Download Final Essay

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 Senate1, 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
industries2 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
“The War of 1812”. American Military History, http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm
(23 Nov. 2006)
2
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 borders4. 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 laws5. 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”.
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
4
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 vessels6. 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 Canada7. 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’ concerns8. 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 process9. Although
the Natives suffered greatly from the war, an attempt (albeit a poor one) was made to
appease them in the treaty10. 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&Params=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.