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

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,089
Iowa USA

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,949
Stockport Cheshire UK
If the path you are going down is to establish that the Trading Companies of Canada ought to have been doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to maximize their profits, is it not inevitable that a clash between American sovereignty and the profit motive will be established?
The poster made a claim about the Jay Treaty, l am merely trying to establish the accuracy of that claim.
 
Mar 2015
1,486
Yorkshire
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 He promised that his Berlin and Milan Decrees would be repealed, and Madison reinstated non-intercourse against Britain in the fall of 1810.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?
Hope this helps - you know there was a real War going on in Europe! Which most Americans seem to forget conveniently.

 
Mar 2015
1,486
Yorkshire
Stab in the back:

American PBS Television summary of the British view of the war:



"A British Perspective on the War of 1812
by Andrew Lambert


The War of 1812 has been referred to as a victorious “Second War for Independence,” and used to define Canadian identity, but the British only remember 1812 as the year Napoleon marched to Moscow. This is not surprising. In British eyes, the conflict with America was an annoying sideshow. The Americans had stabbed them in the back while they, the British, were busy fighting a total war against the French Empire, directed by their most inveterate enemy. For a nation fighting Napoleon Bonaparte, James Madison was an annoying irrelevance. Consequently the American war would be fought with whatever money, manpower and naval force that could be spared, no more than seven percent of the total British military effort.

Britain’s Response to the American Declaration of War
The British had no interest in fighting this war, and once it began, they had one clear goal: keep the United States from taking any part of Canada. At the outset, they hoped that, by pointing out that the Orders in Council had been revoked, the U.S. would suspend hostilities. Instead, President Madison demanded an end to impressment, well aware that Britain would not make such a concession in wartime. And so Britain went to war, with no troops to spare to reinforce Canada; it would be defended by a handful of British regulars, Native Americans and Canadian militia.

The British imposed the same devastating economic blockade that had crippled France, carefully targeting states like Virginia that had voted for war. By autumn 1814 the American economy had collapsed. British followed up with amphibious forces raiding around Chesapeake Bay, raising regiments of former slaves as they went. In August, 1814 four thousand British troops captured and burnt Washington, D.C.


Bit of an American Cock-up really - no territory gained and a collapsed economy, when America was doing so well out of exploitation of yet another inter-European Conflict. Still it had gained Louisiana by a legitimate purchase from a friendly Napoleon - so net plus overall.
 
Last edited:

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,089
Iowa USA
Hope this helps - you know there was a real War going on in Europe! Which most Americans seem to forget conveniently.


Perhaps I need to re-read the practical effects of the Embargo Act. If Portugal was neutral for the purposes of the Act during 1809 and 1810 then the comment I made earlier would be rather stupid.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
10,092
Presuming that you are, in fact, skeptical that Jay's Treaty included language which limited the activities of the trading companies based in Canada, I am pretty sure you are correct.
I do not know who has memorized the text of the Jay Treaty :). I did look it up on a Yale website. AFAIK one of the issues the American negotiators wanted to resolve was the supplying of munitions to Indian tribes, some of which had been handled through the British fortifications vacated after the treaty. I was under the impression that that issue had also been addressed. From the articles of the treaty it appears not to be mentioned. So I stand corrected.

If trade across the borders was important enough to overlook that, it was then kicked down the road to be dealt with at Ghent.

The Jay Treaty was primarily about removing the British military presence inside the US, and also about resolving financial damage claims and about free navigation, etc. The issue of the Indian trade evidently was not pressed further by the US or agreement could not be reached.
 
Last edited:

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,089
Iowa USA
I do not know who has memorized the text of the Jay Treaty :). I did look it up on a Yale website. AFAIK one of the issues the American negotiators wanted to resolve was the supplying of munitions to Indian tribes, some of which had been handled through the British fortifications vacated after the treaty. I was under the impression that that issue had also been addressed. From the articles of the treaty it appears not to be mentioned. So I stand corrected.

If trade across the borders was important enough to overlook that, it was then kicked down the road to be dealt with at Ghent.

The Jay Treaty was primarily about removing the British military presence inside the US, and also about resolving financial damage claims and about free navigation, etc. The issue of the Indian trade evidently was not pressed further by the US or agreement could not be reached.
The Treaty was rather Hamiltonian in that respect, yes.

The British hadn't anticipated the confederation of Natives that emerged during 1809-1811 in all fairness to both sides that worked on the wording of the 1795 Treaty.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
10,092
The poster made a claim about the Jay Treaty, l am merely trying to establish the accuracy of that claim.
See post #38. There does not appear to be mention in that treaty of munitions trade with the Indian tribes.

EDIT: I see you used the same Yale law website.
 
Last edited: