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

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,737
Dispargum
...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. ... From the articles of the treaty it appears not to be mentioned. ...

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 issue of the Indian trade evidently was not pressed further by the US or agreement could not be reached.
American negotiators may have felt that with the British no longer in those forts, it would be more difficult for Indians to obtain guns. Also, after the 1794 Battle of Fallen Timbers, that particular Indian War was over so the issue of Indians obtaining arms was no longer as pressing as it had previously been.
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,036
Iowa USA
RE: Jay's Treaty. I'd be curious whether the Canadian-British of the 1780s had a knowledge of copper in Michigan, handed down from the French contact in the Upper Peninsula around 1670?

Almost certainly the Americans coming into Michigan from the South were ignorant of the value of minerals in that part of Michigan?
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
10,001
American negotiators may have felt that with the British no longer in those forts, it would be more difficult for Indians to obtain guns. Also, after the 1794 Battle of Fallen Timbers, that particular Indian War was over so the issue of Indians obtaining arms was no longer as pressing as it had previously been.
Good points. As so frequently happens, the resolution of a problem tends to project that the problem will not recur.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,900
Stockport Cheshire UK
EDIT: I see you used the same Yale law website.
It's an excellent site for the full text of international agreements, I would recommend it to anyone with a interest in history.
I've had it on the favourites list on my browser for a number of years now :)
 
Last edited:

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,900
Stockport Cheshire UK
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.
Thank you.

If trade across the borders was important enough to overlook that, it was then kicked down the road to be dealt with at Ghent.
There is no mention of it in the treaty signed at Ghent either.

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 Jay Treaty was a fairly successful attempt to resolve the outstanding issues from the Revolutionary War and it might have lead to lasting peace if it wasn't for the pressures caused by the Napoleonic Wars