Well, what Americans lump together as the War of 1812 was two seperate and distinct engagements. There was the fracas on the Northern front that involved burning a few towns and was settled by the Treaty of Ghent; as people say, even a modicum of sense on either side could easily have averted this. And there was the Battle of New Orleans, which American high school textbooks sheepishly admit was fought after the Treaty but decline to say why. The reason was because Napoleon had no legal right to sell the place and Britain had taken it into their heads to play international policeman and return the place to its rightful owner (Spain). This is much harder to avert...the Americans are going to snag New Orleans one way or another, and Britain will almost certainly try to do something about it. But you can trim the War of 1812 With No Russians In It down to one battle (I honestly doubt the British are peeved enough about it to try a large invasion).
Can the 1812 war be adverted?
- Thread starter Redem
- Start date
Neither Jefferson nor Madison was especially enthused for the war, indeed, it started towards the end of Madison's first term when Jefferson had been retired for three years. Arguably Madison might have been able to fight harder to prevent it, and note that two votes would have been enough, but that doesn't mean he was eager for it.
The British had evacuated the last forts in the Old Northwest many years prior to 1812. Nor were they hoping to return Louisiana to the rightful owner as Spain, having sold Louisiana to France, was no longer the rightful owner in the first place. Perhaps the Spanish and certainly the Cajun in New Orleans were stunned to learn just how fast Napoleon sold what he had just gained, but that's hardly illegal.
The British had evacuated the last forts in the Old Northwest many years prior to 1812. Nor were they hoping to return Louisiana to the rightful owner as Spain, having sold Louisiana to France, was no longer the rightful owner in the first place. Perhaps the Spanish and certainly the Cajun in New Orleans were stunned to learn just how fast Napoleon sold what he had just gained, but that's hardly illegal.
Max Sinister
Banned
The battle of New Orleans was fought after the treaty simply because the communication was that slow at that time, IIRC. Neither Jackson nor his counterpart knew of the treaty.
True as far as it goes, but they didn't know because they hadn't been informed because it wasn't relevant to what THEY were doing. The British contingent which negotiated the Treaty of Ghent knew perfectly well that there was an expedition on its way to take New Orleans while they were negotiating, and said not a word. It's very likely the American negotiators were aware of Jackson etc as well. And the Treaty of Ghent, while laying out the USA's northern border with commendable detail, declines to say anything about its southern or western borders. Because both sides knew those were yet to be determined by force of arms.
I fail to see how a single expedition in 1815 constitutes an effort on the part of the British to reverse the 1803 treaty between France and the US. They were at war, having been the victim, and went for what was perceived as a suitable target.
The Treaty of Ghent says nothing about the southern or western borders of the US because those were clearly established and did not border British territory at any point. Neither is there any evidence that British negotiators, a collection of second-raters who had to refer everything back to London, were aware of the expedition.
The Treaty of Ghent says nothing about the southern or western borders of the US because those were clearly established and did not border British territory at any point. Neither is there any evidence that British negotiators, a collection of second-raters who had to refer everything back to London, were aware of the expedition.
Before the war Americans were moving into New Brunswick, & acroos the lakes into Ontario. The war solidified the USians, and the Canadians
Without the War, the Borders would have remained less well defined, The Mixing would have continued.
Sometime later the left over Issues from the ARW, combined with the inconcluive matter of the Border would have lead to another war, probally around 1848, and the Oregon Question.
If the Mixing had contiuned with less Differentation beween the US and Canadians, the 1848 war would be very interesting [chinese meaning] indeed.
Without the War, the Borders would have remained less well defined, The Mixing would have continued.
Sometime later the left over Issues from the ARW, combined with the inconcluive matter of the Border would have lead to another war, probally around 1848, and the Oregon Question.
If the Mixing had contiuned with less Differentation beween the US and Canadians, the 1848 war would be very interesting [chinese meaning] indeed.
The most common answer to no 1812 (which I'm suprised hasn't come up yet) is that it was the war of Canadian independance whcih they won outright.
If it hadn't been fought due to a lack of nationalism they would eventually join the US.
Avoiding it...Earlier defeat of Napoleon is indeed the only way. This both serves to take away the American excuses for war and makes the real reason for war (conquest of Canada) seem a immensly stupid viewpoint as it would involve facing the full force of the UK.
If it hadn't been fought due to a lack of nationalism they would eventually join the US.
Avoiding it...Earlier defeat of Napoleon is indeed the only way. This both serves to take away the American excuses for war and makes the real reason for war (conquest of Canada) seem a immensly stupid viewpoint as it would involve facing the full force of the UK.
Well, the grievance which gave just barely enough votes for Congress to declare war was the issue of the British impressing American seamen so if there is no war with France, the British would have no reason to continue the practice.
No War, that's easy
If a top-level diplomat had stayed in Britain during 1811 (he had been recalled in early 1810) then it is likely that Britain would have realized the seriousness of US anger. The British were actually willing to revoke the Orders in Council in 1812 if an American minister with broad powers had been in London.
War with Britain would be highly unlikely for the next 2 decades because it was the Napoleonic War which goaded the Western patriots into a fit of land hunger focused on a distracted Britain.
With no War of 1812 the US population would have been a bit larger. The US's westerward settlement would have proceeded about 10 years earlier without the distraction and deaths of the War of 1812. I suspect that the US would have focused instead on detaching territory (Florida, Texas, Cuba, Northern California) from Spain during the Latin American revolutions. It is hard to tell if the US could accomplish this.
David Kohlhoff
Redem said:
If a top-level diplomat had stayed in Britain during 1811 (he had been recalled in early 1810) then it is likely that Britain would have realized the seriousness of US anger. The British were actually willing to revoke the Orders in Council in 1812 if an American minister with broad powers had been in London.
War with Britain would be highly unlikely for the next 2 decades because it was the Napoleonic War which goaded the Western patriots into a fit of land hunger focused on a distracted Britain.
With no War of 1812 the US population would have been a bit larger. The US's westerward settlement would have proceeded about 10 years earlier without the distraction and deaths of the War of 1812. I suspect that the US would have focused instead on detaching territory (Florida, Texas, Cuba, Northern California) from Spain during the Latin American revolutions. It is hard to tell if the US could accomplish this.
David Kohlhoff