party grew while the Federalists shrunk away to obscurity.
The arguments for and against the War of 1812 appear be closely tied to fears of hostile Native Americans. Anxiety of the threat Native Americans posed is explicitly mentioned in Document 2, where Gundy denounces the impressments of American sailors and especially the British manipulation and incitement of the “savage tribes” to violence. It is also worth noting that Gundy is an American from the Western frontier, where the threat of Native American attacks against Americans remained high and where the British could readily supply them from Floridian and Canadian outposts. These people had a real stake in a war to push Great Britain out of America, but there was also a sense of inevitability amongst the other pro-war documents. John Quincy Adams laments that war could not be avoided, but failing that the only recourse faced by the new nation was war against an imperious Great Britain, elaborated upon by Document 1 in the sense that since Great Britain is the greater oppressor they should be opposed in alignment with the lesser evil France. The anti-war arguments suggest a deeper anxiety of British designs and Native American incitement among the war hawks than pro-war sources do. Webster in document 4 criticizes the impressments of American sailors, but essentially paints the war hawks as eager for war, exaggerating the impacts of impressments and commercial interdiction, for why should those who don’t feel the effects of these actions feel more passionately than those losing family and friends? This divide suggests to me that anxieties over Native Americans drove the war hawks more than a sense of injustice over British actions on the high seas.
ReplyDeleteThese auxiliary anxieties really reflect well in the essays. Horsman is undoubtedly correct in stating that an American victory was improbable. Jefferson left the nation virtually defenseless, yet America still went to war against Great Britain hoping to rectify the situation on the seas and especially on the Western frontier. As incapable as America was, Great Britain largely fought to a draw due to inept leadership and more pressing matters at hand in Europe. Despite the tenuous stalemate the U.S managed to secure and the burning of the capitol, I agree that the war fostered a sense of national identity. None of the stated war aims were accomplished in the war, but fantastic victories against Native Americans and especially against the British in the Battle of New Orleans had the effect of vindicating the war and affirming the ability of the United States to stand up to outside threats.
Dowd has legitimate points as well, although I doubt that the War of 1812 was the event that determined the success or failure of Native Americans to resist American expansion westward. It is fair to say that the conflict expedited their defeat, but to say that it led to their defeat and disunity is overstating things drastically. There is no real evidence to suggest that Native Americans could truly resist American expansion, and his argument rests on the premise that the demise of Tecumseh and the Prophet during the war ended any hope of a pan-Indian confederation that might resist expansion. The war did divide and weaken them for later conquest, but what evidence is there that there that they could stand against the Americans at all?
He is reaching in hi argument.
The conflicting arguments for and against the War of 1812 in the primary sources were once again mostly based around opposing views from the Republicans and Federalists. The argument for the war was extremely strong on the side of the Republicans who also had evidentiary support as to why war was the only solution. I felt like the Republicans absolutely had a stronger case for the war than the Federalists case for not going to war. The Republicans had three big points to support their case that to me seemed only natural that something would need to be done to help these situations out. The argued that the British impressments, naval freedom of the seas for American ships, and the pride of the American citizens, were big factors in 1812 in America that needed to be taken care of so American could completely gain the freedom from Britain they fought for around thirty years before. The Republicans knew that just letting their citizens get impressed off of American ships and continuing to letting it happen would have probably caused great distrust among the citizens. They needed to lay their foot down and tell the former mother country that they could not just capture people like that without consequences. The Republicans also understood that if something was not done about Britain taking American ships and continuing to control the seas and commerce, there was a possibility that it would continue like this for years to come. The Federalists played all this down like it was just trivial little issues that were not important to the welfare of their country. Their real reason becomes clear that it was just an attempt to prohibit the national government from taking more control. In Daniel Webster’s segment I felt almost as if he was defending England and saying that the British had done nothing wrong. That seemed traitor-ish to me. I feel like the Federalists could almost be considered traitors for not wanting to protect the government that they spent so much time making. Webster sounded so single minded and sure of himself that his words were the truth. It was almost like he was lying to himself about the situation. He did not give and evidentiary support worth defending why the decision to go to war would turn out negatively. The Federalist were ready to sacrifice the safety of the country rather than give the government more control. That sounds selfish to me. The outcomes according to Horsman and Dowd were agreeing with each other on the fact that the war would have consequences both good and bad in later years. Horsman seemed to me like he was more concerned with how the war changed America for the better. Dowd to me was more concerned with showing that America was oppressive to the Indians and how it was to severely change Indian culture and the Indian people forever. I agree with Horsman on his point that after the war, instead of America just showing an on the face reaction to something that they disliked, they began to act on that dislike. I feel like this probably proved to the American citizens that the government was strong enough to hold itself together during a war. I think that even if Britain did not really feel anything from this war it gave America a new sense of pride and made the people have a firmer belief in their new nation. It is also hard not to agree with Dowd that America treated the Native Americans terribly. I think the point of his essay was to show that the American militias were stronger during the war than anyone could have imagined and that all the winning battles were almost just pure luck. I really enjoyed the reading this week.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the primary sources I find the War of 1812 as confusing as before. The conflicting arguments of the War of 1812 from the primary sources were in my opinion, fairly weak. The primary argument both for and against the war was the impressments of American sailors and ships by British ships. Those advocating the war stated that the lawless invasions of personal liberty called for immediate government involvement. Felix Grundy stated, “I am not prepared to say that this country shall submit to have her commerce interdicted or regulated by any foreign nation. Sir I prefer war to submission.” People like Grundy who advocated the war I feel had more of a nationalistic sense towards its justification, more U.S. bravado. Advocates also claimed that with victory the war would drive the British from America. They would no longer have the opportunity of intriguing the neighboring Indians to “tomahawk our women and children.” Britain would also lose their trade with Canada and have no resting place in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThose opposing the war state simply that the impressments of sailors does not call for all out warfare. Daniel Webster claims that the number of these cases has been extravagantly exaggerated and a great misrepresentation to the American public. He also claims that those supporting the war are delegates from states who have no seaman of their own, while those states with three-fourths of the mariners of the U.S. are by great majorities, against the war. He also states that the war could have been avoided had the United States government adhered to British policy prohibiting American officers from granting protections, of certificates of citizenship to British subjects.
The outcomes of the war were different for many groups of people including Americans, Brits, Canucks, and Indians. The War of 1812, according to Dowd, stands as pan-Indianism’s most thorough failure. The Indians were all but crushed and dispersed following the war. The Red Sticks in particular suffered great losses during the Creek War; Dowd states that between July 1813 and April 1814 close to half of all Red Stick men had met violent deaths. The war brought a sense of national pride to the Canadians. The failure of the United States to conquer Canada, according to Horsman, enhanced the sense of Canadian identity and helped create a long-lasting suspicion of the United States. The war seemed to have less of an impact on the large countries fighting it, the U.S. and Great Britain. According to Horsman within one hundred years the well-educated Englishman had never heard of it. However, during the war the British public grew fearful seeing American ships passing unscathed in the Channel and the Irish Sea. They now realized how vulnerable they were to this new power across the Atlantic. As for Americans it represented their strength and the aftermath of the war even gave a stimulus to the infant American industries.
