The War of 1812 America s tragic role in pointless warfare Angela Chung CHA3U1-01 November 24, 2006. Mr. Cotey
The War of 1812 was a war like no other. Lasting from 1812 to 1815, only a handful of decades after the American Revolution, the War was peculiar in the sense that it almost mirrored its predecessor. Once again, the newly formed United States of America was engaged in a struggle with Britain. The main cause of the war, ironically, was the work of the French the same country that helped America win the Revolution. France was now waging full-blown combats with Britain and Europe on the issue of conquest, called the Napoleonic Wars. These battles dragged on and on, crippling both sides. However, their effects were not only felt in Europe. To cut off French lifelines, the British issued a blockade, ordering the search of all neutral ships, of which France responded likewise. America, being a neutral country, was caught in between and infuriated. The search of ships frequently led to accusations from the British that certain sailors were deserters: soldiers of the English military who fled their posts and betrayed their country. The accused were often taken away. Suddenly, in the eyes of the Americans, everything wretched that happened was the work of Britain. The British obviously had a hand in America s failing economy along the coast. The Indian resistance to American westward expansion was undoubtedly, fuelled by the British. On June 18, 1812, war was declared. Britain now had not only the French to deal with, but the Americans as well. According to Stanley, author of The War of 1812: Land Operations, the war was fought because of British callousness and American over-sensitivity. It ended with no victors, with both forces spent to the point of exhaustion. The Treaty of Ghent was signed to end the war and restore everything back to pre-war conditions. Some may argue that the War was completely useless, with no significant impact in history. However, this was
not true. The War of 1812 signified America s first failure as a nation because it threatened national unity, showed a general sense of rashness and lack of preparation within the government and military, and was unable to settle any of the issues that started the war. Entering a war while so utterly divided was unheard of at the time, especially for a new nation like the United States. The division was clear among both the government and its people. Statistics show that the final vote on the declaration was 79 to 49 in favour of the war in the House of Representatives, and 19 to 13 in the Senate 1, but the drive against the war ran strong within many states. Out of the 17 existing American states at the time, 6, including New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Kentucky, were undecided. This difference in opinions was reflected in its civilians. The southern states were generally supportive of the war because of their wishes to acquire West Florida, which was under Spanish (Britain s ally) control at the time. Moreover, they suffered from economic damages to their cotton and tobacco industries 2 because of the British blockade imposed as a result of the Napoleonic wars. Most importantly, any battles would most likely take place on the northeastern border. Therefore, they would not be directly affected by the battles. For New England however, it was an entirely different story. Those states believed that a war with Britain would destroy the already weak trade altogether, and many sympathized with Britain. [T]here could be neither policy, reason, or justice in singling out Great Britain as the exclusive object of hostility. If the object of war is merely to vindicate our honor, why is it not declared against the first aggressor? If the object is defence and success, why is it to be waged against the adversary most able to annoy, and least likely to yield?... The 1 George F.G. Stanley, The War of 1812: Land Operations. (Toronto: Gage Publishing Ltd., 1983) 41 2 The War of 1812. American Military History, http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm (23 Nov. 2006)
inhabitants of this Town most sincerely deprecate a war with Great Britain, as extremely injurious to the interests and happiness of the people, and peculiarly so, as it necessarily tends to an alliance with France, thereby threatening the subversion of their liberties and independence. 3 In this section from a Bostonian petition, the citizens expressed their discontentment for the reasons for war. They were appalled at the prospect of allying with Napoleon, the initiator of the Reign of Terror in France, and questioned the government s ability to accuse Britain as the sole enemy when, in their eyes, France was equally as wrong. Not only did New Englanders refuse to supply war loans, but also went as far as to help supply Britain with ammunitions during the War of 1812 and forbid their militia from passing their borders 4. Undoubtedly, any commitment of war should not have been made because of risks caused by the alarming combination of enthusiasm and dissention within the nation. All in all, the War of 1812 put the country in a state of utter chaos, confusion, and division. The War of 1812 was also a clear example of rash decisions made by the government and lack of grounding in the nation s military. The Napoleonic wars in Europe were coming to an end, which should have ended the issue of impressment. Two days before President Madison signed the declaration of war, Britain sent an envoy, Viscount Castlereagh, to announce the appeal of the naval laws 5. That alone, would have eliminated the main reason for war. Had the United States been less hasty, the issue of war could have been avoided altogether. In addition, the state of their military at the time was atrocious. There were only 12 000 regulars, of which included aging Revolution 3 J.C. Jones, The War Hawks, 1812. 4 Wesley B. Turner, The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won. (Toronto: Dundurm Press Ltd., 2000) 25 5 George F.G. Stanley, The War of 1812: Land Operations. (Toronto: Gage Publishing Ltd., 1983) 39
