Was the War of 1812 really a "Second War of Indpendence?"

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,038
Iowa USA
That is a good point. Prior to the War of 1812 there had been attacks against settlers in the areas north of the Ohio River (now Indiana and Illinois). The tribes had been supported with arms and other supplies by British authorities in Canada, restricting and discouraging American movement further into the former Northwest Territory, then the Indiana Territory.

In years subsequent to the war, some immigrant settlers to Michigan actually came from Canada. Less chance of conflict, as well as available land, encouraged western (and Northwestern :)) migration and settlement.
... and, replies from across the water??

 
Jun 2015
1,262
Scotland
British opinion at the time considered it was a "Stab in the Back".

The Government and Wellington were finding extreme difficulty in paying for and maintaining an Army of 30,000 in the Peninsula against a French Army of 230,000.

The last thing they wanted was a war with America which was supplying the majority of the foodstuffs imported into an impoverished famine prone Portugal devastated by the impact of the Napoleonic method of feeding its Army by "living of the land".

The Government had already had already resorted to paper money IOUs and finding extra troops for an American war was potential disaster just as the War in Spain had turned to the Anglo-Spanish\Portuguese advantage
Probably the UK's greatest strength at the time was in finance and resource. The UK Government as well as fielding it's own forces was pretty much paying and resourcing the entire Spanish and Potugese war efforts and paying enormous subsides to anyone prepared to pick a fight with Napoleon. While Wellington often complained of being starved of resources that does not mean they were not there, only that the where employed elsewhere.

In 1812 the Army had a strength of roughly 250,000 with a total of 6000 stationed in North America. After the US declaration it was thought to be so important that reinforcements of half a Regiment and 3 obsolescent Frigates were sent.
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,038
Iowa USA
You don't seem to have tried that hard. :notrust:
I asked for some evidence that American foodstuffs were an important part of the supply chain to Portugal.

Seeing as the Embargo Act was apparently in force until the middle part of 1810,

"In 1810 the government was ready to try yet another tactic of economic coercion, in the desperate measure known as Macon's Bill Number 2.[20] This bill became law on May 1, 1810, and replaced the Non-Intercourse Act. It was an acknowledgment of the failure of economic pressure to coerce the European powers. Trade with both Britain and France was now thrown open, and the United States attempted to bargain with the two belligerents. If either power would remove her restrictions on American commerce, the United States would reapply non-intercourse against the power that had not so acted. Napoleon quickly took advantage of this opportunity. He promised that his Berlin and Milan Decrees would be repealed, and Madison reinstated non-intercourse against Britain in the fall of 1810. Though Napoleon did not fulfill his promise, strained Anglo-American relations prevented his being brought to task for his duplicity.[21]" --from wikipedia

It seems that only the harvest of 1811 might have been part of a supply chain to Portugal.

Seems like a light evidence for the supposed stab in the back!

But Redcoat, please take up your usual cause in reply to Pike.

Pike boldly stated that Native attacks on the Indiana Territory were directly or indirectly enabled through British-Canadian commercial interests in resources (fur, perhaps minerals) in American territory.

So, this is fine with you?
 
Last edited:

pikeshot1600

Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
10,011
In the treaty of 1795 (Jay Treaty) Britain had agreed to cease supplying arms and munitions to the native tribes of the US Northwest Territory. Britain also agreed to vacate their fortifications in US territory. The latter was done, but British-Canadian "agents" continued to supply arms to the tribes through several decades, and more aggressively in the Indian war prior to the War of 1812.

Western movement by US settlers may have been perceived as a threat to future British prospects in contiguous parts of Canada. For whatever reason, the tribes were supported with weapons and could (and did) present a threat to settlers as migration proceeded in the decade after the US acquired the huge Louisiana territory.

All the bluster about national sovereignty and the rights of American sailors, etc. was an important selling point for public support in what was a conflict over how the western territories were to be settled and by whom. AFAIK the Treaty of Ghent did not even mention the issue of impressing American seamen.

New states were soon to be populated along the main artery into the interior of North America, the Ohio River. The Indian tribes were in the way and British interests, whether in Canada or Whitehall, were assisting that. Only unrealistic persons wanted to "annex Canada." The US had all the land it needed, and it preferred that Britain stay in Canada where it belonged.
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,038
Iowa USA
This
and yet you wine about partisan British posters.
Right.

That's a comment about the general tenor of the War of 1812 threads in which I've contributed.

The first one which I participated can be found in "Homework Help" and was started around April 2012.

Do you want to see how the British contingent behaved in *THAT* one?

I can link that for you... nahhh, why derail the thread. I'll PM you the link! :suspicious: