Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Table of Contents
Topic Page
Introduction 02
Maritime causes 03
Sophistication of war rhetoric 04
Unrest among the first nations 07
Land hunger 09
Slavery and the war 11
Gender dynamics—Women in the war 14
Statecraft of America in the war 16
France during the war 17
Opposition of the federalists 19
Consequences of the war 20
Sources and References 21
Introduction:
On the 4th of July, 1776, thirteen British colonies on the east coast of
North America declared their independence. In September, 1783, the
Treaty of Paris agreed to and confirmed the independence of the
thirteen states, acknowledging the United States as a sovereign country.
Loss of colonies and continual wars with the French (1793—1812)
further compelled the English to ascertain supremacy over the Trans-
The scope of this paper is limited to discussing the causes of the war, the social,
economic, and political trends and diplomacies during the war, and the
consequences of the war. Military strategies, and/or military history have not been
discussed, except when necessary.
-2-
When sailors were on open seas, their rights were regulated by the
municipal law of the country to which the ship belonged, regardless of
their individual allegiances. Great Britain, to man her fleet during war
with France, maintained an inalienable right to the service of all English
sailors, including those aboard neutral vessels, like the American. Since
impressment or acquiescence to infringement of personal liberty was
dishonourable to the country to which the ship belonged, the actions of
England hurt both commerce and the national pride of the States.
Attempts at diplomacy were made continually to forestall the military
confrontation. In 1794-95, John Jay negotiated a treaty through which
America was granted “the most favoured nation” status, despite
restriction of commercial access to the British West Indies. It lapsed in
1805 due to opposition of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. An
official statement of the Secretary of State of America, made in 1812,
declared that five hundred and twenty-eight American merchantmen
had been taken by British men-of-war prior to 1807, and three hundred
and eighty-nine after that period including seizure of cargo worth nearly
thirty million dollars.
Sophistication of War rhetoric:
-4-
Cluster Bloc analysis: A technique in which the researcher uses pair wise voting scores to
form groups of legislators who voted similarly-and the index of cohesion, a numerical
measure of group unity.
Statistics point to considerable consistency in party unity, signifying
uniqueness of the situation of 1812 compared to 1798 or 1808, where
partisan behaviour masked the real differences of opinion, but by itself
could not have produced a declaration of war in 1812. Close
observation of congressional voting patterns reveals the possibility of
war much before Madison, in Adam’s or Jefferson’s administration.
-5-
What distinguished 1812 from 1798 or 1808 is the way the vocabularies
of motive shifted. There was a gradual conversion of Republicans from
Jeffersonian pacifism to a vigorous defence of America’s neutral rights,
believing that the only alternative was submission and national disgrace.
Although the quasi-war was justified on narrow commercial grounds
prior to 1807, Republicans in 1807-08, following Chesapeake affair,
subsumed commercial interests within national honour. By 1812, war
proposition was thoroughly articulated as the determination of Britain
to “re-colonize” America, with three major themes—
1. Identification of damages
2. Lawlessness of conduct
3. Universalization of effects
-7-
Prior to the declaration of war of 1812, tribes for the great lake regions
(Michigan, Ontario, Quebec, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and Minnesota)
face continual threat from the Whites. Frequent attacks from Americans
forcefully displaced several tribal communities like the Shawnee,
Delaware, Iroquois, Miami, Odawa, Wyandot and Mingo, who finally
prepared to go to war against the United States. Alliances formed
among the various tribes of the Gitchi Gamik (Great Lakes), and
leaders emerged. One such leader was Tecumseh, a Shawnee Indian,
and brother of Tenskawata, a self proclaimed prophet. Tecumseh
succeeded in converting the Prophet’s religious following into a political
activism inspiring resistance to the American expansion into the Indian
lands.
The British in Canada retained the trade relations with the Natives of
the First Nations. Also, the old British-Indian military alliances had
been maintained post the American Revolution through activities of
military garrisons and quasi-military Indian agents. These fraternizations
aroused deep mistrust and suspicion among the Americans. The West
believed that the unrest among Indians resulted from operations of the
British.
