It was trade with French-controlled ports ( which in practice meant most of Europe ):
*…However, by the latter part of 1807, the ever-tightening blockade ( note: Napoleon’s continental blockade of British trade ) was having two serious effects: causing a loss of freight to neutrals, and cutting British exports to Europe, especially the re-export trade in West India produce.
These circumstances led to a new departure in British maritime policy. Hitherto this had been aimed simply at cutting off contraband trade with enemy ports and all coastal traffic between enemy ports, including any entrusted to neutral ships. But by orders in council of November and December 1807 far more draconian sanctions were decreed. All harbours from which British ships were excluded were declared to be in a state of blockade. Any trade that was not carried on with Britain was interdicted. Neutral traffic with these harbours must pass through specific British ports, paying transit duties in the process. A prohibition was set up on any French or French-allied trade direct with colonial or Amewrican destinations. A major purpose of the orders in council, and one which before long they had achieved, was to create general European discontent with the Napoleonic regime by the dislocation of European commerce. Shortages of sugar and other colonial products began to force up prices on the continental markets, whilst a glut of European commodities seeking overseas outlets soon developed. The economic incentive to sabotage French prohibitions on traffic with Britain steadily increased. At the same time neutrals were debarred from capturing the British carrying trade, and the new ariff system was intended to preserve a favourable cost margin of goods of British or British colonial origin forced on to the European market. For much of 1808 Sweden provided a major point of entry for this traffic.
One particular consequence of this policy was denial to the merchant marine of the United States of direct access to the European Continent. The cabinet gambled on the assumption that, much as vthe government of the United States would resent this action, nevertheless on the principle of accepting half a loaf American commercial interests would insist on keeping open the commericial links with Britain, and through Britain Europe. In the short run this assumption proved correct, although in the longer term, after 1810, it was to be defeated by the adroit diplomacy of Napoleon.*
From Wars and Revolutions: Britain, 1760-1815 by Ian R. Christie ( 1982, Harvard University Press ).
In fact Fox tried to retain friendly relations with the U.S., but Britain simply did not feel capable of budging on the all-important trade issue ( also the impressment issue, which I’m not entirely sure of all the nuances, but I believe addressed a dangerous manpower shortage ), which was considered vital to the war effort, even if it meant losing the U.S…
Ok, I found this web site talking about the war. No idea how accurate it is historically. This paragraph sort of talks about the causes of the war though and address’s some of the issues Gorsnak (who for some reason felt the need to call me “timid and pusillanimous” :)) addressed.
Emphasis added. I’m still looking for stuff on the trade issue. Again, as I recall it our trade was being harrassed and pretty much completely stiffled…and it wasn’t just our trade with France. However, I haven’t been able to find anything on it yet, so I might be mis-remembering or simply be wrong.
I’m well aware of Commodore Perry and the various lakes campaigns. However, that fleet was build AFTER the war started as I recall. I suppose what you say is true, an army could be raised, a fleet made. But it doesn’t exactly speak to a country WANTING to go to war that they are so ridiculously unprepared for it. In 1812 (which is fiction so I took it with a grain of salt) the author states that the US didn’t have any supplies, equipment or materials ready when war broke out. In one chapter they talk about the US trying to get cannon made…but not having the money to pay the foundry, and the foundry man refusing to make the cannon until the government can pay him. Might be just made up, but my general impression is we didn’t want to go to war, were unprepared for war, but that our frustration level pretty much boiled over. As to our invasion of Canada, again my understanding is this was simply the ONLY place we could fight the British…though I have no doubts that if we had of won (something highly unlikely) we would have happily annexed it.
BTW, I AM timid and pusillanimous (though I’m not sure what that english word means) if preparing for a war instead of just kind of letting one happen is the yard stick of measurement. If Madison et al REALLY felt that way then more the fool them.
pusillanimous adj. Destitute of a manly or courageous strength and firmness of mind; of weak spirit; mean-spirited; spiritless; cowardly.
My point is not that it would not be wiser to be prepared for war if one is about to declare it. I quite agree with you on that. My point is that your argument, that the US couldn’t have wanted war because they’d have to have been fools to do so given the state of the military, doesn’t hold water. The War Hawks weren’t at all concerned about the lack of military preparedness, as the Clay letter clearly demonstrates. Only the timid and cowardly would refrain from attacking Canada due to the state of the army, he says. They wanted war. It wasn’t forced on them by the bullying British (who certainly were being bullies, at least at sea, but their actions are certainly understandable in context). Impressment and such were real grievances, but alone, in the absence of the expansionist desires in the West and South, were extremely unlikely to have resulted in more than sabre-rattling. Expansionism was the driving force behind the war, which is why I hold the US to be, on balance, the aggressor.
For those arguing the great issue of impressment, it should nbe remembered that the New England states (who owned the majority of the ships and provided most of the sailors) were more interested in gritting their teeth and not riling Britain. This was Mr. Madison’s War, with the overwhelming numbers of the U.S. Army being recruited from Virginia and Kentucky. (One of the reasons that the Brits won at Queenstown was that several of the U.S. state militias from New England (nad New York?) declared that they were only there to protect the border and refused to join the invasion.)
For those arguing that the U.S. frontier had been secured by the 1783 treaty, it needs to be pointed out that the British actively encouraged Indian attacks along the length of the Great Lakes and Mississippi basin. Tecumseh and The Prophet were armed and aided by the British as early as 1811 and the Creeks were incited to war by British emissaries.
(Now, the Indian nations were definitiely responding to invasions of white settlers onto their lands–which supports the “expansion” theory mentioned above–however, the reason that the U.S. picked a fight with Britian (rather than just going out and killing Indians on their own) was that the British were actively supporting the Indians.)
Of course, since the war with France was over at the time the treaty was signed (Napolean was still at Elba), as a practical matter the British navy wouldn’t have the need to impress sailors from U.S. ships, but it wasn’t a term of the Treaty.
Europe, Britain and US were executing three different legislative acts. Europe was following ‘Continental system’, which was a punitive blockade on British goods. British foloowed ‘Orders of Council’, which Tamerlane mentioned above. US passed ‘Non-Importation Act’ in 1806 (“banned most British goods and embargoed all non-American shipping”), followed by ‘Embargo Act’ in 1807 (“forbidding US ships to leave for foreign ports”).
Both Jefferson and Madison were unsuccessful presidents. Jefferson acknowledged as much on his epitaph, where he didn’t mention serving as POTUS at all among his achievements.
Interesting. Not many Wars seem to suffered from the difference in perspective that the War of 1812 does - from the US side of the pond it is clearly a big thing and the British get regarded as the aggressors. From the European side, it is almost unknown even amongst Napoleonic War enthusiasts even though those Wars form the sole reason it was fought at all. Really, it was total sideshow. As for New Orleans being
Oh, fantastic! You crack me up Duckster - nobody has even ***heard ** * of it!! It had no significance whatsoever and nothing would have changed had it never been fought at all. No exactly the definition of a decisive action eh? It may have been a tactical disaster, we have had no shortage of those in our history (look into our earlier War in Argentina), but honestly it is a non-event in military history.
I think you have to remember just how much Britain were top dogs in 1812 - I think it colours your viewpoint in the US as being “pushed around” by the Brits who provoked it. From the British viewpoint they simply couldn’t believe that any colonial would be stupid enough to try to take them on - and knew they didn’t have to win it, only avoid losing it. They thought they could handle it with local forces alone, with not only one but both hands tied behind their backs, and only when Napoleon was off their hands did they try and prosecute it with any vigour.
One word - Spain. The Army’s reputation may not have been high amongst the Allies but it’s performance was - and certainly its reputation amongst any of the French generals who went up against the Anglo-Portuguese Army in Spain was very high. As Soult tried to tell Napoleon at Waterloo - but was ignored.
From our viewpoint the 1812 War was started by the US - the British were just behaving as if they ruled the world and what they say goes. “Your either with us or against us” - ring any bells? In the US Wars against the Brits were going to be politically popular throughout the first half of the 19th century, much more so than any War against the US was ever going to be in Great Britain. To us it looked like a diplomatic cock up to have started at all…
Well, I wouldn’t say it’s really a “big thing” to Americans. I consider myself a reasonably well-educated American (or should that be “reasonably well-educated for an American”? ), but I learned almost nothing about the War of 1812 in school. I’m not exaggerating when I say that I’ve learned much more on the subject from this thread alone than I ever did in history class. Even in a class that covered American history from colonial times through the Reconstruction Era we didn’t dwell on the War of 1812. It seemed like…well, as you said, a sideshow. I doubt it looms large in the mind of the typical American. If it’s important at all to Joe Sixpack, it’s probably because it inspired “The Star-Spangled Banner”. I think pretty much every other war we ever fought in, with the possible exception of the Korean War, is considered more significant.