During TJ's presidency just preceding the second war with the British, there were some major issues that began to develop for the Americans. Most of Europe was in the middle of defending itself against Napoleon who seemed bent on conquering all of it. With the British stretched pretty thin militarily, it looked for some unusual ways of making up for losses. To the British, the idea of impressments looked like a viable option. They boarded numerous American merchant ships headed for Europe and forced many men aboard those ships to join the mighty British navy. In primary source document four, Daniel Webster makes a case that impressment is not all that bad. That is ridiculous. I don't care which way you look at the situation. The main point is that Britons were kidnapping hundreds of American citizens. This seems like a necessary cause for war. Webster claims that the number of impressment cases is exaggerated which is probably true, but even if it were 100 cases and not 1,000 that is still just cause for some sort of retaliation. The English were taking advantage of a much weaker country that they still hold contempt for losing to thirty years earlier. However, Webster does make a number of good points worth noting about the public opinions in New England at the time. He says that most of the men taken by the alleged impressments would be mariners from New England, which adamantly opposes the war. Shouldn't they be more upset if their brothers, husbands, and fathers are missing? I honestly don't know a good response to this having not done more research into the impressment situation and their geographical places of residence. Anyway, in my opinion, I believe that war was inevitable and the War Hawk argument may not have been better, but it was the most reasonable reaction to another country's blatant acts of aggression. Felix Grundy in document two gives us a clear picture of what the real War Hawk mentality must have been. He believes that the annexation of Canada to the United States is within our reach (which apparently military strategists later take to heart and try to actually do many times and fail).
ReplyDeleteJ.Q. Adams makes a much clearer argument for war in document three, saying that there is no other option except it or the "abandonment of our right as an independent nation." That's pretty serious stuff, especially coming from the son of Federalist President Adams. Besides impressment, the other issue of major importance was the Indian Problem in the Old Northwest and in the Mississippi Territory. Reactionary Americans believed that they were being instigated and armed by the British. They could not accept the fact that Tecumseh was actually doing an incredible job attempting to form a pan-Indian confederation to oppose the Americans; this had to be the work of the British! Well, William Henry Harrison thought otherwise, after meeting Tecumseh, he knew that this man was a natural born leader that would have formed an empire "were it not for the vicinity of the United States." So, the next step was war. The Democratic-Republican leadership was hasty in declaring it. Somehow and ill-equipped army and a small but well-trained navy actually helped the U.S. obtain a victory. But with victory came no results that they had originally intended. Horsman states that "the failure of the United States to achieve her aims in the peace treaty was passed over in the rejoicing that the war ended with a complete American victory on land." I had to quote that because I could not sum it up any better. The U.S. wanted to stop impressments (which it did kinda), conquer Canada (the attempts made a future annexation nearly impossible), and get rid of the Indian problem (which it slowed down not by victory over the British, but with the death of Tecumseh). The results of the war meant the end for the seemingly anti-Patriotic Federalists in New England thanks to the bad timing of the Hartford Convention and a renewed sense of nationalism. I found the combination of primary documents and the two essays the most interesting of the readings so far because within a period of three years (1811-1814) so many policies and ideas radically changed; not to mention the people that gained fame in battle that would later be high ranking political figures (i.e. W.H. Harrison, Jackson, Taylor)
ReplyDeleteA few of the arguments for war against the British seem to be specific to the nature of the British history with the Americans. The thought was, “The British oppressed us forty years ago, and true to their nature, they’re trying to do the same again. War was right and justified then, and war is right and justified now.” Much of the discourse centered on rights that were inherent and could not be abridged, and this seems similar to Jefferson’s language in the Declaration of 1776. The impressment of American sailors by the British is used by proponents of war as a direct affront to American life and liberty. The United States was therefore obligated to protect those rights through war.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, it was perceived by war proponents that the British were inspiring natives to unify against the Americans. This constitutes a direct threat to the American government. If the British are inciting insurrection against the United States they are the enemy of the United States. Not only will war, when won, prevent any insurrection from occurring, but it will also drive the British from the continent for good and will make any attempt at insurrection in the future impossible.
John Quincy Adams is a noteworthy proponent for war against Great Britain. His father, as a Federalist, was pro-British and seemingly anti-war given his refusal to engage in war with France. John Quincy proposes war against the British because, to him, there is no other option; the war is “unavoidable.”
Daniel Webster gives pretty good arguments against war with the British. He precedes his arguments with a reminder to war proponents that opposing war with the British does not make one a coward or unpatriotic, and if they thought the war justified they would be ready to fight alongside their countrymen. He argues that the impressment of sailors by the British is overstated by war proponents. He states that the severity and quantity of instances are not true, and that most of the impressed sailors are from states represented by opponents to the war. He also believes that other arguments in favor of war have been hyperbolized and the prospect of a “ruinous war” is too dangerous to give in to hysterical fears.
I find it hard to have a firm opinion on the arguments for or against war. The arguments presented by the war hawks are legitimate, and if the nature of the offenses and threats of the British were as they make them, war seems to be very legitimate. But men like Webster had their doubts for good reason, and it seems very likely that, like today, those who bang the drums of war do so more loudly than reality would dictate. All in all I probably default towards the war proponents because of John Quincy Adams. I find him to be a reasonable man from a very reasonable background, and therefore I give great credence to his pro-war stance.
In terms of the aftermath of the War, Horsman and Dowd make a few observations. Horsman says that the war gave the United States a sense of pride that would propel it to dominate the hemisphere in the years to come. This seems highly significant within the context of the Monroe Doctrine and American foreign policy was forever changed. Dowd talks about the consequences of the War within the context of the Natives, and that hopes of successful pan-Indianism would be forever crushed. The fate of the Native Americans was firmly planted as a result of the American success in the War of 1812.