The Battle of Tippercanoe, 1811, in which United States attacked,
fought, and defeated the Prophet thereby forcing the Indians to recede
further, had two major effects—It aggravated the Indians as they readily
joined British, and Canadians during the war as the Aboriginal/Indian
Confederacy; the American pro-war spirit was fuelled by the loss of life
on the battlefront, providing an acceptable vocabulary of motive for
war declaration, “The British are to be warred upon because the Indians
stood in the way of advancing frontier and the British stood behind the
Indians; not because the British themselves possessed the coveted
lands.”
-9-
Land Hunger:
New England: the six states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The maritime rights thesis fails to explain why the West and South
should be eager for war while the seaboard East denied the war, fearing
such hostilities meant their economic ruin. This bellicose attitude of the
West, when attributed to Britain’s lawlessness of conduct, or to the
growing national pride, posed the same question—why not in 1807, or
1808? Or why was the declaration not against France?
The logical conclusion is that the war of 1812 was meant to be a land
war, advocated by an agricultural section of the country for the
acquisition of the great reserves of agricultural lands of Canada.
The division in the House of Representatives is as follows:
(1) The division in Massachusetts was only 8 to 6 against a declaration
of war and 5 of the 6 affirmative votes came from representatives of
coastal areas.
(2) New Hampshire cast 3 of its 5 votes in favour of war, and Vermont
3 of its 4. In the latter state the lone vote for peace was cast by the
member from the north-westernmost part of the state.
(3) Pennsylvania, only half of which could be included in the West (as
of 1812), cast 16 of its 18 votes for war.
(4) Maryland, hardly to be classed as a Western state, favoured the war 6
to 3.
(5) All the representatives from coastal Virginia and North Carolina
voted for war. All the opposition to the measure in those states came
from the central portion.
This distortion works uniformly to emphasize the significance of the
West, where constituencies were much larger in area than those in the
East and South, and thereby cast greater representation in terms of
votes.
The South also contributed majorly to the declaration of the war, but
for its own agenda. The conquest of Canada was widely discussed and
- 11 -
changed on whim rather than reason. The threat of butchery was used
throughout the war to remind men why they had to fight and what they
had to fight for.
Statecraft of America in the war:
Ironically, the victory at New Orleans had been won after the peace
Treaty of Ghent was signed, but it led the Americans to view the whole
war as a triumph, although the situation returned to post war
conditions, and the treaty didn’t actually resolve any major concern that
supposedly caused the war.
United States, as a nation succeeded in ending impressment and
privateering practices on the Atlantic waters. Free trade was restored in
the country. More than everything, the war of 1812 granted to the
United States of America complete freedom and sovereignty. The fact
that England negotiated peace, and accepted to status quo antebellum,
reinforced the sense of complete colonial freedom. The relative
moderation of the Federalists' demands was largely lost on triumphal
Republicans, and they were cast out as unpatriotic, selfish, and poor
judges of events. Federalist Party, at most could retain its influence in
- 21 -
New England for a few years longer, but clearly reached the end of its
time as a national political party.
Canadians also developed nationalistic sentiments and a national history
after their successful defence against the American invasion. The belief
that their civilian soldiers had won the war helped germinate seeds of
national pride in Canadians.
The war of 1812 was heavily over-shadowed by the Napoleonic wars, in
Britain. However, England remained acutely conscious of the naval
potential of the United States Navy, for it had won most single-ship
duels. Also, Britain suffered huge losses as numerous British ships were
captured and raided by American privateers; this sent the insurance
rates skyrocketing and caused a great deal of embarrassment to the
Admiralty.
As an aftermath of the war, the Indians suffered immense losses. The
death of Tecumseh ensured the dissolution of the Indian confederacy.