veterans as generals, amateur junior officer appointees, and militia that lacked training. The United States had 17 local defence boats, in contrast with Britain s 800 wellequipped vessels 6. Furthermore, the general population who supported war did not wish to pay additional taxes. In consequence, to minimize the strain put on the Treasury, America was unwilling to spend a lot more money on improving the state of the military. The United States had serious errors in their war tactics as well. Their three-pronged strategy to overtake Canada was to take place simultaneously: take Montreal, take the Niagara frontier, and invade Upper Canada 7. In the end, none of these goals were successful due to lack of coordination of troops, delays imposed by the generals, and negative attitude in the army. Judging by the relatively small population of Canada at the time, overthrowing Montreal first would not have been difficult. Once the St. Lawrence was taken, Canada s lifeline would have been cut, making it easy to pursue the rest of their goals. The United States might have been more successful if they attempted to formulate one good strategy to overtake Canada a little at a time, instead of all at once. America was too hurried in its decision to engage in war, which ultimately affected its performance and the outcome. Finally, the Treaty of Ghent, which officially ended the war, did not address any of the United States concerns 8. The United States had three main reasons for the war at the start of 1812: to stop British impressment of seamen, to obtain Canada, and to sever British connections with the Aboriginals, allowing America to overtake their land. The 6 Wesley B. Turner, The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won. (Toronto: Dundurm Press Ltd., 2000) 22, 23 7 Eric Badertscher, The War of 1812. 2005. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=khh&an=17922830&site=ehost-live (23 Nov. 2006) 8 Library of Congress. Treaty of Ghent. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collid=llsl&filename=008/llsl008.db&recnum=231 (23 Nov. 2006)
impressment ended not because of treaty negotiations, but because of the end of the Napoleonic wars. No French threat to the English meant that there was no need to continue with the blockade and the searching of neutral ships. The treaty restored everything to their pre-war conditions, so no land was gained in the process 9. Although the Natives suffered greatly from the war, an attempt (albeit a poor one) was made to appease them in the treaty 10. The Treaty of Ghent was signed because both sides were tired and exhausted by the war. In the end, the United States were happy that if they are unable to gain anything, they would not lose anything either. Since Britain had acquired much valuable American territory, the nation was under constant fear that the British would refuse its peace terms, putting the United States in bad negotiation grounds. The treaty was basically written to appease all sides and to end the war at all costs and as quickly as possible. As a result, the United States left out all the early war-issues in the negotiations. The War did not solve any of the issues that were supposedly its causes, making it entirely pointless. The War of 1812 was a tragedy in the sense that it was a needless sacrifice of lives and should not have taken place. It symbolized the disastrous results of human greed, pride, and error. Ironically, the war fought for liberty in the seas was focussed on the imperialistic motive of acquiring Canada, contradicting the entire concept of freedom. Instead of seeking to strengthen national bonds of a developing country, the war only served to weaken them. Rather than attempting to prevent the war, pride urged it on. In the place of a glorious victory, the United States found only mental defeat and 9 Library of Congress. Treaty of Ghent. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collid=llsl&filename=008/llsl008.db&recnum=231 (23 Nov. 2006) 10 Wesley B. Turner, The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won. (Toronto: Dundurm Press Ltd., 2000) 118-120
exhaustion. The War shaped American history because it was one of the country s first failures as nation. America failed because of its inability to unite its people; it failed because it was too hasty; and it failed because it was unable to prove a point and achieve its goals. The War of 1812 is hardly regarded with much significance in today s society. It is deemed a shadow of the past, and almost cast aside. Truth remains, however, that war is an ugly thing. Thankfully, it taught both sides that neighbours should remain so and never seek to fight. To this day, the foundations of peace between Canada and the United States, built during the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, remain strong.
Bibliography The War of 1812. American Military History. 2001. 23 Nov. 2006 http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm Badertscher, Eric. The War of 1812. 2005. 23 Nov. 2006 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=khh&an=17922830&sit e=ehost-live Berton, Pierre. War of 1812. The Canadian Encyclopedia. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?pgnm=tce¶ms=a1a RTA0008442 (23 Nov. 2006) Dale, Ronald J. The Invasion of Canada: Battles of the War of 1812. Toronto, Ontario: James Lorimer & Company Ltd., 2001. Horsman, Reginald. War of 1812. World Book. 2005 ed. Jones, J.C. The War Hawks. 1812. Library of Congress. Treaty of Ghent. 23 Nov. 2006 http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collid=llsl&filename=008/llsl008.db&recnum=231 Stanley, George F.G. The War of 1812: Land Operations. Toronto, Canada: Gage Publishing Ltd., 1983. Suthren, Victor. The War of 1812. Toronto, Ontario: McCllelland & Stewart Inc., 1999. Turner, Wesley. The War of 1812: The War That Both Sides Won. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurm Press Ltd., 2000.