1812: America's 2nd war of Independence?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Early Modern & the Imperial Age
Forum Discription: World History from 1500 to the end of WW1
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21372
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 00:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 1812: America's 2nd war of Independence?
Posted By: what_is_history
Subject: 1812: America's 2nd war of Independence?
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 21:53
|
In recent years, a large amount of historical writing on the War of 1812 has been devoted to proving the assumption that the War of 1812 (between the U.S. and Britain) was essentially a second war for American independence, which America bravely won. Many authors even make the claim that it was the War of 1812 that added a sence of legitimacy and cohesiveness to the infant United States. Such claims, however, negate a few important factors: #1.) The United States entered a war that they were completely unprepared for. American military might was in a pathetic state and not prepared for war with a world power. #2.) Great Britain was already preoccupied with Napoleon on the European continent. #3.) Great Britain was able to occupy a good portion of American territory (including burning the national capitol).
#4.) U.S. leaders of the time (mainly James Madison) never showed the pride or excitement that is typical of a nation that is victorious in war. Instead they breathed a sigh of relief at the war's conclusion.
What I'm trying to get at is the fact that the War of 1812 was anything but a smashing victory for the U.S. Had it not been for Napoleon's advances in Europe, Britain would have been able to devote much more to the fight in America. Of course we all know that the war ended with the Treaty of Ghent in 1815, which declared Status Quo Antebellum. This treaty, however, was more of an escape for the United States, which had endured extreme hardships as a result of the conflict.
So, I am curious to know what you think. Was the War of 1812 really a
SECOND war of U.S. independence? Who really won the war (if anyone)? How would the outcome of the war been different if Napoleon was never a factor? Why does the War of 1812 gain the reputation as America's second war of independence? ------------- "It aint what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain |
Replies:
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 22:26
|
The US at the time called it the 2nd War for Independence. I'm not sure how many people actually genuinely believed it. Most of the state militias didn't turn up. And the Canadians both French and English fought hard against the Americans.
On the subject of disproving a US victory. In both the UK and Canada it is regarded as a British and Canadian victory. Year one US invades Canada, year three, half the US is British occupied and the US sues for peace.
To decide the real result of the war, you must ask a person from a neutral country. French, German, Mexican and so on and see what their historians write of the war. For a less biased view.
1. The US entered the war unprepared. 200,000 troops on paper and only 30,000 mustered for the invasion of Canada. The US military was a shambles, militia ranks carried over to regular. So a militia general outranked a regular colonel. IE: the local mayor raising 200 soldiers in his town could dub himself Generalissimo and when a regular regt came to town assume command over the regimental commander. In the British army all regular ranks outranked militia. If a regular lieutenant bumped into a militia field marshal the regular outranked him and assumed command.
2 Britain was pre-occupied in Spain without that no-war. The same had occured with the invasion of Florida and the Louisiana puchase.
Britain was able to send a major army but chose not to. The Carribean was Britain's main outpost. More troops were there than India. But was considered too important to deplete the garrison in both 1776 and 1812. However the Navy was fully available and blockaded the US for 3 years. It was trade bankrupcy, not military action that caused the US to sue for peace.
In the US defence, it took a mauling. It attacked a country far more powerful than itself even if occupied in Spain and survived. It established the US as a country rather than a temporarily rebel province.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2007 at 14:46
|
this article summed it up nicely, imo
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/declinism.html - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/declinism.html
The 13 colonies hugging the Atlantic seaboard would rally behind Hamilton's vision and redefine the nature of their connection with the Old World, but the revolutionary moment was short-lived. After defeating the British Empire in a brutal war for independence, the young republic was soundly swatted back into its place less than 30 years later during the War of 1812. The war saw U.S. forces routed in Canada, U.S. sailors captured and impressed into duty on British warships, U.S. ports blockaded, and the U.S. Capitol and White House set ablaze by a British invasion force. When measured against Great Britain -- and against its own position just a generation earlier -- it appeared that the United States had declined drastically. |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 08:17
I have to ask, independance from whom?
The war was a draw, as Britain was not interested in persuing the matter to a conclusion [bigger fish to fry
 ].Had napoleon not been a factor, and the US had invaded Canada to provoke a war, I think the whole might of the empire would have come down on the US like a ton of bricks, and without outside assistance, Americans would now be voting for MPs to Westminster, in a pluralist multi-cultural Anglo-Iroquois democracy.
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 10:29
|
As a Latin American that remember the 100 invasions and interventions of uncle Sam in our lands... and we always loosing ... it is good to hear Americans were defeated by Canadians once
 Pinguin
------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 23:28
|
Lol! the British did learn by their first defeat and would have set up the reconquered Americans along the lines of their Australian settlement where they had been hugely successful. President John Kennedy was fascinated by this interesting subject as well. I saw some old footage where he told of his ancestors being Irish smugglers for America that ran the British blockade even as far south as Australia.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: AndronicusRex
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 02:01
|
No, no, no. The Civil War, also known as the War of Northern Aggression, was the Second American Revolution. The War of 1812 was between two seperate nations and the British had no aim to re-conquer America or any such nonsense. ------------- Andronicus Rex, Noble of the Republic http://angryamericanaristocrat.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 22:48
|
I think America's original war of independence should be enough... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: HaloChanter
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 23:26
|
The war is sometimes known as the Second War of Independence as America still felt subservient to Britain economically, socially, culturally and military.
Fashion and goods came from London, society was still very much mirrored along English lines, literature, education and trends continued to grip American life.
The two economies were deeply intwined and in many instances America was seen as the more subservient of the two.
Implied British aid to Indians and its threatening Canadian frontier still scared Americans and made them somewhat feel as though they lived in Britain's shadow.
British treatment of American merchants and mairitime principles, especially on the outbreak of war with France in 1792, was seen as the bullying behaviour of an overbearing father.
All of these gave the War, for the Americans, a supposed air of independence, once and for all, from the old Motherland. Especially with incidents such as the "Star Spangled Banner".
It was, however, an overwhelmingly different affair. The war was not waged for independence, but for bellicose, arrogant and ultimately unreasonable factors.
Cheers! ------------- Kind regards, HaloChanter |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 16:57
Sounds like the 'sixties.
 ------------- |
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 18:46
|
We gave the yanks a mauling and for the most part been good friends ever since, britain and america was never anything more than a family row.
Theres parts of america that still fly the union jack today and im told though due to the time theres no recording, that washington spoke with a yorkshire accent, i believe but for the issue of tax we would have remained as happy in each others company as we do today.
for bravados sake 1812 is good for me as a brit, but along with australia, canada, new zealand the US and these countries have been close trusted allies and us of them.
In 1945 this paid a dividend none can fully comprehend.
it was good for all of us in the end.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 05:45
I don't think that would have been possible. In 1812 protestant Australians were legally second class citizens (literally), denied any of the rights of English Law. Catholic Australians were basically considered "white skinned aborigines", and the Aborigines were more likely to get shot than spoken to. It would be impossible for the English to impose these kinds of laws on a more heavily populated, and rebellious, America. ------------- |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 08:03
|
Australian history is not all that simple and England did learn a
lesson by losing America. Australians never had the right to bear arms
and to shoot guns by everyday citizens is still a problem in America.
Australians never held slaves and didn't have to fight an awful civil war to
get rid of slavery and so on.
------------- elenos |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 09:57
 Well firstly Australians have always had the right to bear arms, tough anti-gun laws really only came in 1996, and I'm pretty certain that if I wanted to buy a gun I would be able to without too much hassle. Certainly for the colonial period there were no firearm or weapon restrictions. If you were an unarmed settler your chances of survival weren't very high - the aborigines didn't give up their land peacefully. Secondly Australia is a country built on semi-slave labour. There isn't very much difference between a convict and a slave, other than the fact that a convict is white, and predominantly male. We had very strong emancipist movements in the 1820s, but as you say, didn't have a long term problem probably because the convicts didn't form a lower class, instead they died out, due to lack of women (In 1830ish 16,000 male convicts to 1,500 women in NSW and 6700 men vs 750 women in Van Diemons Land). Australia doesn't have a class structure because our lower class died off, not because it never existed or any fables about "mateship". The English did learn from American independence, but most of what they learnt was that they could still reap the benefits of America through trade. To apply an Australian style government in America would be impossible. The Americans just wouldn't take it. ------------- |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 11:28
|
Odd, all of that hot air, and not one mention of New Orleans. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 12:33
|
A police license has always been required to handle a gun in
In 1796 Governor Hunter declared the all guns in the colony of NSW must be registered; further in 1802 Governor King declared that except for the military and officials each house must contain no more than one musket. As increasing numbers of free settlers came to Quote from Wiki ------------- elenos |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 17:23
What's New Orleans got to do with the war of 1812 being America's second war of independence? For that matter, what's New Orleans got to do with the war of 1812?  |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 23:23
|
For the most part New Orleans doesn't have anything to do with the war of 1812. It was just the last hurrah at the end (or after the end)
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 02:45
|
New Orleans was after the game was up, poped a few hundred redcoats. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 14:54
|
Actually, the brits one a battle after New Orleans, The Battle of Fort Bowyer, and were on the road of attacking the city when the news came of the peace.
al jassas
|
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2007 at 18:24
|
im glad oz dont have the right to bare arms like us, its more manly that way, any coward can settle a dispute with a gun, if you have to use your hands and feet it separates the men from the boys. ------------- long live the king of bhutan |
Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2007 at 19:55
|
In Australia the traditional frontier bar brawls ended in fighting and someone getting punched up, but no shootouts. Some authorities still say Australia's history would have been more exciting with guns, interesting thought (I enjoy my cowboy movies too) but they are not really looking at the facts, guns kill especially in the hands of those who are not educated to use them.
------------- elenos |