"Why US declared war on England.?" Topic

"Boston, MA. Wednesday Morning, June 8, 1814

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Saturday, June 4, 1814.

The following reported Answer to the Speech of his Excellency the Governor was taken up, passed without debate, and the Committee which reported it was directed to present the same: —

… We indulge some hope, mingled however with many doubts and fears, that peace may soon be restored to our suffering and bleeding country, that peace, so anxiously desired by all classes of its citizens: This hope is in some degree strengthened by the unexpected and unexampled change which has recently taken place in the political relations of the powers of Europe. Notwithstanding the manifest danger of being involved in the politics and quarrels of Europe, we are apprehensive that our relations have been too intimately combined with those of one of the contending powers. We will not say that our Government have been in alliance with that of France. But we cannot avoid perceiving that they have been pursuing similar objects by similar means, and have co-operated in fact if not in form. The commercial restrictions of America kept pace with the continental system of France, and was in fact abandoned when that system was destroyed. Neither have we forgotten that War was declared by America at the moment when BONAPARTE was collecting his countless myriads in the North to burst like a torrent upon the only civilized nation of Continental Europe, that dared to resist his power and assert her independence. But the failure of this effort we trust, will prove equally auspicious to our country and the world, equally grateful to the patriot and the philanthropist. With the highest satisfaction, therefore, we embrace this occasion to congratulate your Excellency upon the entire prostration of that monstrous military depotism which had so long trampled upon the rights, and at length, threatened the total annihilation of the liberties of civilized society.

Upon this subject we can scarcely command language to express our feelings. During many years we had witnessed the accumulating and despotic power of the French Emperor with emotions of terror and dismay. We had seen him combining a greater physical force than was ever before concentrated to a single object, aided by all the means of seduction and the arts of intrigue, actuated by no principles but those of boundless ambition, pursuing his rapid career of conquest with unrelenting violence, until the independence of Europe seemed nearly prostrate at his feet. Yet within the short period of eighteen months the power of BONAPARTE, once so formidable and so terrific, has been subverted, and that man is now a harmless exile, who had so long been the scourge of nations. Although we cannot contemplate without melancholy emotions, the immeasurable waste of human life, which so short a period of time has produced, yet in the event we think we may discern the signal interposition of a wise, merciful and over-ruling Providence for the punishment of lawless ambition, the protection of his suffering creatures, and the restoration of peace and tranquility to the world…"
Full article (and more) here.
link

I'm wrong or this declaration said that the US went on war
taking advantage of the events in France under the rule of Napoleon.?

Amicalement
Armand

I have little doubt without Britain's preoccupation with France the United States would not have declared war. Of course, the Americans complaints against Britain stemmed from the British economic blockade of Napoleon's Europe and the impressment of British sailors who had deserted the Royal Navy (and the occasional American non-deserter)to sail on American ships only because of this conflict. It also depended on who you were, some Americans saw the war as a chance to finally crush the resistance of the First Nations of the "old Northwest" (in which they succeeded) or the goal of "liberating" the British North American colonies from the despotic rule of the "tyrannical king" (in which they failed). Some Americans opposed the war entirely and tried to ignore it as much as possible. Indeed, British troops in Canada and Spain were fed on American beef. For some Americans it was a matter of pride, to prove themselves equal to the British in battle and to that extent they succeeded, if only after many failures. To the British it was seen as the Americans had stabbed them in the back in their greatest moment of peril.

Pfft. Because we thought we could take them.

Pfft. Because we thought we could take them.

You were wrong …

Without a war in Europe there wouldn't have been a 'fight' between the Americans and the British. The Americans were busy selling food and supplies to both the French and the British. Both European powers tried to restrict American trade with the other power; it just happened that the British Royal Navy was better at that task. The vote for war didn't pass by much, but it did pass. There were even some small portions of the US (Federalist in New England) that contemplated succession to continue a lucrative trade with England.

I think GlenGarry5 captures it all nicely, except the war was critical for US survival and British/US relations were anything but friendly up to that moment.

"Pfft. Because we thought we could take them."

"You were wrong …"

And so were you….

"Pfft. Because we thought we could take them."

"You were wrong …"

And so were you….

I beg your pardon? We didn't pick a fight with the US. They declared war on us knowing we were "busy" elsewhere …

Agree with GlenGarry5.

Amicalement
Armand

The US seems to have thought that France was their ally par excellence,which is understandable following their recieving French aid during the Revolutionary war. The War of 1812 was an unfortunate but IMHO neccesary part of America's development as a world power.
On a positive note, it is part of the great tapestry of history which has lead to the US and Britain becoming good friends and allies, a situation with which I am immensely pleased and thankful for!

Actually, in the 1790's the Americans refused to honour their alliance with revolutionary France, after all that alliance had orginially been with the deposed French crown, leading to the naval skirmishes of the "quasi-war" in which the Americans received aid from Britain!

"Why US declared war on England.?"

