US v Britain/Canada War of 1812

[keith]

This is not well taught in the UK (if at all) so this is an attempt to get a handle on this one. There seem to be different reasons suggested for why the war began and what were the political motives behind it. Perhaps I could just outline what I have read or heard and others could amend or fill in the blanks as we go

Version 1 - The British arrive in 1812 with a plan to reconquer US (Battle of New Orleans etc. Burn down White House etc etc) Generally throw military weight around. Repelled by crack marksmen, backwoods patriots and the like.

Version 2 - Britain is trying to break up trade between USA and France because of war with Napoleon. Possibly Napoleon thinking it good to drive wedge between US and Britain? ie wider context of old Britain/France rivalry.

Version 3 - Thomas Jefferson and co. see opportunity to march into Canada and annex it to the USA or hold that tempting thought but use Canada as a bargaining chip to get British Navy to lay off their shipping.

Timeline.

Britain issues "Orders in Council" - stopping and searching vessels on high seas that may be trading with France. 1812. Fatalities occur, America very upset.

USA complains to Britain over this behaviour. Britain withdraws the Order but only two days later USA declares war on Britain. (was this due to slow communications, or already decided etc?)

[CatholicSage]

USA complains to Britain over this behaviour. Britain withdraws the Order but only two days later USA declares war on Britain. (was this due to slow communications, or already decided etc?)


I'll answer your last point first. The War of 1812 should not have happened, because America did indeed declare war immediately after Britain withdrew the Order, but due to slow communications was unaware of the fact.

This is not well taught in the UK (if at all) so this is an attempt to get a handle on this one. There seem to be different reasons suggested for why the war began and what were the political motives behind it. Perhaps I could just outline what I have read or heard and others could amend or fill in the blanks as we go


Yeah, it's not very well taught here, either. I saw a program on it on the History Channel last autumn, and I remember a fair amount from school, but it's still not a high priority topic. Still, it's an interesting conflict.


Version 1 - The British arrive in 1812 with a plan to reconquer US (Battle of New Orleans etc. Burn down White House etc etc) Generally throw military weight around. Repelled by crack marksmen, backwoods patriots and the like.


Mostly untrue, though it is highly probable that Britain was indirectly harassing and using military force against the US by refusing to leave old forts in the Northwest Territories and by bribing Indians to raid us. The main untruth stems from the fact that Britain had Napoleon to deal with at the time, so there was simply no motive to reconquer America. The conquering part mainly stems from our side; warhawks' in Congress desire for the conquest of Canada and Florida was one of the less savory reasons for the start of the war.


Version 2 - Britain is trying to break up trade between USA and France because of war with Napoleon. Possibly Napoleon thinking it good to drive wedge between US and Britain? ie wider context of old Britain/France rivalry.


Seems unlikely to me. In Jefferson's term several years earlier, the Embargo Act was passed which made it illegal to trade with either France or Britain or any other power involved in the Napoleonic Wars. Bad move on Jefferson's part, since it hurt our economy quite a bit, but I don't know if it was repealed by 1812.


Version 3 - Thomas Jefferson and co. see opportunity to march into Canada and annex it to the USA or hold that tempting thought but use Canada as a bargaining chip to get British Navy to lay off their shipping.


Jefferson's second term ended in 1808, and James Madison (1808-1816) came after him. This was indeed part of the reason for the war. From the modern US perspective as I was taught it, impressment of American sailors was also a large grievance that the US had against Britain, which is what those Orders in Council were for.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Some other aspects of the War of 1812:


The Battle of New Orleans, which you mentioned, was actually the last battle of the War, and was fought after the Peace Treaty had already been signed by both parties -- in Amiens, France, and the news hadn't travelled back to the US yet. Both the Americans, under Jackson, and the British troops, under Pakenham, were unaware that the war was already over. This, however, was pretty typical for wars of that era, especially when they spanned an ocean. Even the US Civil War some 50 years later ended with some battles fought after the official cessation of hostilities, and no ocean was involved (except for chasing down the commerce-raider Shenandoah in the Pacific).
Both the impressment of American sailors, and the enforcement of an embargo against France, were acts of the British (primarily the RN) which aggravated the US and led to the declaration of war. Britain assumed that having mastery of the ocean gave them the right to enforce an embargo even against neutrals, and stopped many American as well as other national ships which were trading with either France or French-dominated countries (e.g. Holland, Spain). The RN also would stop ships with the primary purpose of recovering former British sailors who had run, but were not too very particular about ensuring the British citizenship of those they took and snapped up a number of American citizens as well. Both of these points were, to a large extent, merely symptoms of the general British opinion of superiorty and a natural distaste for how the previous American War had ended.
There was a certainly an "Invade Canada" aspect to the war on the American side, caught up in general with a similar view that the previous War had not gained all that it should have for the US. This was a combination of punishing American Loyalists who, for the most part, had emigrated to Canada after (or during) the American Revolution, as well as a simple land-grab, and perhaps to some extent an honest feeling that many Canadians would like to get their freedom from Britain, too (not that very many Canadians felt that way at all, just that some, perhaps not very many, Americans thought that Canadians ought to feel that way, seeing all the virtues and benefits of freedom and such). The attempted invasions of Canada, however, were rather sadly conducted affairs and generally a waste of time, supplies and manpower; the Canadians just weren't interested.
The British were also somewhat concerned ('afraid' would be too strong a term) about the possibility of the US becoming an active ally of France, after Jefferson's 1803 Louisiana Purchase seemed to show a willingness to provide Napoleon with money with which to prosecute the war. So they felt that taking a strong hand with the young nation would keep it in line -- an attitude which, in fact, led to exactly the opposite result. But such ironies are by no means uncommon in warfare and politics. But it is true that many in Britain felt that any American complaints about British high-handedness could be safely ignored since no upstart young whippersnapper of a country was going to go out and challenge the Power that Ruled the Seas, totally overlooking the fact that the pioneering spirit already infused as part-and-parcel of the American culture was exactly that type of spirit.


In large part, on both the US and British sides, it came down to a general feeling of "unfinished business" left over from the Revolution. The British wanted to readjust the previous results more in their favour, and many on the American side thought that the war hadn't gained nearly all they felt it should. Add to that a more-or-less natural feeling among many Americans that in any war in which Britain played a part, the proper American position was on the opposite side, and a willingness to wipe Britain's eye -- or try, anyway.

It's been said that the US lost the War of 1812, but won the peace. Certainly, that's overly simplistic but has a lot of truth in it. The gains from the peace treaty, weighed against the few battles that the US could actually be said to win, seem to be more lopsided than one would expect -- until one recalls that, when all was said and done, Britain's real foe was Napoleon and this American war was really just a sideshow and a distraction from getting the real job done. It could be said that Britain finally just agreed to "buy off" the US so they could get back to the real job unhindered.

The (that could also be said for many other small wars) Curtmudgeon