After reading this weeks primary sources about The War of 1812, it is clear to see each sides opposing arguments on why or why not the war would take place with the mother country. I wasn’t fully aware of the altercations that the United States and Great Britain had in the times after the American Revolution until coming to this University. It is almost as if America feels that they do not have to teach and analyze the War of 1812 because of its lack of importance, which doesn’t make sense to me. The Primary sources have different views on why this immature nation should yet again prove their independence and fight for the rights they had jus earned no more than 50 years ago. With there being constant publicity about the British Impressments, the Republican Party was completely for the war and had all the Pros as to why this needed to be settled in warfare. As a Republican Newspaper put it, “Thefts of American Citizens” the Brits wasn’t taking a barrel of whiskey or a bail of cotton, they were taking American lives and the Republicans just added fuel to the fire with issues like these as to why The War of 1812 was just. Felix Gundy exemplifies heart in his battle cry to the War Hawks’ saying, “for many years past they have been in the practice of impressing our seaman, from merchant vessels; this unjust and lawless invasion of persona liberty, calls loudly for the interposition of this Government.” John Quincy Adams also knew that the last alternative had been taken, War. It wasn’t an overpowering king declaring war on a inferior nation, it was congress having over whelming evidence of impressments and British support to Native Americans as to why the war was declared. Now it seemed if you were against the war, then you must be willing to surrender your right as an independent nation. The Federalist made it abundantly clear that War should not take place. In Daniel Webster’s document, He seems it exceptionally hard to find a relevant reason for the declaration of war. This seems odd to me because if I was a relative of one of the US citizens taken captive by British Ships and nothing was being done about it, it would seem as if all the lives lost in the American Revolution was lost in vein. He claims that the America lives taken by the Royal Navy and help captive have been “misinterpreted.” Personally, I hardly see relevance in his argument because if they are willing to take ten men, then they are willing to take thousands. He also compares the decision of war among the last presidents that served which still remains in politics today. Of course the past presidents like Washington, Adams and Jefferson did not deem impressments just for war, however should America let these continue on and on? My answer would be no because eventually, sooner or later something had to done about the wrongful actions of Great Britain. In Horsman’s essay, he makes it clear that the United States was extremely inferior to the British navy and just because America won the war didn’t mean they got anything in return. They received none of their demands they had wished for but personally I think they got something just as important, more American Nationalism. They had proven their self not once but twice and had every reason to feel a sense of pride. Dowds’s essay seemed to be derogatory towards the united States at this time because of the overwhelming Native American oppression. He makes it seem that this was the time, this was the date that the Native Americans would make their push against the western expansion onto their lands but this would be their epic fail. The war of 1812 to Dowds was not the victory for American but the dismemberment of the pan-Indian movement. After this had taken place, it only confirmed to American citizens the weakness of the Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for war made by the War Hawks proclaimed the British aggression on the US’s neutral trade rights as unacceptable and cause for war. Impressment, unfair trade restrictions, and encroachment on the US coast are certainly reasonable concerns, but it’s pretty obvious that these were RED HERRING arguments.
ReplyDeleteWhile Felix Gundy said “Sir, I prefer war to submission” and John Quincy Adams said that there may be “no alternative left but war or the abandonment of our right as an independent nation.” I question whether these men really believed America’s long-term stability was threatened from all the way across the Atlantic. The truth, as these documents reveal, is that the West (the interior) and the North (Canada) were the real concerns. The first evidence of the over-used historical buzzword MANIFEST DESTINY seems to be the real motivation for War.
Gundy continued to say “My mind is irresistibly drawn to the West.” The War Hawk Democrats believed that Great Britain was ‘intriguing’ the Native population into resisting the American western expansion. Of course these Native peoples did not want to keep losing their homes and having their treaties broken. And, of course Great Britain had an interest (especially when concerning their Canadian trade) in weakening the American interior. But, the War Hawk agenda was an aggressive offensive plan and not the imperiled defensive act that it was portrayed to be. The move west was the motivation, not the protection of the Atlantic.
The interaction between William Henry Harrison and Tecumseh is interesting. Harrison calls him “one of those uncommon geniuses.” Tecumseh’s lofty goals and powerful confederation forced the western governments (and eventually the national government) to actively remove them, rather than gradually swindle the natives in the way that Jefferson had endorsed. The War Hawks were right to think that Tecumseh could not be ignored. The Native’s had every right to the land that they fought for, but by provoking the full might of the United States’ aggression they stood no chance in the long run. The Natives would have been removed either way, but by naming Great Britain as the enemy in war the Hawks made the removal of natives a part of an idealism that all Americans could get behind. They made Indian removal an extension of the revolution itself.
The Federalist reaction was rightfully suspicious. Daniel Webster recognized that impressment was neither new nor extreme, he said: “the number of these cases has been extravagantly exaggerated.” Rather than argue for transparency from the Democrats, and requiring them to either provide sufficient evidence of British impressments or admitting that the focus of the war was pushing Natives off of their land, the Federalists fumbled a great opportunity.
The Federalists don’t appear to have had an idealistic objection to the war. They simply wanted to take advantage of what they believed was a foolish move. The Federalist agenda was not to stop the war, but to use the failure of the war as an example of the Democratic incompetence. The amendments of the Hartford Convention are an example of the Federalists wanting only to limit their political disadvantage. They sought to undo apportionment and limit the Democrat’s monopoly of the Executive. If they had their 2/3 majority amendments there would likely never be war again, or any other meaningful act of congress. The Federalists let the Democrats off the hook by not addressing valid discrepancies and crippled their own interest by overplaying their hand at a very bad time (just as the war was ending).
ReplyDeleteHorsman’s essay really fails to make sense of the War Hawk agenda. Horsman sees the War as a no gain, because it did nothing to change the British actions in the Atlantic, but as a good thing because it made the population feel a sense of nationalism. He says that the U.S. should have expanded the navy to fight “an undeclared war at sea.” That would have addressed the claims of British impressments and the fear that American liberty was being threatened at sea, but the War Hawk concern with the interior and Indian removal would not have been addressed. Horsman does not see the War of 1812 as an aggressive play for expansion, instead he sees it as a defensive stalemate. I would disagree.
Dowd’s essay sides completely with the Indian perspective. It’s hard not to agree that Indians were swindled, lied to , aggressively removed, and often unjustly massacred. Who would argue that Manifest Destiny justifies ignoring human rights in our contemporary world view? Still, Dowd’s arguments are transparently one sided. It’s interesting that he calls the Indian and Briton victory at Fort Dearborn and Detroit as “Stunning” but he calls Jackson’s triumphs “a dreadful victory.” Dowd is right, the American war against the Indians could (in my mind) be called evil. But, his essay does not (for me) provide an accurate picture of the War of 1812 because he goes too far to sympathize with the Indian perspective. It’s a really useful article, but not the best way to give a ‘big picture’ analysis of the war.
After reading the sources and the historian’s perceptions of the War of 1812, I agree with the introduction to the chapter when saying that this is one of the most overlooked wars in American history. The war was a major test on the new republic. Britain seemed as if it could walk in and take back what they had lost from the Revolutionary War. Indian forces in the west were opposing everyone who were encroaching on their land, and really having to side with the best option for their survival if pushed far enough. American’s were and desperately trying to maintain a government that wouldn’t crumble under the first sign of trouble. Above all I think this was just a tremendously sad period of time that had to be exploited by the American’s to increase nationalism.The first source expresses the question of which side to help? Jefferson’s Embargo Act tried to help solve this problem. The second source calls the North American continent an EMPIRE! This is astonishing to me. I think Grundy highlights the possible outcomes very well but only to secure this “American Empire.” This idea had to be terrifying to those who perceived their new country an actual Republic. When Webster calls to criticize the war I feel like he does a pretty poor job. After reading this I would side with those of the previous who were calling for war. I would at least feel some security in my own land fighting than letting the possibility of being taken over again. When Tecumseh addresses Harrison I think this is very moving. Although a war chief, he presents a solid argument of simplicity when he talks about purchasing from all. He avidly supports the idea that the land is for everyone and no one single race of people has the right to claim stake to a particular piece of land if they do it should be approved by all. I think this is very admirable. Harrison’s reaction to Tecumseh proved exactly what I thought. There was no care for the native people, only how to deal with them. You can also tell how scared he was of him as well talking so highly of him. I feel like he would only do that if he was scared deep down. As for the secondary sources, Horsman highlights the ineptness of the American people in this time and how unready they were for a war. But to the American’s surprise and advantage, they succeeded in their victories and lost no land. Horsman explains how this turned into a nationalism that escaladed into natural feeling. People genuinely believed in their own government after the war and were capable of being an independent nation. Dowd’s piece sums up the destruction of the Native uprisings in the midst of the turmoil. Americans were fighting multiple enemies in multiple locations stemming from multiple directions. This reading only makes me more empathetic to those who defended themselves against the evils that were manifesting at this time. I could think of no greater fall of emotional stability than to be a Native and go through the turmoil of dealing with white settlers and armies, or for a white settler to deal with the spreading government and expansion of a country based on piracy pretty much. There it seems were a few people possibly(?) who were completely against this and knew what was going on, but we never really hear of those folks. Tecumseh comes closest in my mind from what I have read. The word empire rings in my head still while reading this. I can’t help but think that contemporary history highlights these types of times as victorious, or omits them from common knowledge. Reasons for that are clear when this period of time is examined. There are lots and lots of people getting killed, and for what? Essentially the outcome will only be an empire, either an empire of Natives to fight an empire of Whites, or an empire of America against the empire of Europe. Either way the formation of another empire is in the works at this point in time. After the war when the country erects the Second Bank of the United States, this I feel like would be the beginning of the end.
