Marcus Brutus | 29 Dec 2022 9:26 p.m. PST |
As I was listening to Gary Gallagher's video on Unionism in the North (found in another subject on the ACW forum) I got thinking that the the real underlying issue at stake in the ACW was the question of Manifest Destiny. There was a strong sentiment in the USA in the mid 19th century that it was on mission to expand westward, spreading its form of government and freedom, throughout the continent. The South's withdrawal from the Union reneged on this vision and threatened the possibility of one government for the whole continent. Unionism, as articulated in Gallagher's video was really a variation of the sentiment of Manifest Destiny. In this ideology there was simply no place for another nation in North America. |
David Manley | 29 Dec 2022 11:56 p.m. PST |
|
doc mcb | 30 Dec 2022 4:18 a.m. PST |
There is something to that. No question that the cause of the war was not slavery per se, but its EXPANSION into the west. Not quite the same thing as MD, but related. My issue would be that the South was quite as committed to territorial expansion as the north. Certainly into Texas and Mexico and Cuba. But I would tend to agree that the North's idea of MD was very closely related to their idea of Union. |
rustymusket | 30 Dec 2022 7:06 a.m. PST |
Interesting. Thank you for the insight. |
Brechtel198 | 30 Dec 2022 7:30 a.m. PST |
The United States as a whole believed in and wanted expansion to the Pacific. The Louisiana Purchase 'encouraged' that idea, but the War of 1812 put it on hold. However, it began again in earnest after. As to slavery, it was the issue over which the Civil War would be fought. All other issues for the cause of the war were ancillary to that one problem. |
Marcus Brutus | 30 Dec 2022 12:56 p.m. PST |
As to slavery, it was the issue over which the Civil War would be fought. All other issues for the cause of the war were ancillary to that one problem. We've been over this ground before so I am not going to waste too much effort responding to you ahistorical comment above. But let me point out that Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, made it distinctly clear that slavery was not the issue facing the United States following his election. There was no consensus in the North related to the matter of slavery in the United States in 1861. When Lincoln called up the 75,000 militia he made no reference to the matter slavery as a cause. Obviously, slavery is part of the matrix of causes that led to the ACW but hardly qualifies as The Cause. |
Au pas de Charge | 30 Dec 2022 1:33 p.m. PST |
Obviously, slavery is part of the matrix of causes that led to the ACW but hardly qualifies as The Cause. From the Southern point of view it was most of the reason for the Secession. You just said, no, insisted, that there were two points of view. What does what Lincoln's speech have to do with the CSA's secession? Concerning slavery, the South didnt believe either Lincoln or the Republicans intentions and they said as much in their articles of secession. Further, the Republicans were dedicated to States Rights including the right of states to not enforce the fugitive slave act and to continue to block slavery in the territories. Lincoln also said in his inauguration speech that the secession was unlawful/unconstitutional and further that the Dredd Scott decision was rogue and unconstitutional. Do you accept this too? Your approach is the ahistorical one and you should know you are excluding much from the full record including both the facts and the evidence. Now, for whatever bizarre reason considering no one had any intention of ending slavery, the CSA still seceded because of slavery and they said as much. If what Lincoln said binds him, then what the Southern states said binds them as well. If there was another, larger issue for secession, the CSA kept it from the world, possibly because it was too terrifying to mention but you are not now free to invent some phantom reason by asymmetrical cut and pasting. Even Jefferson Davis never really gave a satisfactory reason for Secession but kept on declaring it was legal. |
doc mcb | 30 Dec 2022 1:44 p.m. PST |
|
raylev3 | 30 Dec 2022 8:43 p.m. PST |
Marcus is wrong. Before the war began, Lincoln was worried about the Union dissolving. But even though some argue today that slavery wasn't the issue, it certainly was the issue for the south. Lincoln's election, and the south's worry he would end slavery, was the issue that cause them to leave the union. There are tooooo many examples in southern state declarations that specifically cited their desire to preserve slavery. Let's agree with the southern states' leadership that slavery was the issue. |
Dn Jackson | 30 Dec 2022 11:36 p.m. PST |
"What does what Lincoln's speech have to do with the CSA's secession?" Because he outlined why he chose to pursue war. He had the option to simply let the southern states leave with no war. |
