Another major objective which the US achieved and is often overlooked is British recognition of the Louisiana Purchase; prior to the war of 1812, Britain held that the purchase wasn’t valid. The treaty under which France acquired the land from Spain specified that France would have to offer to sell the land back to Spain before selling to anyone else, and Napoleon didn’t offer the land to Spain. Recognition of the Louisiana Purchase was part of the treaty ending the war of 1812, and made a big difference - prior to that, Britain held that the land really belonged to Spain and only didn’t act on that because of distractions in Europe.
The idea that the primary objective of the US declaration of war in 1812 was to facilitate westward expansion and thus achieved as a result of the War of 1812 has not been established here. Certainly the British did maintain a presence on the Northern frontier on what is now American soil, but that ended as far as I can tell with the fall of Fort Miami way back in 1796, when the American Col. John Francis Hamtramck took over Fort Miami and Detroit. Certainly the Americans had Indian trouble, but it seems to me that there was always Indian trouble on their frontiers, and to ascribe the difficulties with Indians in the Ohio valley as cause for a global conflict or for that matter that the outcome of hostilities in the region during the war represent an American victory of the whole war is not warranted. America (wrt Canada)challenged the status quo and failed.
Tom~ wrote:
Agreed, generally, except that the final blow against the Indian allies of the British was Andrew Jackson’s decisive defeat of the Red Stick faction of Creeks at Horseshoe Bend (Alabama) on March 27, 1814 (the Red Sticks having been part of Tecumseh’s confederation, and having been actively encouraged by the British).
And the Battle of New Orleans, though fought after the war had ended (news traveled slowly), slammed the door on any British ambitions in the Mississippi Valley.
grienspace, the British agitated the Indians along American frontier, not just in the Northwest, but all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. They provided arms to the Indians, they encouraged Tecumseh’s uprising, and otherwise sought to use the Indians to check westward expansion by the US. Presumably, when their hands were freed at the close of the Napoleonic wars, they would have sought to establish a more permanent presence of their own in the area, but in the meantime, they were content to stymie the US.
The war put an end to British agitation along the western frontier.
I think RickJay sums it up pretty well. The US won. The (proto-)Canadians won, the British sort of lost, and the Indians suffered a disastrous defeat.
RickJay, I suspect the British government of the day would have vehemently denied the statement that Canada was clearly “a different NATION from Great Britain.”
I suspect many people who were then living in what is now Canada would have disagreed with the statement, too–indeed, many of them had left what became the US because they didn’t want to be part of a different nation.
The fact is, calling Canada a nation in 1812 is an anachronism, just as it would be an anachronism to say “The United States was one of the victors of the Seven Years War in 1763.” (Of course it wasn’t; it didn’t exist at the time.)
Nor has it been asserted.
The Jay Treaty of 1794 got the British to leave their permanant forts on U.S. soil (13 years after they agreed to leave), but it did not keep them from interfering with the governance of the land held by the U.S. This is not a matter of “facilitating westward expansion” but of securing the safety of places such as Kentucky and Tennessee (and Louisiana), which had already been admitted to the Union, and Indiana, which was a firmly established territory. (Note that Tecumseh did not simply retreat into Illinois or Wisconsin after Tippecanoe, he went directly to a British fort for protection and more supplies and arms prior to the outbreak of War between the U.S. and Britain.)
The War of 1812 is often referred to as the Second Revolutionary War for the very reason that Britain finally stopped interfering in the U.S. at the end of it.
You call someone a “dumbfuck” in GQ and then want to start a Pit thread?
This is an official warning. If you insult someone in GQ again you will lose your posting privileges.
Although I have since come around to the view that the whole thing was a draw, I must take offence at the “3rd World” remark. As pointed out by bernse, Canada and the United States are not members of the 3rd World, and neither is Europe. The Third world is, in fact full of vital peoples and ancient cultures that we “First Worlders” cannot even begin to comprehend. The mere presumption of throwing noble Third World cultures and peoples in with the tepid, indolent peoples and cultures of the First World is the height of depravity.
-Coffeeguy
[quote]
Tomndebb’s reply
Well I was responding to Rickjay’s assertion
Nothing I’ve read ever claims that the Americans were so pissed with the Indian conflicts that they took on a global war. It was more like being pissed that 6000 of their citizens were being hijacked into service in the British navy, as well as the effect that the war that Britain had with France was affecting the American economy. They were pissed and said to themselves "Let’s get the British out of North America, cause we sure as fuck can’t take them on the high seas. Every incursion onto British territory was repelled. It is said that the Russians lost the war in Afghanistan because the Russians finally gave up. It is said that the Americans lost the war in Vietnam because they finally gave up. American’s gave up trying to oust the British from North America.
And Britain gave up interfering with the United States through proxy wars by the indian nations and stopped contesting the borders of the Northwest Territory and the Louisiana Purchase.
Seems to be a pretty even stand-off, there.
I thought it was pretty clear that I was making a distinction between the notion of a state, which Canada was not, and a nation, which it most definitely was (and you could argue it was actually two nations.)
“Nation” does not necessarily mean a sovereign state. Canada in 1812 was obviously not a sovereign state; it was, however, a unique nation, with an identity distinct from Great Britain. While English Canadians in 1812 doubtlessly considered themselves subjects of the King, they certainly would have recognized that Canada was not merely part of the nation of Great Britain the way, say, Yorkshire or even Scotland were.
It’s silly to pretend that Canada just magically came into existence on July 1, 1867, as if it was magically lopped off Great Britain with a giant pair of scissors and drifted across the Atlantic Ocean. It would be equally silly to claim the United States came into being on July 4, 1776; indeed, the concept of the “American” nation was commonly understood long before George Washington was BORN. “Canada” as a unique political and geographic entity can be reasonably said to go back at least as far as the seventeenth century, and its current incarnation obviously came into focus between the American Revolution and the War of 1812. The War of 1812 accelerated the process to be sure, but had you asked anyone what “Canada” was in 1811 there would have been no misunderstanding in anyone’s mind that it was a unique place with a unique population.
grienspace, please read this.
From the linked site:
So, yes, one goal of the US was to expel the British from Canada, but another war goal was to put a stop to agitation of Indian tribes along the frontier.
In one goal the US failed, in the other it succeeded.
It is indisputable that the British lost something in the war. They lost the ability to check westward expansion of the US. They lost their influence over Indian tribes in US territory. They lost the ability to achieve any ambitions they had in the Mississippi Valley. They lost the ability to impress US sailors.
What did the US lose, exactly? They were better off after the war than before.
It amazes me that people can argue with such rancor about a conflict that occurred nearly 200 years ago between two countries that currently have arguably one of the best relationships in history. We share the largest unguarded border in the world (and, I believe, in all of world history). United States citizens identify more closely with Canadians than with any other people in the world, to the point that being from Canada is only slightly more remarkable than being from Illinois to someone from California.
This is rather like arguing about what exactly happened at the Alamo: What difference could it possibly make today? Does anyone seriously feel validated or slighted one way or another?
Scupper,
I concur: However the ‘rancor’ of these debates has nothing on, lets say Ireland or the Balkans.
The primary participants of the mudslinging appear to be either puffed up American ‘Patriots’ to whom ‘criticism’ or 'contrary opinions ’ are equal to ‘hatred’ and ‘vilification’ and hypersensitive ‘oppressed’ Canadians who view all dismissive American attitudes about Canada as ongoing evidence of typical American arrogance and self delusion.
To quote a lyric which I find apt,
“Better the Pride that resides in a citizen of the World,
than the Pride that divides when a colourful rag is unfurled”.
It’s not Shakespeare but the message is worthy.
I didn’t detect any rancour, nor is there any on my part. We are all familiar with the subjectivity of historical accounts and when “discrepancy” arises it is worthwhile to review. I for one feel I learned exactly why Americans believe they won the War of 1812, and now it makes sense to me.
No rancor here.
I propose a Canadian-US-Doper group hug.
Ok try and think about that statement logically. Didn’t the Colonies leave British control some thirty odd years before citing one of their reasons as being British over taxation (without representation)? So you are now saying the majority of Canadians were Americans fleeing to British controlled areas to escape US taxation. (Lord save me from Loonies)
Most ENGLISH Canadians in Ontario were Loyalists who fled the 13 colonies when the British ceded their control in the American War of Independence. They were never US Citizens.
We did have few US Merchants move in during the intervening period including some who wanted to aid the US troops during the War of 1812.
The Remainder of the Englsh speaking population were colonists of the Maritimes which existed prior to the revolution (Yes there were more than 13 colonies in British North America).
FRENCH Candians which at that time were either equal or more than the population of Ontario (Upper Canada) Were definitely not American’s in any way.
Also the majority of the fighting was done by the British regulars, the Native allies and small groups of local militia.
No the war of 1812 was not won by Canada but there was a victory in its continued existence despite being out gunned and out numbered during the war.
We’re arguing over a question of history.
Other nations argue over this sort of thing in REAL TIME. And kill people.
I see nothing wrong with having an enthusiastic debate about an interesting historical event. Canadians and Americans can discuss this sort of thing and laugh and have drinks over it. In Ireland and Rwanda, they blow each other up. I’ll take our way of doing things.