A cynical land grab (and a deeply unpopular war in the North that virtually bankrupted the country and saw its coastline blockaded and its merchant marine savaged) under the guise of a maritime causus belli, masterminded by a president with little real grasp of the situation into which he and his cohorts were getting their country.

One of the greatest exercises in back stabbing since the Ides of March.

Backstab is a bit of a stretch. That would have required the British to be ignorant of the fact they were giving guns and training to native tribes in the Mid-west to resist American expansion and raid settlements- something they agreed not to do at the close of the AWI. Of course, it's not like the British saw the Americans as a threat given their response to the situation. They dispatched third rate units and officers to raise and train Canadians to do the fighting in North America. A lack of interest brought the war to a close with the British saying, "Here kid, have your ball back. Bonaparte just kissed my sister and I need to head back home and kick his ass before things get serious."

Third rate units to fight the war in N. America? I'm sure that Wellington would have loved to have some of those third rate units at Waterloo! First of Foot; Rifles; Marines; hardly Third Rate!

I would hardly call the British regulars in Canada at the start of the War of 1812 "3rd rate", they after all accomplished so much with the Canadian militia and First nations allies against great odds. That would've made their American opponents at the beginning if the war 4th rate at best! But many of the famous British units, like the rifles, Connaught Rangers and light infantry only joined the conflict late in 1814, after Napoleon had been defeated in Europe… the first time.

The British saw themselves as a (albeit flawed – restricted voting rights) democratic island of freedom coming up against a continent under the thumb of a ruthless tyrant. They saw the United States, with some bitterness of course, as a misguided and fragile (albeit flawed-slavery)democracy. It would've been roughly, roughly I say, as if the Americans had joined WW2 on Hitler's side.

There was an alliance with the crown of France, not the Republic (always love this revisionist Francophile stuff :-)

The war was really due to problems on both sides with privateering and capture of former British sailors found on board, boarded U.S. ships (even when U.S. citizens). The British were trying to keep France blockaded and the U.S. was trying to make money trading.

Read "The War of 1812 – The Rise of the U.S. Navy". All you really need to know why it started is in there. Ironically, we were taught in U.S. history that the British gave in to U.S. demands but by then with mail delay via ship, the war was on. Neither side wanted it as they both wanted to make money trading. And contrary to both side's versions, neither won but both wanted trade with each other. The money won :-)

"There was an alliance with the crown of France, not the Republic (always love this revisionist Francophile stuff :-)"

Actually, if you look closer I said pretty much the same thing.

I just can't imagine the British seeing the US as anything close to a like government at the time. It would explain, at least for me, a sense that they stabbed the British in the back.

I'll hold with the 3rd rate comment. That's not a slight against those units or officers, but if they they had been the cream of the British military they would have been engaged in the primary theater against the existential threat and not placed against an economy of force mission. They were still very capable and what they did with the Canadians is indicative of the British Army over the last 150 years or so: a small British cadre with the right equipment can turn the locals into an effective, threatening fighting force.

The American Army at the time wasn't up to the task. War of 1812 was the third jewel in the crown with St Clair's Defeat and Hamar's Defeat. All good lessons in quick succession on why a professional army was needed for the Americans. Which promoted some change, if not slowly.

Interestingly enough, after starting a war with the British over the right to remove contraband belonging to a combatant off a neutral ship the US and the British will get close to locking horns again in 1861 with the Trent Affair. Nearly the same scenario, only in reverse with the US taking two passengers off a British ship (a royal dispatch carrier no less). THAT, was the backstab. :)

If it was 3rd rate British troops that took Washinington – not a city on the Canadian border – what does that say about the US military both Regjlars and Militia? What does it say for the Jeffersonian view of Federal Government?

What it says, like I said earlier, the Americans weren't up to the task. They lacked the professional officer Corps the British enjoyed. Most American officers ran some other business on the side and we're not dedicated life long students of the profession of arms like their British cousins. A mistrust of a large professional standing army with a professional corps of officers was the undoing of American military efforts between AWI and War of 1812, as I mentioned above. After spending the AWI learning the Citizen-Soldier is important but he still needs the Professional, the Americans down sized the standing army and relearned the same lesson three times in a row culminating with the War of 1812.

North America was the economy of force mission in a world wide conflict for the British. The objective for them in North American had been to keep the US relatively weak to prevent their aggressive expansion into British territories. The real fight was in Europe, and modernization efforts, supplies, manning, training, ect went to those units that were directly protecting the home islands from the French. Those committed were not the finest of the British military at the time- but still very very good and more than adequate with Canadian support to teach the Americans border etiquette. You have to give it to the British that an island nation was able to achieve their national objectives on at least two continents at the same time. They were able to accurately assess their enemies, themselves, and priorities limited resources to achieve success. Or, at least that's what I walked away with from US Military History.

138squadronRAF

The British troops that burned Washington did not come from Canada but the sea, some from Europe or the West Indies but none came from Canada.