doc mcb | 31 Dec 2022 5:01 a.m. PST |
raylev, no, sorry, because the south could have had a constitutional guarantee that slavery would continue where it existed. They rejected that because there were other issues, primarily the question of slavery in the western territories. But they had become a distinct culture and wanted independence. There was no UNION left except, it turned out, by war and conquest. Slavery was wrong, wrong, wrong, but that doesn't justify a union imposed by bayonet. (John McBride is glad the union held together, glad slavery is gone, but not at all certain that our bloodiest war was necessary. The south's paranoia and closed-mindedness were a reaction to censorious abolitionists: "No communion with slave owners" split every church denomination.No national institution remained except the Democratic Party, and then came 1860.) |
Brechtel198 | 31 Dec 2022 6:02 a.m. PST |
He had the option to simply let the southern states leave with no war. That was not an option any more than it would be today. Lincoln did his duty and suppressed the rebellion and restoring the Union. Freeing the slaves and ending slavery was a necessary biproduct of winning the war. And the southern states had no inherent right to secede from the Union. |
Murvihill | 31 Dec 2022 6:15 a.m. PST |
"Slavery was wrong, wrong, wrong, but that doesn't justify a union imposed by bayonet." Actually, I think it does. |
Brechtel198 | 31 Dec 2022 7:09 a.m. PST |
Slavery was wrong, wrong, wrong, but that doesn't justify a union imposed by bayonet. It was a union 'restored' by the bayonet, a method chosen by the rebellios confederacy. If you choose war, then accept the consequences. Did you expect Lincoln to allow a rebellion to go unchallenged? He would forego his oath of office if he did. |
Bill N | 31 Dec 2022 7:24 a.m. PST |
When it comes to explaining the outbreak of the Civil War, the concept of Manifest Destiny is less relevant than something far more mundane…dollars. The Constitution of 1787 had the effect of converting the entire U.S. into one common and protected market. The secession of the deep south cotton states would wreck this, putting Yankee businesses on the same footing as those in Europe. In 1801 Jefferson understood the effect of foreign control of New Orleans on the economy of the western U.S. Even with the advent of regional railroads having the Mississippi below Cairo Illinois and possibly the lower Missouri River under the control of a foreign power would have an even greater effect in 1861. |
doc mcb | 31 Dec 2022 9:27 a.m. PST |
|
Brechtel198 | 31 Dec 2022 9:40 a.m. PST |
Might does make for winning, which is the point when taking up arms. The South expected to 'win in a walk' which was unsupported arrogance. They also thought, at least some did, that the war was over after First Bull Run and the federals would not opt for a protracted struggle. And the arrogance of the Confederates led to their defeat which was largely inevitable with Lincoln as president. For all intents and purposes the war was over after Gettysburg and Vicksburg but Lee, Jefferson, et al, kept it going for almost two more years. They only quit when their ears were beaten down to their socks-more's the pity. |
donlowry | 31 Dec 2022 10:18 a.m. PST |
Unfortunately, the powers-that-were in the South ignored Lincoln's inaugural speech. Because he outlined why he chose to pursue war. Sigh! When will this idea finally die? It was Jeff Davis who turned a political crisis into a shooting war, NOT Lincoln!!! |
Blutarski | 31 Dec 2022 10:39 a.m. PST |
Might makes right, then. Exactly ….. and 160 years of political propaganda dressed up as "history" has been imposed to ensure that this rather distasteful aspect of the American experience remains well out of sight of the public. B |
Trajanus | 31 Dec 2022 11:15 a.m. PST |
You know we really should get this renamed "The Reason Why there was an American Civil War Discussion Board" How about I interject "Manifest Destiny" was a handy concept to cloak Genocide with an air of God Given purpose? |
Trajanus | 31 Dec 2022 11:26 a.m. PST |
As for who started the War, didn't Edmund Ruffin claim he did it? Or should we go with George Sholter James, as the Battery Commander? There again he was killed at South Mountain, so I don't supposed he cared either way! |
Au pas de Charge | 31 Dec 2022 11:50 a.m. PST |
Marcus is correct. Marcus is correct to those who want him to be correct. However, against the evidence, Marcus is incorrect. Lincoln discusses that the expansion of slavery must be stopped and that the fugitive slave act while lawful will not be enforced by the federal government. Both of these are grievances by the South justifying secession. Marcus also said this:
We've been over this ground before so I am not going to waste too much effort responding to you ahistorical comment above. I dont know why he continually says dismissive things like this For instance: There was no consensus in the North related to the matter of slavery in the United States in 1861. When Lincoln called up the 75,000 militia he made no reference to the matter slavery as a cause. Why does there have to have been a consensus on slavery? There wasnt a consensus on it in the South either. Many in VA did not want to secede and did not believe in slavery. I don't know what you think this sniglet proves? Because the US Army was weak, Lincoln called up state volunteers to put down a rebellion. Also, Lincoln never declared war, thus why would he say it was over slavery? Do you think he thought it would last 4 years? Whatever Lincoln and every last man, woman and child in the North believed about the institution, the South's secession was over slavery. Which brings us to this: Obviously, slavery is part of the matrix of causes that led to the ACW but hardly qualifies as The Cause. The North's war aims evolved and changed throughout the war. The South's never really seemed to. They apparently just wanted to be left in peace to pursue their non-slavery secession goal. However, in spite of its importance, we don't really know what that goal was; they never did tell us. Marcus, doesn't seem to be able to tell us either; although he is sure it wasn't slavery. I said: "What does what Lincoln's speech have to do with the CSA's secession?" dn Jackson said: Because he outlined why he chose to pursue war. He had the option to simply let the southern states leave with no war. This is inaccurate, misleading and false. Lincoln does not pursue war in his inauguration speech; and wants to avoid war. In fact, this is an ultimate impossibility because war was never declared on the CSA. They were never considered sovereign by anyone but themselves and the Union treated this as a rebellion to be ended by police action. In his inauguration speech, Lincoln said: In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. link Might makes right, then. It does when enforcing the law against criminals. Lincoln declared that the CSA had broken the law and he called on volunteers to suppress a rebellion. They only quit when their ears were beaten down to their socks-more's the pity. At least Lee surrendered with some dignity. Jefferson Davis tried to flee dressed like a woman. |
35thOVI | 31 Dec 2022 1:01 p.m. PST |
@APDC I don't "fear" you.😂 I just find you an irritating anonymous Cyberbully, who belittles others on a continuous basis. I actually find you beneath my contempt. You fail to respond to questions but deride others for not answering yours. You don't discuss, you harangue. People can disagree and discuss in a reasonable manner, but not with you. So don't be surprised I don't respond to you, or directly address you. I am not a neo-Confederate sympathizer, as you so easily label everyone who disagrees with you. I have tried to understand that war from both sides and realize both were at fault. The following quote sums up my feelings about you and how I feel about the majority of your comments in TMP in my time in it. "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." So in the future refrain from responding to anything of mine and I will do likewise with yours. But I doubt you can. |
doc mcb | 31 Dec 2022 1:50 p.m. PST |
At least Lee surrendered with some dignity. Jefferson Davis tried to flee dressed like a woman. I wonder if he ever raided Mary Chestnut's wardrobe? Well, like 35th, I think I don't want to play anymore. Such gratuitous ugliness as the above quote is why. And the "dressed as a woman" is/was a lie, as anyone familiar with the episode knows. link |
Marcus Brutus | 31 Dec 2022 3:21 p.m. PST |
I think slavery is bad. I also think that slavery was contributing factor to the ACW but not the cause. That is a completely rational position to take. For most of the past 150 years of history it would have been a pretty mainstream view. It may or may not be historically correct but it doesn't deserve the kind of acrimony and aggression from people like ADPC. It certainly doesn't deserve ad hominem attacks. Just to add ADPC, like others, I don't carefully read anything you write on the ACW Board anymore. It is just not worth it. And it is not because you disagree with me. |
doc mcb | 31 Dec 2022 3:33 p.m. PST |
Marcus, yes, I feel exactly the same way. |
doc mcb | 31 Dec 2022 4:14 p.m. PST |
Maybe we all just need to stifle Charge? I hate to do that, and on other threads he and I have occasionally had good exchanges. But I don't need the aggravation. |
Legionarius | 31 Dec 2022 9:05 p.m. PST |
Must the Confederacy be killed again and again? |
Dn Jackson | 31 Dec 2022 10:46 p.m. PST |