ReplyDeleteThe support and opposition to the War of 1812 once again in the early republic was found through the partisan divisions between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. The main argument of pro-war supporters came from the Republicans and the main call for arms was the British’s unconstitutional and immoral methods of impressment of American soldiers in international waters. “Thefts of American citizens! The greatest aggressor” proclaimed a Republican Newspaper in 1811, was a clear and the fundamental reason for going to war with the British. Another pro-war sentiment cried out by the War Hawk Republicans and Felix Grundy was that the British were supplying arms and inciting the Indians of the western frontier against the new American settlers of this area. Grundy writes, “We shall drive the British from our Continent- they will no longer have an opportunity of intriguing with our Indian neighbors, and settling on the ruthless savage to tomahawk our women and children.” The anti-war sentiment came from the Federalist side and was clearly shown in Daniel Webster’s letter of criticism. Webster does not argue against the horrible acts of impressment, but rather says they have been extremely exaggerated and the actual number of impressed American citizens was way lower than actually reported. Also Webster argues that the greatest voices arguing for war are “entertained by the representatives of those states, which have no seamen at all of their own; while those sections of the community, in which more than three-fourths of the mariners of the United States have their own homes, are, by great majorities, against that war.” Thus Webster’s and the Federalists main arguments against the war is that the number of impressments is extremely misrepresented and over-exaggerated and that the states who are in favor of the war do not even have seaman who can or have been impressed by the British.
ReplyDeleteThe War of 1812 was a success for the Americans although the Treaty of Ghent of 1814 made no major pre-war changes both in territorial boundaries owned by the Americans of the British or any other legislation regarding relations between America and Great Britain. According to the historian Reginald Horsman in his essay “The Improbable American Success” the War of 1812 was a success for America because “A war that was begun to win respect for American maritime rights by the conquest of Canada was finally viewed as a success in the United States because it resulted in the loss of no American territory, and did not bring about the collapse of the government.” Here Horsman along with many other historians argue the outcome of the War of 1812 successfully ended Great Britain’s entanglement in American affairs, especially out on the western frontier and demonstrated that this newly formed democratic republic could withstand the super power like Britain. The “victory” Americans achieved promoted the “protection of economic coercion and war had even given a stimulus to the infant American industries.” Historian Gregory Evans Dowd notes the importance of the War of 1812 in that the war crushed the Indian resistance to American western expansion and was the first major failure of the Indian tribes to create a united coalition against the expansion efforts of the United States. Dowd writes, “the War of 1812 stands as pan-Indianism’s most thorough failure, its crushing defeat, its disappointing anticlimax.” The major accomplishment spawning from War of 1812 between the United States and Great Britain was the successful defeat of the Indians on the western frontier and this defeat was the preliminary success for the U.S. government to begin their all-out seizure of western Indian lands and Jefferson’s dream of the expansion of the great empire.
The first four primary documents together provide contrasting justifications and criticisms of the War of 1812. The first, taken from a pro-war newspaper, decries the evils of impressment, or the “barbarous thefts of American citizens.” While the author of these words did not say that the U.S. should go to war with Britain because of impressment, the author did say that America should stand strong for its rights and attempt to be a friend to both France and England, as long as they both “do us justice.” The author of the next document is much more fervent in his desire to stand up to the British. While Felix Grundy acknowledges that impressment was an “unjust and lawless invasion” of American liberty, his focus is mainly on British presence elsewhere on the continent. He argues that the potential collaboration between the British and the Indians was a dangerous risk that the young nation could ill afford, an argument that William Henry Harrison later supports. His argument was mainly formed around the annexation of Canada and the Floridas; the annexation of these two territories, combined with the previous addition of the Louisiana territory, would have effectively ended Europe’s viable presence in North America. On the contrary, Daniel Webster, an anti-war Federalist, admits that impressment would have been the most valid reason for war, but that stories of it were greatly exaggerated and were in fact no different than they had been at the nation’s founding. More convincingly, Webster argues that the coming war was avoidable, would never be over quickly, and did not have a chance of accomplishing its goals (ostensibly of halting impressment and keeping Britain out of North America). Despite the fact that many Americans, including Grundy, were so staunchly supportive of war with Britain, I can’t help but wonder why they thought they had a chance of succeeding. Even though they had won their independence from Great Britain roughly thirty years earlier, it was a victory that came at a very heavy physical and economic price; it was also a victory that did not result in a total defeat of the enemy. Great Britain was still the world’s unchallenged naval power, and the mother country still had a strong commercial presence in North America despite the embargo. Combined with the alliance between the British and the Indians against the Americans, it’s hard to imagine that anyone, whether a supporter or a critic of the war, thought they would have a chance of victory. In fact, Horsman details all the things that the Americans had going against them in the War of 1812, including a laughably small navy, a lack of efficient planning in an invasion of Canada, and a lack of military consistency. Even after the war was over and the peace treaty was signed, America did not achieve any of its prewar aims (which came as no shock to Daniel Webster).
ReplyDelete(continued)
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would have to agree with Horsman when he says that the War of 1812 was a “war of survival.” First of all, the fact that America was able to make it through its first few decades is a miracle, but the fact that America did not immediately collapse in the face of another round with a much stronger opponent is equally impressive. I do agree that many of America’s successes were based mostly on luck, but the greatest success of the War of 1812 was not that we “won” but that we didn’t lose. By not losing to Britain, as Horsman writes, America was able to reassert its sovereignty and protect its economic interests on the continent. America became “active” instead of “reactive” and was given an extra push westward as the threat of a pan-Indian movement was quelled with the end of the war, according to Dowd. Overall, I think Horsman’s title, “The Improbable American Success” provides a perfect description of the War of 1812.
