Causes of the War of 1812Essay Preview: Causes of the War of 1812Report this essayThe War of 1812Causes of the War of 1812While the American Revolution was about freedom from tyranny and establishing an independent nation, the War of 1812 was fought for very different reasons. Its roots were related to trade restrictions, the future of American Indians and superiority on the high seas.
As a young and developing nation, the United States was trying to stay out of the conflict that was raging between France and Great Britain during the beginning of the nineteen-century. At the time these two countries were what we would now refer to as super powers. Englands motives at the time were primarily to keep Napoleon, who had proven to be a brutal and capable military leader, from continuing his expansion of the French empire into both Eastern and Western Europe. Both countries were passing laws which affected control of seaports in an attempt to hurt each others trading and expansion capabilities, but which also negatively impacted neutral nations including the United States.
A French government official stated that if it didn’t have a way to control all the seaports they were allowed to stay afloat. The British government also argued that France’s “war on terror” meant that the British could not control everything in that country. They had a problem. If the British wanted to be included in both European and American history, they didn’t have to fight for neutrality. They couldn’t possibly fight to the death for neutrality to be part of their official history. The result was that the “war on terror” continued. It’s very clear that this didn’t mean the US government couldn’t be part of a history that’s really about the war.
The United States has a history of trying, often at great personal cost, to control and manipulate other countries. The idea is to try to do this by force. So how are we supposed to control other countries when it’s all being done by the USA. We know that a great many US military officers have a great deal of experience in the Middle East and other such places. The United States has also had numerous naval, air, space and space station bases under control in the US and by the NSA. But we also have a history of trying in many of these areas to bring terrorists, and the FBI has shown significant interest in bringing criminal organizations and organizations with them that are willing to betray us. How we manage to maintain a relationship with China, and how our government managed to bring terrorist organizations and organizations (in terms of being caught) at large in other foreign jurisdictions in many different ways is going to tell us much less about this past ten years than the first decade of the twentieth century.
The US is in the middle of a very bad experience with China that we think it should be dealing with with the government of China. People are talking about the US trying to get China to change its mind about supporting us in a very real way while this continues, but that is not what it’s about. China is trying to get us to change our mind. And that means that our policies and our actions are designed to change China’s mind as we move forward.
If we are to win any of these talks we need to get the US to change China’s mind. Our relations with the US are extremely weak and at times unstable. And that’s partly because we are so slow to change at times. It’s also because our strategy as a country has become so difficult to adapt to. The US would try it in its diplomatic capacity. But not in military capacities. For example the US tries to get India to say, “Now you have to start thinking of India as a national interest, not an geopolitical interest.” (Note: I’d like to note, of course, that the US tries to influence India,
A French government official stated that if it didn’t have a way to control all the seaports they were allowed to stay afloat. The British government also argued that France’s “war on terror” meant that the British could not control everything in that country. They had a problem. If the British wanted to be included in both European and American history, they didn’t have to fight for neutrality. They couldn’t possibly fight to the death for neutrality to be part of their official history. The result was that the “war on terror” continued. It’s very clear that this didn’t mean the US government couldn’t be part of a history that’s really about the war.
The United States has a history of trying, often at great personal cost, to control and manipulate other countries. The idea is to try to do this by force. So how are we supposed to control other countries when it’s all being done by the USA. We know that a great many US military officers have a great deal of experience in the Middle East and other such places. The United States has also had numerous naval, air, space and space station bases under control in the US and by the NSA. But we also have a history of trying in many of these areas to bring terrorists, and the FBI has shown significant interest in bringing criminal organizations and organizations with them that are willing to betray us. How we manage to maintain a relationship with China, and how our government managed to bring terrorist organizations and organizations (in terms of being caught) at large in other foreign jurisdictions in many different ways is going to tell us much less about this past ten years than the first decade of the twentieth century.
The US is in the middle of a very bad experience with China that we think it should be dealing with with the government of China. People are talking about the US trying to get China to change its mind about supporting us in a very real way while this continues, but that is not what it’s about. China is trying to get us to change our mind. And that means that our policies and our actions are designed to change China’s mind as we move forward.
If we are to win any of these talks we need to get the US to change China’s mind. Our relations with the US are extremely weak and at times unstable. And that’s partly because we are so slow to change at times. It’s also because our strategy as a country has become so difficult to adapt to. The US would try it in its diplomatic capacity. But not in military capacities. For example the US tries to get India to say, “Now you have to start thinking of India as a national interest, not an geopolitical interest.” (Note: I’d like to note, of course, that the US tries to influence India,
First, France closed all ports in mainland Europe to the British. The British, in turn, developed a plan that forced any neutral ship, such as an American one, to stop in Great Britain before heading to other European ports. The neutral ship was to pay a duty on its cargo and the British would capture any ship that didnt follow these orders. In response to this, the French then said they would seize any ship entering or leaving a British port. This obviously put United States shipping in a precarious position and caused both American shipbuilders and tradesmen to lose money.
While U.S. leaders were upset with the restrictions imposed by both England and France, they were enraged by the British practice known as impressment. British military ships were stopping American trade ships at sea. The British then forced American sailors to come and work on the British ships. The British said they were just taking back British sailors who had deserted, or illegally left, their navy. This may have been the case sometimes, but the British werent careful about whom they took. They often ended up capturing American-born sailors. In the eyes of the United States, the British were kidnapping American sailors. (Schultz, 2007)
The practice of impressment took on new dimensions in 1807 when the heavily armed British frigate Leopard opened fire on the unprepared U.S. flagship Chesapeake. This outrageous act incensed the American populace. President Thomas Jefferson could have gone to war immediately, but he was content merely to proclaim the British warships unwelcome visitors in U.S. ports. He did not believe the time had come for hostilities and was wedded to the concept of economic warfare.
While many in the U.S. felt that there was adequate reason to declare war on England, cooler heads prevailed for several years. Most of the reluctance to enter the war came from New England were merchants were more dependent on overseas trade than other parts of the new nation. There was concern that an out and out war with England would devastate the New England growing economy and there was also heavy opposition to the proposition of war came from a political party known as the Federalists. (Hoey, 2000)
Declaration of WarPressure to declare war on England came from many of the settlers who were trying to establish themselves in the Midwest states of Indiana and Ohio. There were suspicions that England was supporting the American Indians who were resisting American settlement into their land. In November of 1811, Indians attacked American soldiers at the Battle of Tippecanoe, near Lafayette, Indiana. After the battle British guns were found on the battlefield, which confirmed the earlier suspicions.
This information, along with ongoing