"And the southern states had no inherent right to secede from the Union." That depends on your view of what the Union was. Many Americans, including a majority of Southerners, saw it as an association of sovereign states in a loose association. One they could leave at any time. Again, several of the original colonies specifically retained the right to leave the Union as part of their ratification of the Constitution. Something Brechtel, that you refuse to address. We are fortunate in having a modern parallel with the EU. Would the EU be justified in mobilizing an army to invade the UK and force the Brits to stay in the EU? |
Dn Jackson | 31 Dec 2022 10:51 p.m. PST |
"Sigh! When will this idea finally die? It was Jeff Davis who turned a political crisis into a shooting war, NOT Lincoln!!!" I never said otherwise Don. However, Lincoln had the option to not respond and simply let the South walk away, even after Sumpter. Remember, the upper south didn't secede until Lincoln called for volunteers to put down the 'rebellion'. Had he not done this the CSA would have come into existance without VA, NC, TN, and, AR. |
Brechtel198 | 01 Jan 2023 6:19 a.m. PST |
Lincoln would have neglected his duty if he let the Union fall apart. Not responding to a national crisis by any president is a failure of that president. 'In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without yourselves being the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend' it.'-Abraham Lincoln, first Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861. |
Brechtel198 | 01 Jan 2023 6:29 a.m. PST |
Further, on the issue of slavery: 'Another difficulty was that the differences between the two societies were most infernally complicated by the existence in the South of the institution of chattel slavery. Without slavery, the problems between the sections could probably have been worked out by the ordinary give-and-take of politics; with slavery they became insoluble.-Bruce Catton, The Picture History of the Civil War, 9, published in 1960. 'To say that the South was committed to a one-crop economy was also to say that it was committed to that 'peculiar institution-slavery…Concentration on cotton raising also led to centralization of slave ownership: of six million Southern whites, only 347,525 owned slaves in 1850; a scant 37,662 of that number had twenty or more…Cotton had saddled the South with a labor system that most impartial observers considered not only outdated but uneconomical.'-Catton, Civil War, 31. The 'other' causes given for the Civil War, such as economics and states' rights, all lead back to one-slavery. |
Brechtel198 | 01 Jan 2023 6:31 a.m. PST |
When Lincoln called up the 75,000 militia he made no reference to the matter slavery as a cause. The militia call up was in response to the firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln's stated mission was the restoration of the Union and the suppression of the rebellion. Slavery would come to the forefront later in the war. |
Brechtel198 | 01 Jan 2023 6:35 a.m. PST |
That depends on your view of what the Union was. It depends on what the US Constitution allows or not. Secession was not on the 'menu' as President Jackson firmly dealt with when South Carolina threatened secession during his presidency. He bluntly told them he would send an army into South Carolina under Winfield Scott to suppress any rebellion. link |
Trajanus | 01 Jan 2023 9:16 a.m. PST |
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. Well at least one of the States Legislatures knew why they wanted out. As did others, Mississippi obligingly put it in a chunk. |
doc mcb | 01 Jan 2023 9:58 a.m. PST |
Geography made the south a staple crop agricultural economy. Southern rivers have few waterfalls steep enough to provide power, but that made them excellent for transport. The south had few large cities but a town at almost every point along the Fall Line. The two staple crops most readily grown, tobacco and cotton, both exhaust the soil by leeching essential elements. So making a profit on them required cheap labor that could be MOVED every few years. The older land could still serve as pasture, and, e.g., Virginia became a major exporter of cattle and horses. And slaves. None of this necessitated African chattel slavery; indentures from Europe served about as well, for half a century (until Bacon's Rebellion in 1676). One can easily imagine, had Africa not been there, a continuing importation of Irish (as fueled the northern factories and economy, with about as much oppression and misery). But after 1676 the planter south bought peace with the poor whites through black slavery. The key book on this is Winthrop Jordan, WHITE OVER BLACK. It was well understood that black slavery was what made white freedom possible. We of course find that dismaying. But this was either before or very early on in the Industrial Revolution, and those who knew history (most, back then, as opposed to FEW, right now) understood that EVERY civilization was based on a dependent class of "hewers of wood and drawer of water." SOMEBODY (pre-machines) has to do the scut work. And they were right, until such as Eli Whitney and Samuel Slater came along. The South locked itself into a system that worked well enough for thousands of years, but was neither needed nor ultimately sustainable in the new industrial world. Their tragedy was to be left defending the old way after the rest of the world changed. Well, I guess SOMEBODY was going to be last. |
35thOVI | 01 Jan 2023 10:27 a.m. PST |
@Doc "The South locked itself into a system that worked well enough for thousands of years, but was neither needed nor ultimately sustainable in the new industrial world. Their tragedy was to be left defending the old way after the rest of the world changed. Well, I guess SOMEBODY was going to be last." Last in the Americas was Brazil. "Brazil was the last place in the Americas to abolish slavery — it didn't happen until 1888" Do you think that Without the Civil War, would we have taken as long? Based on industrialization and technological advancements, making slavery less and less profitable, I would say mid 1870's or later would be a reasonable guess. Your thoughts |
Trajanus | 01 Jan 2023 10:51 a.m. PST |
Good Summary Doc. My point in posting that piece, or one of the others like it, every time I run out of patience around these South/War/Cause Thereof threads, is this. Sometimes, even as we are now in the 162nd year after the event, there are occasional stray souls who post on this Board, none here present included, who are still determined that it was 100% States Rights. First, last and always! Or, anything else but the "S" word. Indeed, you can see a line through some of the Declarations, Mississippi not so much, that can be read that way. The North/Republicans and a host of the ill minded have been pushing us round for years, we are leaving, to Hell with all of you! However, even the most verbose of these, which quote the Constitution, seven ways from Sunday and read like a Court Submission. The words, Slave and Slavery, pop up through the entire document, time after time, after time. At the bottom, doesn't matter about the Right to Succeed, or the Rights of States under the Constitution to do what the Hell they wanted and one can throw in Taxes, Tariffs or whatever one likes. The reason for the War was a position determined by the South for reasons they (or at least enough of "they") undoubtedly felt was the end of it. The Cornerstone of which, to use Stephen's over worked phrase, was Slavery. It doesn't matter what people use as an adjunct, every thing hangs off it and with out it, there is no argument, no casus belli that all concerned agreed on. One way, or another. Your closing sentence is The Nutshell. Someone had to be last, unfortunately it was the Confederacy and that cannot be unwritten. |
doc mcb | 01 Jan 2023 11:00 a.m. PST |
Great question, and of course impossible to know. IF (big if) there had been no Nat Turner (nor comparable) and also no abolitionist moral crusade, MAYBE slavery would have been addressed by one of the Upper South states where it was no longer very profitable. Virginia was close in 1830. Instead, NT terrified the south into extreme measures, not just of policing but of thought-control. And the abolitionists were so repulsive (condemning the Constitution and ADVOCATING slavery insurrection and accompanying massacres) that the south "got its back up" and became very paranoid (though no more paranoid than the abolitionists' talk of the "Slave Power.") Industrial slavery DID work: Tredegar Iron Works is an example. But a lot of southerners were beginning to understand that capitalizing labor is a bad idea. IF a state had moved towards some sort of gradual, maybe compensated abolition, and if it had worked, MAYBE other states would have followed. But not quickly. Plus slavery had to be REPLACED with something else providing continued white supremacy, which was a given by most of the north as well as the south. It needn't have been Jim Crow (which was not set up until 20 years after Reconstruction ended, and was weird) but something. Progress in racial tolerance etc comes slowly, generationally. Intresting ground for speculation. |
doc mcb | 01 Jan 2023 11:13 a.m. PST |