The War of 1812 was strictly disagreed upon by the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Much of this disagreement was due to their differences in ideology and favor towards foreign nations. In part, the War of 1812 was caused by the Napoleonic Wars in Europe--the Federalists tended to favor Great Britain while the Democratic-Republicans favored the French. With a great deal of impressment by the British government on the open seas, much of the United States' sovereignty as a nation-state was threatened. Along with that, much of the arms that were being taken from Native Americans at that time were branded with British make on them. This incitement for conflict with the Native Americans gave many more Democratic-Republicans (at a time where expansion into Native American territory was most important) a cause for stir, and they strongly advocated war. So much was this, that men such as Speaker of the House Henry Clay and Congressman Fellix Grundy rose as a leader of War Hawks within the Democratic-Republicans. The War Hawks were met by Federal opposition which claimed that "a nation may call home her subjects to her defence and protection, in time of war" (129). Also, they downplayed the degree of impressment upon American merchant vessels. Going further they compared it to the "time of Washington" where impressment was much higher (however, that's an odd argument considering those acts lead to war).
ReplyDeleteThe war was a necessary evil of the eventual fate of the United States. I agree with Horsman's essay when he makes the main point that the War of 1812 was an enormous success for the United States. For one, "the War of 1812 stimulated the development of national feeling," (139). This togetherness (which was necessary to maintain a quick and strong settlement of the West) was highly beneficial to America. One would argue that it was not the roots of the believed Destiny that the United States would spread from Atlantic to Pacific. He makes the argument that after 1814, the United States has always taken the initiative in a conflict. Being the first to act, the U.S. has been able to maintain a position as a world power for an extended period of time.
At the same time, I also agree with Gregory Evans Dowd's essay. Down points out the many ways that the Native Americans were brushed aside in the sprawl West. Without the War of 1812, much of this would not have happened so quickly. For Native Americans, it was the nail in the coffin. According the Dowd, after the War of 1812, the tribes of the North and the tribes of the South had broken off most of their relations. In a way, the War of 1812 gave the United States a good excuse to remove the Native Americans from the lands that wished to be settled.
In the end, the best course for the United States, as a nation, was to proceed in the War of 1812 so as to maintain a new position on the world stage. Although it came with the grim implications of great mistreatment of Native Americans, much of this lead to the eventual stronger image of America in the world stage.
Grundy sums up the pro-war argument in one simple sentence, “Sir, I prefer war to submission (p.127).” The pro-war people felt like Brittan was trying to rule over them again and as people of a newly formed nation felt like they had to protect it at all costs. British impressments were one of the main reasons that some Americans wanted to go to war with Brittan; “this unjust and lawless invasion of personal liberty, calls loudly for the interposition of this Government (p.127).” The pro-war camp used this argument because it was sure to tug on the heart strings of every American. Every American could easily get mad over the fact that Brittan was boarding American ships, taking Americans off those ships, and killing some Americans in the process. The second reason that some people wanted to go to war with Brittan was due to the fact that they believed that Brittan was stirring up the Indians and supplying the Indians with weapons to kill Americans; “some powerful nation [Great Brittan] must have intrigued with them and turned their [Indians] peaceful disposition towards us into hostilities (p.127).” So once again, the pro-war camp is using the murdering of Americans to elicit an emotional response from all Americans in order to get them to cry out for war. The pro-war camp, especially the War Hawks, seemed like they were tired of a British presence in North America and wanted the British out of North America for good. The best way to get people to cry out for war is to make them feel like their lives or liberty is in danger. If America had not decided to go to war with Brittan I am pretty sure that the pro-war camp would have used the next tactic of calling everyone that opposed war un-American and say that they did not love liberty and freedom. But people like Grundy made sure they would not have to go as far as condemning their fellow Americans and used barbaric imagery to make sure they would condemn themselves if they did not support the war. Grundy uses barbaric imagery in his Battle Cry when he lists the benefits of removing British influence from America; “setting on the ruthless savage to tomahawk our women and children (p.127).” With a statement like that who in their right mind would not want to go to war with Brittan.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-war camp basically just called the pro-war people crazy and they were exaggerating the circumstances to provoke a war. People like Daniel Webster thought that the War Hawks were exaggerating and inflating the numbers of Americans that were being affected by British impressments. Webster also explained that some American merchant ships were taking British runaways and providing them with documentation that said they were American. According to Webster, this was the captain’s fault and the British had every right to impress American ships to get their men back; “[Brittan] has a right to the service of her own subjects (p.129).” Webster made the claim that impressments were not out of the ordinary especially during war time in order for a country to get back their men. Impressments were a common thing among all nations during war time and “it it recognized by the public law of Europe, and of the civilized world (p.129).” This last excerpt from Webster’s essay, to me at least, was a huge slap in the face to all Americans that still felt like they were living in a city (country) on a hill. Webster said that impressments to get back troops during war time was recognized by the entire CIVILIZED WORLD and anyone with a brain can realize that he was calling America uncivilized because they were not respecting the right of a country to get back their troops. To me, that seems like a pretty strong statement. But calling someone uncivilized does not have the same impact as saying they are allowing babies to be killed. The pro-war camp had the upper hand in the battle for the Americans’ support because they were able to provide reasons for war such as Brittan is getting Indians to tomahawk babies and Webster’s anti-war argument that Americans’ were being uncivilized just does not compete with the savage imagery used by the pro-war camp.
ReplyDeleteBy the time the United States entered the nineteenth century, it became evident that she would not be able to disentangle herself from European affairs as the first three presidential administrations had sought to do. The United States was far too dependent on Europe as an export market for American goods to withdraw their business from the continent, despite the growing agitations between France and Britain who each tried to influence American economic policies to best suit their political interests. The primary and secondary sources in this chapter reveal the controversy over the European conflict and the United States’ choice to officially got to war with the British in 1812.
ReplyDeleteIn the United States, the War of 1812 became another divisive issue for the Republicans and Federalists, providing the final attempt for the Federalist Party to gain political strength and momentum before being finally forced from the political scene at the end of the war. Primary documents reveal the opinions of each side, showing another sticky foreign policy situation which divided Republicans who favored the war and Federalists who naturally disapproved. Perhaps one of the greatest push factors for war with Britain was Britain’s policy of impressment. Republican newspapers did not hesitate to share the news of “barbarous THEFTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS” with the general populace, sparking outrage and fear that if the United States did not respond, then the country would lose credibility abroad. John Quincy Adams who was serving abroad as an American diplomat, acknowledged the necessity of war given the information in the hands of Congress at the time (Congress was unaware at the time they declared war that a British minister had sent a letter in which he agreed to repeal the policy of impressment.): “I cannot be surprised that they [Congress] should have considered all pacific and conciliatory means of obtaining justice as exhausted, and no alternative left but war or the abandonment of our right as an independent nation” (Wilentz 129). Federalists like Daniel Webster, however, severely criticized the war and argued that impressment had been over exaggerated by the Republicans and media: The impressment of our seamen, which forms the most plausible and popular of the alleged causes of war, we believe to have been the subject of great mispresentation” (Wilentz 128). He continued by saying that impressment had not worsened since Washington’s administration and that the whole issue was being manipulated to get Americans involved in European affairs.
Secondary sources by Reginald Horsman and George Evans Dowd interpret the outcomes and consequences of the War of 1812 in different lights. Horsman primarily argues that the outcome of the war was relatively insignificant for the British, and though the Americans achieved none of their desired goals in the peace treaty of 1814, they did emerge from the war with a new sense of strengthened nationalism after three rocky presidential administrations which had furiously fought to keep the Republic together. Dowd takes a different angle on the outcome of the 1812 war by focusing on the consequences the war had on Native American tribes. He argues that the War of 1812 did more to defeat Indian resistance against white settlers than any other event, including the death of Tecumseh. Warfare and Indian violence in the west prompted American soldiers to destroy Indian corn and food supplies as they marched: “The soldiers did not destroy the nativists’ will to fight, but they pushed the nativists into a greater reliance upon the British” who were unable to support them (Wilentz 141). Though Dowd’s perspective is engaging to read, the value of Tecumseh as a unifying leader should not be underplayed. Tecumseh was instrumental in using both diplomatic and military solutions in the Indian/American conflicts until he finally confronted William Henry Harrison on the battlefield. I would argue that Tecumseh’s death was easily as defeating to the pan-Indian cause as the War of 1812.
The source material in the textbook illustrates that there were other motivations for entering the War of 1812 than simple impressments of American sailors. For instance source four, which presents a Federalist’s views on the origins of the conflict, rightly points out that most of the leading proponents for the war were not from coastal areas with large populations of mariners. Instead, the greatest call for war came from the people and representatives from the states in the interior of the country. This is represented by source two which excerpts a speech in the House of Representatives by Felix Grundy a “representative from the west.” However, there can be no doubt that the “war hawks” used the impressments and the suspicion of many in the country that the British were giving aid to Native American belligerents on the frontier, as shown in both sources one and three.
ReplyDeleteSources four and five shed light on two facts that played into the aforementioned suspicion. First, the Native American threat was real and very much at issue in the years before and during the War of 1812. Second, the threat was not amplified by British aid; rather it was stoked by charismatic Native American leaders who preached a message of “pan-Indianism” which Gregory Evans Dowd explored in his essay at the end of the chapter. Although men like Tecumseh, his brother “The Prophet”, and the Red Sticks in Louisiana and Mississippi were ultimately unsuccessful at defeating the United States, their struggles mark the accumulation of Native American resistance to white encroachment. Dowd argues that the conclusion of the War of 1812 marked the total annihilation of “pan-Indianism”, an often overlooked result of the war.
Carrying on a theme which Reginald Horsman drives at in his essay, both sources eight and ten fit in nicely with Horsman’s argument that the “improbable American success” of the war lay in the new nationalistic pride and fervor that came out of the conflict. Francis Scott Key’s lasting lyrics to The Defense of Fort McHenry, better known today as The Star Spangled Banner, represented in source eight, are perhaps the War of 1812’s most enduring legacy to national pride. Additionally, source ten gives a vivid illustration of General Andrew Jackson’s newfound popularity that would sweep the country and change the course of United States’ history. “Old Hickory” would make his reputation first and foremost at the Battle of New Orleans which (although irrelevant to the outcome of the war given that the Treaty of Ghent had already been signed) would help to stoke the fires of nationalistic fervor and Jacksonmania. A rather peculiar source in this collection is number seven which gives a newspaper’s account of the burning of Washington D.C. It is quite possible that the country’s newfound nationalism was actually enhanced not only by the great victories of New Orleans and Lake Erie, but also by the shared outrage of having the nation’s capital sacked.
One final outcome of the War of 1812 which Horsman also mentions and source nine bares witness to was the near complete destruction of the Federalist Party. Source nine is part of the Federalists’ Hartford Convention’s list of grievance which bemoaned the war and called for its in. However, very soon after the convention the war did end and the aforementioned wave of nationalistic emotion swept the nation. As a result of this convention the Federalists were henceforth viewed as unpatriotic and it resulted in the collapse of their party.
The arguments for and against war with Great Britain seem to center around the how often and who the British were actually impressing. The Republicans claimed that the British, “were the first aggressors upon our neutral rights” and were taking American prisoners. Republicans thought that America needed to take a stand against the British and even more moderate politicians like John Quincy Adams believed that there was, “no alternative left but war or the abandonment of our right as an independent nation.” The Republicans then, thought that war was the only way to save their young nation from being run by the British. The Federalists on the other hand thought that the Republicans were blowing their grievances out of proportion. They believed that the charges of impressments, “have been the subject of great misrepresentation,” and the “number of cases has been extravagantly exaggerated.” The Federalists argued that the US should sympathize with the British because they were simply calling their own citizens back to fight in a war or as Daniel Webster put it, “Are we to fight the battles of British seamen?” The Federalists argument is pretty weak and it displays why after the war of 1812 that they failed to be player in national politics.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans also pointed to the increasing violence with Native Americans as cause to go to war with Great Britain. As Felix Grundy put it in 1811, “It cannot be believed by any man who will reflect, that the savage tribes, uninfluenced by other Powers would think of making war on the United States.” In other words the “savages” were being aided by the British to wage war on America. This argument held real weight especially with frontier dwelling Americans of the early republic. The Republicans, based on the documents available made the more convincing case for war with Great Britain.
The outcomes on the war had different effects on the US, Great Britain, and the Indians. Horsman believes that the war could have ended in disaster for the Americans but ended up boosting its standing in the world. Following the end of the war, in 1815, Horsman believes that the “United States acted rather than reacted and herself posed a threat to all powers who held territory on the North American Continent.” He believes that the “disorganized” America that began the war emerged as a new world power following the war. Dowd argues that the failure of the Indians to quell the attacks of the US was the first step in their eventual removal. Dowd sees the end of the war as leading to the extinction of the Indians within the new United States. He focuses on how the war “dismembered the pan-Indian movement” and ended any real threat of the Indians being apart of the United States. Dowd makes the more convincing argument and I agree with him that the failure of the Indians to unite lead to the Americans removing them from their land. Dowd’s argument provides good information on how the US really screwed the Native Americans out of their land.
According to the primary sources, the arguments are split between one side which aggressively advocates for war with the former mother country and the other side which holds a skeptical view of the rationality of going to war. Anger at the “barbarous theft of American citizens” via the British practice of impressments seems to be the greatest slight offense the British navy has perpetrated against the American nation and its citizenry. Such an unjust and lawless invasion of personal liberty, in the words of War Hawk Felix Grundy, necessitates an immediate and military response to prevent submission from the British Empire once again. Likewise, John Quincy Adams also argues for the “tragic necessity of the war” when he said these words: “no alternative but war or the abandonment of our right as an independent nation.”
ReplyDeleteAlternatively the opponents to war criticize the War Hawks staunch advocacy for war by asking the people to show proof of this overwhelming need for war with the greatest military and economic power in the world. Federalist Daniel Webster argues that the most common reason for the war, British impressments of American seamen, is grossly exaggerated and not greater than it was in the time of George Washington and the other presidents, and even they did not find it necessary to declare war. Webster calls on the War Hawks to present concrete and tangible evidence that such claims against the British are valid and he and the nation will vehemently defend, with their lives if need be, the country they call home.
The essay by Reginald Horsman interprets the War of 1812 as “limited victory” for the Americans. Grossly unprepared and divided, the new American republic was not ready for a war against the British and chance circumstances allowed the Americans to pull a victory out of the War of 1812 instead of total and humiliating defeat. Horsman argues that the Napoleonic Wars back in Europe caused the British to divert a large portion of its time and energy to winning that conflict and not throwing its full might at the United States. Also the lack of support for the war, most critically in New England, made the decision to go to war a poor one. The potential of a disastrous outcome for the Americans was very great, but somehow this “debacle” was turned into a near success. “Although the war aims had not been gained, nothing had been lost,” specified Horsman in his essay. The United States had a stunning and unexpected victory on land against the British regulars but failed to take the Canadian provinces in the north, leading to many Canadians to grow suspicious of their southern neighbors. Commerce flowed once again, American identity and independence grew stronger and more definite, and the British were soundly defeated for a second time. A time of crisis which has spanned the last twenty years before the war has passed according to Horsman, and the American nation is finally free from the shackles of the British.
ReplyDeleteIn Gregory Dowd’s essay speaks on the matter of the war with the Native Americans in the South and North of the country. The British were to blame for the aggressive actions of the Indians in both areas of the nation and this act would have to be met with swift American retribution. Tecumseh and his brother, the Prophet, aimed to create a pan-Indian movement to unite the Native American tribes in North America that were slowly being pushed out and exterminated. Instead of created this wide Indian confederacy, the War of 1812 according to Dowd, “stands as pan-Indianism’s most thorough failure”. Valiant and brave, the Indians in the south and north were able and willing to fight but did not have the promised support and in the quantity they hoped for from the British and Spanish. The War of 1812 was a great test of the Native Americans in North America that were in close proximity to the United States. But a serious technological disadvantage, a lack of unity, and a reneging of support from the British helped speed up the demise of Tecumseh and his dreams of a united Indian confederacy which could stand against the white man.
The arguments for war are interesting. The war hawks seem to function on the idea that impressments need to be dealt with and that war is the only way. That argument does have some validity. The impressments of American sailors were a major strike against the young nation. The number of ships seized and impressed by the British navy is substantial. However the argument against war brings up a good point. They seem to downplay the actual number of impressments by the British, however, the valid point they bring up is why the congressman and people from the west are getting upset at these strikes against American when the majority of the sailing or at least commercial trading people are from the northeastern coastal states. The people in the northeastern coastal states are trying to avoid war at all costs. Those people do not seem to be upset at the loss of American sailors nearly as much as the western states. Document 1 in the book contradicts the coastal theory presented above and in document 4. This is because in a Republican newspaper in Boston goes on to support a war and also the level of impressments dealt against America. This contradiction is mostly likely due to the paper being a republican sided newspaper. The republican were for the war since there was no alternative. John Quincy Adams brings up the point that due to the repealing of the British Orders in Council; there would be no choice for going to war. The new growing nation of America could not stand if they did nothing to protect its rights. Then when looking at the outcomes presented by Horsman and Dowd, you are presented with a look at American approval and strength through determination and luck and also America as a greedy land grabbing opportunistic nation. Both points have strong value. With Horsman, he is correct when he goes on to say that the hopes of the war were not achieved by America. They were not able to annex Canada and the Capital was burned to the ground. He does provide a strong American sentiment throughout his essay. America lost some battles but was able to defeat the British in others as well as defeated them at sea at times. The sea battles affected the moral of the British people due to British naval superiority. Horsman places this war as a major point in American history at least in shaping its existence. It can be agreed that the war strengthened the federal government along with military power. The belief that America strikes fear into the hearts nations wanting to maintain power in the northern continent is overestimated. Dowd brings up a good point against the Indian portion of the war. He brings up that the Indian resistance was decimated by the war. The Indians won some battles but was ultimately destroyed in favor of the better equipped United States. He also supplies that some Indians fought on auxiliary cores in the military. He doesn’t supply why they fought with the United States but it can be thought that the Indians were ever trying to show support so that they may keep some lands or that they had long grievances against the other groups.
ReplyDeleteBy the War of 1812, a sense of nationalism was becoming firmly entrenched in the American psyche. The impressment of American naval men, and the lack of respect for American trade rights brought many to clamor for war.
ReplyDeleteTwo main causes were given to justify the war. The first of which was the British inciting of Indians. This rationale seems questionable. It is true that the British were aligned with certain Indian tribes, but there was also a clear movement among native tribes to resist expansion. The largest resitance by native tribes was the Shawnee led by Tecumseh and the Prophet. From the account of Tecumseh's confrontation with William Henry Harrison it is clear that many Native Americans had their own goals and grievances independent of the British. In addition Dowd makes the argument that hte Indian threat was overstated and that they were on the decline after early defeats.
The expansion into the west appears to have been the main goal of the "war hawks". However my initial assumption was that the argument against impressment would be based in New England. However thiw as not hte case. Daniel Webster drives this point home saying that most clamoring for war were from places where they did not actually have many sailors. He also cites the unwillingness of hte government to try to work things out with the British and to address teh claims the British made about the alleged impressments.
The Hartford Convention's grievances also interested me a great deal. It rightly noted the inflated power of hte south due to the 3/5 compromise. Ironically though it actually wanted to weaken the government which was a reversal from their ideas in earlier times when they ahd been in power. The threat of secession mirrored the later attitudes of southerners. The contrasts from traditional roles associated with New England are quite ironic.
Whether the war was justified or not, it did solidify the country's identitiy. We had stood up to the British a second time, and they could be portrayed as an enemy with the burning of the capitol and impressments. The war gave us a national identity, and it did set the stage for land expansion into Indian lands even if we didn't really win anything from the British.
The War of 1812, as stated by the book, is believed to be the "least remembered major military conflict in U.S. history." Just as shocking as its apparent unpopularity in grade school history classes, the war itself was widely debated upon by Federalist and Republicans as to whether it was just or not.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is noted that there were certainly other factors that attributed to the declaration of war, the Republicans use the british policy of impressment to spearhead their arguement for war. Throughout the years since Washington, Great Britain had enforced a policy of impressment on U.S. ships by taking american citezens of the ships and forcing them to serve in Her Majesty's navy. This particular policy was veiwed as the single most used arguement by Republicans in favor of war. Within the Republican newspaper clipping, the reader gets a very good sense as to the emotional vigor with which the Republicans opposed impressment, as they name it as the main distinguishing feature between Great Britain and France, yeilding England to be the "greatest agressor". In addition to the "barbarous" acts of impressment by Great Britain, Felix Grundy enumerates another arguement for the war with England, which lies in the threat from native Americans from the west.
While Grundy does cite impressment as an atrocity, even more awful is his belief that England (and possibly France) were heavily influencing the native Americans to wage war and attack the United States from the west. Again England is weeded out as the MAIN culprit for the increase in native violence as they were well known to have ties to Northern tribes. With the widespread hatred of impressment and the growing tension and distrust from the West, the Republicans were able to piece together an extremely solid arguement for the necessity of war.
I did think however that the Federalist Daniel Webster's criticism of the war was, in contrast to that of the Republicans, very weak. In stead of finding his own reasons to oppose the war, he simply seems to downplay the problems that the Republicans made known. He in fact recognizes that impressment occurs often but he writes about it as if it is nothing bad and he clearly believes that England is in the right.
The Horsman and Dowd essays both agree on many aspects of the war as a general success for the United States, but there was certainly a down-side as well. While the U.S. triumphed in the war, devastation was brought to the native Americans and the confederation was all but destroyed. Tribes and leaders were scattered or brutally murdered and all hope for native rebellion was lost.