However, it is true that the British are seen as the aggressors. As I attempt to summon up my dusty memories of American History lectures, I feel fairly certain that the British were always portrayed as unreasonable bullies who underestimated the pluck and spunk of the scrappy Americans.
That’s right! The British started throwing their weight around and they made the mistake of…uh…doing something to tick us off, something to do with trade maybe…probably because King George III was mad. Yeah, that sounds right. Anyway, the Brits came swaggering over here wth their spiffy uniforms and superior weaponry and set fire to Washington D.C. because they just couldn’t accept that we weren’t their colony to push around anymore. But in the end we beat them back just like we did in the Revolutionary War!
Well, I’m pretty sure that U.S. “incursions” play a much larger role in the consciousness of Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Filipinos than they do in the memories of most Yanks–even among those of us who actually know about them. (Similarly, I suspect that Boadicea stands far taller in British legend than she ever appeared to the Romans of the second century. (In the first century, there may have been more Roman awareness of her.)
Who won? Well, the Indians lost. The Yanks probably did not gain any lasting triumph, but Britain quit supporting the nations on the western frontier, which would probably be considered a victory (in terms of war aims), leaving the natives to struggle against encroaching settlers on their own.
This sounds all too familiar. I maintain that the United States had good reason to prosecute this war. Personally, I have no sympathy for aggressors throwing their weight around, acting as if they run the world (even if they actually do.) “You’re either with us or against us!” Ah, the excesses of empire. They’ll never learn. In time.
Daizy, you know there is an injunction against the posting of complete lyrics here, right? Not that we don’t all love the Arrogant Worms and their funny little songs.
Yes thank you. And I deeply regret it. I was in a hurry and couldn’t find a link. I should have waited until I did have the time before I posted it. My apologies.
Speaking as an American, I don’t particularly begrudge the British their actions for the most part, though they were still jerks about it. Mostly, it was their insistence on abducting American (formerly British) sailors that looms largest, even more so than their pugnacious trade-blocking. Adbucting Americans really pisses us off, even if they weren’t really Americans then anyway.
Had the battle been a rout in the other direction it is quite possible that Britain would not have ratified the treaty that had been signed. Rollback would have been a real possibility. The defeat of crack veteran troops (however poorly employed) punctuated the pointlessness and cost of continuing the war.
Once the threat of invasion (of Canada by the US) the only pressure the US could bring to bear on the UK (other than inconvenience and cost) was through the use of privateers. And the privateers, no matter how English merchants might scream, would probably continue to be a problem for months no matter when peace is signed, due to communications issues.
The colonials had already beaten them once. Granted, it was in alliance with France, though a France that was less powerful than that of Napoleon.
They had to prosecute it with local forces alone - until peace with Napoleon/Napoleon’s defeat could allow the focus to be on the US. The flip side is that if they are not tied up with Napoleon, there would be neither as much cause nor appetite for War on the US side.
No arguments here. Up to 1914/15 the British army is the best in the world (possible exception during 1861-5)
No question that the US declared war (after Napoleon agreed to wave the continental system w.r.t. US ships). I don’t think that war with Britain is a natural in the US. The northern half, particularly New England, had a very pro-Protestant, anti-Catholic (and more specifically anti-French) view of the world, with England being the major trading partner. Absent the ongoing legitimate grievances with British conduct (arming natives in the west, impressment of Americans, harrassment of trade) war with England would be a non-starter.
I think that part of the problem with the British impressing “Englishmen” off of American ships is the pliable nature of American citizenship (and the difficulty in discriminating between an Englishman and an American). If an Englishman/Scotsman/Irishman emigrates to the US and takes ship on a US ship what is his citizenship?
Well perfect. Then I totally agree with the OP. TheWar of 1812 was the Stupidest war ever… because some people erroneously believed Canada had a hand in burning down the White House.
(For extended defintions of the ECW that is)
), but I learned almost nothing about the War of 1812 in school. I’m not exaggerating when I say that I’ve learned much more on the subject from this thread alone than I ever did in history class. Even in a class that covered American history from colonial times through the Reconstruction Era we didn’t dwell on the War of 1812. It seemed like…well, as you said, a sideshow. I doubt it looms large in the mind of the typical American. If it’s important at all to Joe Sixpack, it’s probably because it inspired “The Star-Spangled Banner”. I think pretty much every other war we ever fought in, with the possible exception of the Korean War, is considered more significant.