Trajanus, yes. Those who still fly Confederate flags today (I have known more than a few) are NOT advocating slavery -- what a silly idea -- nor even anti-black racism, in most cases. The ones I know work with blacks routinely and easily, and are pretty relaxed about inter-racial marriage. One sees mixed race couples all over the south -- certainly in Chattanoooga where I have lived for 50 years -- and what would have been unthinkable in 1960 is not even remarkable today. That is a huge change. No, what the Rebel flag means today is roughly what you wrote: "The North/Republicans and a host of the ill minded have been pushing us round for years, we are leaving, to Hell with all of you!" Or in modern terms, a general disdain for aliens who look down their noses at us. I remember my shock, fifty years ago as a grad student, reading (FREEDOM'S FERMENT) that the south was unreceptive to reforms like better treatment for the insane, schools for the blind, etc. And I thought "who would be against THAT?" But it wasn't the WHAT, it was the WHO: all of those movements intertwined with the abolitionists. The south resented bitterly their moral preening and willingness to sacrifice OTHERS on the alter of their own morality. So anything they were associated with, the south rejected. |
doc mcb | 01 Jan 2023 11:21 a.m. PST |
I never had very much loyalty to Richard Nixon, who was a staunch anti-Communist but not really a conservative. But I supported him to the bitter end, because his ENEMIES were so repulsive. There are more recent examples as well. If THOSE people hate you and will do anything, break all rules, to bring you down, then you deserve my support. |
donlowry | 02 Jan 2023 11:01 a.m. PST |
To return to the topic of the thread: Manifest Destiny, I think one of the underlying motives of Manifest Destiny, and by extension, preservation of the Union, was to avoid having North America become a collection of competing, quarreling, warring states, like Europe. As with many good goals, the means used were not always nice. (Attacking Canada and Mexico, filibustering in Central America, and running rough-shod over the Native Americans.) At least one goal of the War with Mexico was to add more potential slave states to the pre-war Union. The Knights of the Golden Circle certainly hoped to continue growth in that direction and for that purpose. |
doc mcb | 02 Jan 2023 12:23 p.m. PST |
|
Trajanus | 02 Jan 2023 12:26 p.m. PST |
Well that worked, didn't it! 🤣 |
Dn Jackson | 02 Jan 2023 10:03 p.m. PST |
"The reason for the War was a position determined by the South for reasons they (or at least enough of "they") undoubtedly felt was the end of it. The Cornerstone of which, to use Stephen's over worked phrase, was Slavery." Something to consider: The reasons for a war and the casus belli can be very different. While slavery was certainly the casus belli so to speak, for secession, it was not the reason, imo. As I noted in another thread the civil war almost broke out during the administration of John Adams and again during the Jackson administration and the War of 1812. These were before slavery became as controversial as it did later. The two regions were very different and could only be reconciled for so long before it all fell apart. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 03 Jan 2023 9:32 a.m. PST |
As with many good goals, the means used were not always nice. (Attacking Canada and Mexico, filibustering in Central America, and running rough-shod over the Native Americans.) That was happening even before Manifest Destiny was a thing. Pioneer expansion was not directed by the US government; in the early years, the Congress wanted no part of expanding. |
Brechtel198 | 03 Jan 2023 9:45 a.m. PST |
the means used were not always nice. (Attacking Canada…) Canada being attacked during the early years of the Revolution was just a little overconfidant, although the Continental Army did have two Canadian regiments on its rolls. Attacking Canada in the War of 1812 was basically the only way the US could come to grips with the British on land. Conquering Canada was not a stated war aim of the United States. |
doc mcb | 03 Jan 2023 10:53 a.m. PST |
The War Hawks quite explicitly wanted land, in Florida and in Canada, plus an end to British support of the Ohio region tribes (Tecumseh etc). It was DEFINITELY a war aim. In fact, western land hunger is one of the competing theories of what caused the War of 1812. The maritime issues (restriction of shipping, impressment of seamen) cannot explain why New England opposed the war while Kentucky and Tennessee favored it. The desire for British-held land DOES explain it. |
Brechtel198 | 03 Jan 2023 2:08 p.m. PST |
If you look at the published war aims of the Madison administration, the acquisition of Canada definitely was not a war aim. Donald Hickey explains this very well in his book: Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812. He demonstrates in very clear prose that Canada was not a war aim of the United States. |
donlowry | 03 Jan 2023 6:16 p.m. PST |
Would the EU be justified in mobilizing an army to invade the UK and force the Brits to stay in the EU? I'm no expert on the EU, but I never thought it be an actual government, per se -- more of a treaty organization or customs union. In other words, not a marriage, just friends with benefits? |