Further to the north, the Canadiens were also vastly impacted by the effects of the war. Canada had successfully repelled attacks from the United States and therefore set out distinguishing themselves from the U.S. and creating a lasting uneasiness about their neighbor to the south.
It is clear to see why so many Americans held strong opinions about the war (both for and against), as problems on the coast and frontier were in the minds of all Americans leading up to 1812.
I find the War of 1812 to be a very confusing conflict because of the different causes of the war. In most wars, there seems to be a singular cause that can be pointed to as the reason for the war. At the very least there seems to be a common enemy. However, in the War of 1812 it seemed as if the United States just chose to fight the United Kingdom in large part because they were the lesser of two evils with the French. Also, as pointed out by Gregory Dowd, there was a large influence on the war by Native Americans. I thought it was nice to hear the two extremes of the opinions about the war, one from the "war hawks" and one from the Federalists with what seemed to be a moderate opinion in the middle by John Quincy Adams. I think the War Hawk opinion was quite prideful and very deserving of the title which is given to the group. Grundy made it seem as if Native Americans were commissioned to brutally attack American settlers by British. Though reports show that the British were allied in there sentiments toward American expansion prior to the war, it seems Grundy did not take into account that the settlers were stealing the land of these people. I found his message quite ambitious as well, calling for the addition of Louisiana, Florida, and even Canada to the United States. Daniel Webster's criticism of the war, in the same respect was a little ridiculous. He claims that impressments were not occurring by the British, only that they were claiming "the right to the service of her own subjects, in a time of war. . ." He also claims that Great Britain had been "amicable" about fixing this problem, which was a patently false. I though John Quincy Adams had a good opinion on the subject, in which I most likely would have joined. His opinion that the war was tragic but necessary seemed to touch the most realism. Horsman's take on the outcome of the war was interesting, and frankly one that I had not ever considered. When speaking of the conclusion of the war, he noted the failures of America to gain what they had desired in the declaration of war, namely lands in Canada. I did think that Horsman borderlined on giving too little credit to the American army in their victory. It should be noted, this was the same country that had already defeated Britain once only thirty years prior. Dowd's alternative perspective of the outcome of the war paints quite of different picture of America's "success." The conclusion of the war is typically seen as a British loss, but in this reading it seemed all the more a Native American loss, because the British really did not lose anything in particular, they simply failed to gain. On the contrary, groups like the Red Sticks lost leaders, lands, and their faith in allies like the British. Because of this unique perspective, I liked Dowd's take the best, though both commentaries this week were very good.
ReplyDeleteDuring the time before the War of 1812, impressments and the “Indian threat” made up a majority of the claims why America should go to war with Britain. Impressments were mentioned in both documents one and two, though they made up all of the argument in the first one while only providing the introduction in the second. The British are actually not mentioned much in the documents at all, making it seem like the war was more of an excuse to attack the natives and claiming some land. Document seven denounces the evils of the British at Washington DC, but makes the president into more of a heroic figure, as he was on horse back for the whole day and would not leave until he had to. The news paper was probably propaganda to incite more hatred against the British. Impressments are a completely understandable reason for American citizens to get angry with the British. Thinking that the Indians were allied with the British to attack Americans seems like a flimsy argument, as the only evidence that document two provides is the claim that the Indians were not smart enough to cause a war without the influence of a European power. In fact, document five makes it seem more likely that the Indians are out on their own, as Tecumseh claimed all whites of being evil and needing to be removed from America. The British were also white. Document six just has William Henry Harrison trying to build up the threatening nature of the Indians so he could have a reason to attack them and take their land. Adam’s citations of National pride as a reason looks like the least likely reason to go to war, but it was a feeling that people like the Warhawks wanted to protect, so it’s a reason none the less. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the northerners like Daniel Webster disapproving of war. Webster refutes the impressments as reasons for war, saying that they have been over exaggerated, but he then kind of seems to be way too inline with Britain, saying that they actually have the right to do so. I could see how some people of the time were distrusting of this. The Hartford Conventions List shows the pettiness of the Federalists at the time, declaring that they had to have things their way.
ReplyDeleteAs of the results of the war, Reginald Horsman describes how it affected Britain, Canada, and America. The war hardly affected the British, because their huge defeats of the super power France came soon after the war was over. This makes sense since France was perceived as a threat to British sovereignty. Napoleon’s defeat ensured that he could not conquer Europe. Canada and America received a boost in national identity. Canada kicked America’s butt, so the increase in their national pride seems valid. It seems funny that America would, as they could not win the war and the treaty did not really solve any of their needs. The war also showed the weakness in Jefferson’s small army and navy. Gregory Evans Dowd discusses American and Indian relations. The war ended any further alliances between northern and southern Indians, making sure that it took around seventy years before any pan-Indian movement occurred. It also made sure that there was no serious Indian threat to the American government again. As the title of his argument suggests, it was a total and utter defeat for the Indians. Dowd clearly backs up his opinion with many instances of Indian military defeat. The Indians had only the reservations to look forward to.
Source 1 and 3 contrast nicely, demonstrating that the major stated cause for war was completely removed by the British government before the beginning of the conflict. J.Q. Adams accepts the necessity of war but if we'd listened to him earlier and recognized that Napoleon was at least as much of an offender as Britain we probably could have avoided the whole mess. Source 2 shows the major cause for war and the most important change created by the war between Britain and the U.S: an end to organized Indian resistance. Tecumseh comments to W.H. Harrison that they will decide the real outcome of western expansion while the president sits in his house. He was mostly right, although Madison was forced to observe the western and eastern sections of the War of 1812 from outside Washington, since his home was on fire. The Federalist criticism of the war in Source 4 doomed their proposed constitutional amendment in Source 9 (which were too ambitious anyway and contrary to the interests of Southern voting power and western expansion). I thought that Horsman's article was an interesting observation of the growth of both American and Canadian nationalism, while Dowd's article reflects the centrality of sources 2, 5, and 6: the end of organized Indian resistance was brought about through an otherwise inconclusive war.
ReplyDeleteThe war of 1812, and the subsequent arguments for and against it are closely tied to typical and partisan, American politics. Once again, as seen during the presidency of John Adams, the federalists, based in the industry and shipping of the East coast (and particularly the North East), were opposed to war-chiefly to protect their interests in European trade. At the same time, the new war-hawk sect of the Republican party, led by the rambunctious Westerner Henry Clay and South Carolinian John C. Calhoun would make the call for war, citing the actions of aggressive British foreign policy-impressments, Indian relations, etc. Looking at our documents, we can see both sides of the argument. First, in reading Webster, his arguments do not really translate to someone reading in retrospect; the idea that America should look past British hostilities doesn’t really make sense to the post war reader. Sure he was protecting American trade interests, and sure Great Britain was the most powerful nation in the world (a power to feared and not likely defeated twice in one half century), but the British were philandering in interior relationships with American Indian populations, and kidnapping citizens. Gundy makes more sense. For one of the first time the ideals of American destiny and empire are readily available; and again looking in retrospect, one can see how the Republican party grew while the Federalists shrunk away to obscurity.
ReplyDelete