The American national policy changed against Indians. Immediately,
after his election, President Jackson was able to have a devastating law
enacted—the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The Indian Removal policy
stated that Indians living east of the Mississippi River were to be
removed to lands west of the Mississippi River. These lands in the west,
which were designated as “Indian Territory,” were primarily the states
of Oklahoma and Kansas. A multitude of tribes were forced west, never
to stand another chance at reoccupying their native lands.
Sources and References:
1. Hatzenbuehler, Ronald L., and Robert L. Ivie. “Justifying the War of 1812: Toward a
Model of Congressional Behavior in Early War Crises”. Social Science History 4.4
(1980): 453–477.
2. Goodman, Warren H.. “The Origins of the War of 1812: A Survey of Changing
Interpretations”. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 28.2 (1941): 171–186.
3. O'Connor,Thomas,1770-1855., “An impartial and correct history of the war between the
United States of America, and Great Britain; declared by a law of Congress, June 18,
- 22 -
1812, and concluded by a ratification and exchange of a treaty of peace, at the city of
Washington, Feb. 17, 1815.
4. Mahan, A. T. 1840-1914. Sea Power in Its Relations to the War of 1812. Little, Brown,
and Company, 1905.
5. Hacker, Louis Morton. “Western Land Hunger and the War of 1812: A Conjecture”.
The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 10.4 (1924): 365–395.
6. Updyke, Frank A. The Diplomacy of the War of 1812. Gloucester, Mass :P. Smith,
1965.
7. The Berlin Decree. November 21, 1806; Correspondance de Napoleon I, XIII, 551-557;
Translation, James Harvey Robinson, University of Pennsylvania Translations and
Reprints;
8. http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/diplomatic/c_continental.html
10. http://purl.dlib.indiana.edu/iudl/general/VAC2957
11. The Land Hunger Thesis; Global problem and Culture of Capitalism; (ISBN:
0205193374); Robbins, H. Richard; Plattsburg Library.
12. http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/legacy/thesis_statements.html
13. Treaty of Ghent, 1814; International Treaties and Related Records, 1778-1974; General
Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.
14. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=20&page=pdf
15. The Origins of the War of 1812: Causes, Reinterpretations, and Rumination; Youmans,
Harold W.; Journal of the War of 1812, bicentennial issue, 2012; Vol. 15; Number-1.
16. https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&
uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjNj_Sxt9LKAhVFt44KHQ9gAfAQFgguMAM&url=ht
tp%3A%2F%2Fjournal.thewarof1812.info%2Farchive%2FJournal1812Summer2012Bic
entennialIssue.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHEY4qqdThp04wNM4ayqpAcayT6IA&sig2=ol4_ly9
dSuMCPcTtVggC4A&bvm=bv.113034660,d.c2E
17. http://www.eighteentwelve.ca/?q=eng/Topic/2
18. "Jay Treaty (1794)," American History Central, 2016, American History Central. 27 Mar
2016
19. http://www.www.americanhistorycentral.com/entry.php?rec=479
- 23 -
21. http://www.earlyamerica.com/early-america-review/volume-4/federalist-opposition-to-
the-war-of-1812/
24. http://www.ushistory.org/us/18b.asp
25. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/embargo-
1807#Embargo_of_1807
26. https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-
textbook/securing-the-republic-1800-1815-11/the-war-in-europe-98/the-embargo-act-
of-1807-527-10387/
27. http://classroom.synonym.com/embargo-act-1807-effects-us-11926.html
28. http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2010/07/embargo_graphic_org_tchr_note
s.pdf
29. http://www.libertylawsite.org/book-review/republican-ideology-and-its-failure-in-the-
war-of-1812/
30. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=39006
31. http://www.shmoop.com/war-1812/politics.html
32. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch14.pdf
33. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/haitian-rev
34. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ksands/War.html
35. http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/98201/frontmatter/9780521898201_frontmatte
r.pdf
36. http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/early-republic-and-
antebellum-history/war-1812-conflict-continent
37. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/imh/article/view/8462/10637
38. http://i.infopls.com/images/states_imgmap.gif
39. http://www.allmendeberlin.de/What-is-Enlightenment.pdf
--The End--