Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 1812 War was Britain caused by a long and bitter conflict with Napoleon Bonaparte’s France, with each side attempting to cut off supplies from reaching the enemy, and to block the United States from trading with the other.
In 1807, Britain passed the Orders in Council, which required neutral countries to obtain a license from its authorities before trading with France or French colonies.
The Royal Navy also outraged Americans by its practice of impressment, or removing seamen from U.S. merchant vessels and forcing them to serve on behalf of the British in order to further prevent the US trading with France, and in order to bolster the British war effort against Napoleon's forces.
Everything we did, was in relation to a much bigger picture and a war which involved most of Europe, and during wars nations often revert to extreme measures, and the US itself has done so.
War is full of difficult decisions, and the US which dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan, is a natio n fully aware of the moral dilemmas posed during major wars.
That doesn't change the fact that though unprovoked, the Brits raided US merchant ships, and captured and enslaved US citizens up until the US engaged in the War of 1812, due in large part to the fact that the Brits were enslaving US citizens.
That doesn't change the fact that though unprovoked, the Brits raided US merchant ships, and captured and enslaved US citizens up until the US engaged in the War of 1812, due in large part to the fact that the Brits were enslaving US citizens.
Good lord man.
"People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. They fight for property and privilege." - W.E.B. Dubois
You know, a lot of people believe that the issue of impressment was merely used as a justification for the United States to seize Canada while Britain was busy fighting Napoleon in Europe.
You know, a lot of people believe that the issue of impressment was merely used as a justification for the United States to seize Canada while Britain was busy fighting Napoleon in Europe.
Trying to "liberate" Canada was more of a backseat issue to entice hesitant people in the northeast to support the War of 1812.
Primary causes were:
-Britain disrupting trade with Europe, which was hurting our economy
-British impressment of thousands of men off American boats
-Britain trading guns to Native Americans in the Midwest that was causing havoc on our frontier
As far as DuBois quote, he never fought in a war. There are plenty of Civil War quotes I can give you of people saying they are fighting to preserve the union/constitution or even to free slaves. Lincoln won the soldier vote. Indiana was run by Democrats and they refused to allow soldiers to do mail in ballots. Lincoln knowing he would easily win the soldier vote wrote to General Sherman and asked him to let all of the Indiana boys go home so that they could vote in person, which happened. Those Indiana boys voted to extend a brutal deadly war that risked their very lives. Seems like they weren't voting for property and the privilege to risk one's life for what? My point is, DuBois' quote is debatable.
Britain disrupting trade with Europe, which was hurting our economy. British impressment of thousands of men off American boats. Britain trading guns to Native Americans in the Midwest that was causing havoc on our frontier. As far as DuBois quote.
The United States acts in accordance with its national interests. I agree with your primary causes of the War of 1812, but you have to realize that the war was rather opportunistic insofar as we wouldn't have invaded Canada had Britain not been busy fighting Napoleon(and it ended quickly after his first defeat and exile to Elba).
If there was nothing tangible to gain from the war, it wouldn't have been fought. Or put another way, the rich had to believe they would profit from the war.
Regardless, just because someone says they are doing something for whatever reason, doesn't mean that that is the true reason they are doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
There are plenty of Civil War quotes I can give you of people saying they are fighting to preserve the union/constitution or even to free slaves. Lincoln won the soldier vote. Indiana was run by Democrats and they refused to allow soldiers to do mail in ballots. Lincoln knowing he would easily win the soldier vote wrote to General Sherman and asked him to let all of the Indiana boys go home so that they could vote in person, which happened. Those Indiana boys voted to extend a brutal deadly war that risked their very lives. Seems like they weren't voting for property and the privilege to risk one's life for what? My point is, DuBois' quote is debatable.
By the time the election rolled around the war was nearly already won. I don't know the specific motivations of the Northern Soldier, but certainly the war wasn't initially sold as a war to end slavery. Lincoln said repeatedly that he would not interfere with slavery. And had the war ended before 1863, he wouldn't have.
If I were to deduce the motives of the soldiers, my guess is pride. But in terms of the DuBois quote, I think the point was more focused on "men in power", not necessarily your average Joe.
For instance, governments are obsessed with money and power, but individuals much less so, and some not at all. The United States does not act for moral or emotional reasons. It acts only for geopolitical and economic reasons.
The question as it relates to slavery, is whether there would be greater profits in keeping slavery or abolishing slavery. And that answer is clear and unambiguous, there was far greater profits in abolishing slavery and in preventing the slave-trade. That is why the monarchies of Europe abolished not only slavery, but serfdom before it, and sent their navies to patrol the seas to stop the slave-trade.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-08-2021 at 11:14 AM..
The United States acts in accordance with its national interests. I agree with your primary causes of the War of 1812, but you have to realize that the war was rather opportunistic insofar as we wouldn't have invaded Canada had Britain not been busy fighting Napoleon.
Had it not been for the Napoleonic War, Britain wouldn't have been stealing cargo and men off of our boats. Seems like the cart is being put before the horse here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
If there was nothing tangible to gain from the war, it wouldn't have been fought. The rich had to believe they would profit from the war.
It was the merchant interests in the northeast that most opposed the War of 1812 fearing that war would disrupt their profits further.
It was the Midwest and South most in favor out of security reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Regardless, just because someone says they are doing something for whatever reason, doesn't mean that that is the true reason they are doing it.
What "profit and privilege" did poor white Indiana farm boys have for voting to continue a war that saw horrific death rates (from disease as well as the battle field)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
By the time the election rolled around the war was nearly already won. I don't know the specific motivations of the Northern Soldier, but certainly the war wasn't initially sold as a war to end slavery. Lincoln said repeatedly that he would not interfere with slavery. And had the war ended before 1863, he wouldn't have.
If I were to deduce the motives of the soldiers, my guess is pride. But in terms of the DuBois quote, I think the point was more focused on "men in power", not necessarily your average Joe.
For instance, governments are obsessed with money and power, but individuals much less so, and some not at all. The United States does not act for moral or emotional reasons. It acts only for geopolitical and economic reasons.
The question as it relates to slavery, is whether there would be greater profits in keeping slavery or abolishing slavery. And that answer is clear and unambiguous, there was far greater profits in abolishing slavery and in preventing the slave-trade. That is why the monarchies of Europe abolished not only slavery, but serfdom before it, and sent their navies to patrol the seas to stop the slave-trade.
So stop trying to inject morality and sentiments where it doesn't belong.
Keep in mind that the 1619 Project is simplistic in that it ignores facts/perspectives that don't fit its narrative. You should read a robust essay on the topic like James McPherson's Who Freed the Slaves:
Lincoln's election in 1860 was untenable to the South, because Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery and had pledged to stop the expansion of slavery. No new slave states and territories meant that the North would continue to grow its strangle hold on the Federal government to the point where they could pass constitutional amendments without the need for southern states.
Lincoln refused to budge on no new slave states. He also refused to budge on other issues of slavery. "If slavery is not wrong, than nothing is." Lincoln had morally objected to slavery countless times and every voter knew it.
Southern newspapers in 1860 were quite clear - a Lincoln win meant the death blow for slavery - if not immediately, eventually.
Lincoln said he legally could not end slavery where the constitution protected it and you see that in the Emancipation Proclamation as well. Yet, Lincoln refused to budge on key issues where he legally and politically could hinder slavery time and again.
The prevailing wisdom in the summer of 1864 was that Lincoln would lose reelection and the Democratic Party Platform was to end the war with peace even if it meant separation. The soldiers knew this on the battle field in the Autumn of 1864 and knew it at the ballot box. Sherman's string of victories that autumn did help the election and war turn around but it was still not guaranteed.
Keep in mind, it was Horace Greeley a big abolitionist that had criticized Lincoln for acting too slow on slavery that had met with southerners in late August 1864 and advocated a return to the union restored with slavery as he thought the war was unwinnable.
To say there were no morals about democracy or slavery at all in the Civil War is simplistic. You see the South screaming their version of morals in their Declarations of Secession.
The North initially was primarily concerned with preserving the Union, but ending slavery clearly became a war aim. Slaves themselves recognized quickly that the war was a way to end slavery.
Since when can one country capture and forcibly "draft" another country's citizen's?
the Brits probably did not see it that way regardless of the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20
LOL Britain only has 3% black population, while America has a 13% black population.
Survey 10% of black Americans or 100% of Britain’s and ask them if they would like blacks to move to Britain.
I not say whether there was racism or not in either country. What I am saying is the abolition of slavery does not mean you are no longer bigoted, or supremacist in any way. You can certainly be bigoted, and supremacist and still not want to see extreme brutal treatment towards outsiders.
The Founders wrestled with the slavery issue only to realize that the union could not be formed without concessions to southern land owners (the 1%). From the day G. Washington was inaugurated in 1789 it was 71 years of further wrestling with the issue (the lifetime of a man, nothing more), before all Hell broke loose and the bloodiest war in our history was fought, rectifying the issue for all time (or so it should have been). Now, 150 years later the same issue is used to tear apart our nation today. No, America is not a racist nation. Nor was it then. No other country has sacrificed more of its most sacred human capital to fight for any single issue before or since.[
Sure, the Civil War was fought (by the North) over a worthwhile cause, and Germany was not the noble side in WW2, but they did die in droves over a single issue.
Had it not been for the Napoleonic War, Britain wouldn't have been stealing cargo and men off of our boats. Seems like the cart is being put before the horse here.
1) The United States wouldn't have declared a war it didn't think it could win. The only reason we thought we could win was because Britain was busy in Europe with Napoleon. And even then we were still getting our asses kicked.
2) Did the United States want Canada? Yes. Why wouldn't we?
3) My position is that generally-speaking, the rich create American policy. The war wasn't some kind of grass-roots movement where mothers were marching on Washington D.C. to demand we go to war. Certain interested parties wanted us to go to war for their benefit, and they were using things like impressment as the excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Lincoln's election in 1860 was untenable to the South, because Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery and had pledged to stop the expansion of slavery. No new slave states and territories meant that the North would continue to grow its strangle hold on the Federal government to the point where they could pass constitutional amendments without the need for southern states.
Lincoln's election just proved what was already known. That the economic interests of the North had become paramount in the federal government, and they would use their power in the federal government to pursue their economic and political interests at the expense of the south.
While this meant the end of slavery, it also meant vastly increasing tariffs and corporate subsidies, a vast expansion of a national banking system. The centralization of the state and the nationalization of the economy. The triumph of Hamiltonianism.
Have you ever read Georgia's secession ordinance? They lay it all out pretty clearly. It was about money and power.
The south rightly feared that they were losing their power in the federal government, and that abolition would in John C. Calhoun's words.... "Subject the two races to the greatest calamity, and the south to poverty, desolation, and wretchedness."
To say there were no morals about democracy or slavery at all in the Civil War is simplistic. You see the South screaming their version of morals in their Declarations of Secession.
People have morals, governments do not. Do you know who Niccolo Machiavelli is? Have you ever read Bakunin?
The earliest abolitionist group I can fins was the 'Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade' which was formed in Britain in 1787, and included the likes of William Wilberforce and John Newton who wrote the hymn 'Amazing Grace'.[/b]
It is only proper to give the British their due credit for getting the ball rolling on abolishing slavery. The United States was a nothing colony in a backwater corner of the planet that nobody much cared about. Great Britain was big, powerful and led the way.
But there's a pretty obvious flaw in your point:
The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in 1787.
The Republic of Vermont actually abolished slavery at its founding in 1777, encoding the prohibition against slavery into it's Constitution.
1777 is 10 years earlier than 1787.
Conclusion: Vermont actually did the abolishing of slavery 10 years before the British got serious about just discussing the idea of abolition.
So yeah, Vermont is still the starting place for the abolition movement. Nothing I'm finding predates it. Granted there were all manner of moves throughout history to end slavery, but it was never particularly effective and humanity always ended up continuing the practice.
Last edited by godofthunder9010; 07-08-2021 at 12:22 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
