The War of 1812: National Honor and Aggressive Expansion

Of the many wars fought during the course of the Untied States' history, perhaps one of the least remembered is the War of 1812. This is extremely baffling because that conflict features many of the necessary ingredients that tend to permeate most other American conflicts. Not only was it extremely divisive politically and geographically (with some states threatening to secede from the union), but the ultimate outcome resulted in the elevation of one of its generals to the status of hero, one of the biggest celebrities of the nineteenth century (Wilentz, Sean and Jonathan H. Earle, eds., Major Problems in the Early Republic, 1787-1848, 2^nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008, 124). In various documents, some of the most notable figures of the period make their case for or against war, shining a light on the political and geographical differences that, five decades before the Civil War, were threatening to tear the country apart.

In "A Republican Newspaper Protests British Impressment, 1811", the writer vehemently makes the case for war with Great Britain, calling it "the greatest and most iniquitous aggressor", even more so than France (126). Not only has Great Britain violated American neutrality, causing the United States to pass the Embargo and Nonintercourse Acts, but, the writer argues, they have also seized American ships, forced sailors into impressment, and even taken civilian passengers as prisoners (126). By emphasizing the effect that British actions were having on innocent civilians and by displaying contempt for those who long for an alliance with Great Britain against France, the writer is appealing to the hearts of the American people and makes a credible argument.

Felix Grundy was a congressman from Tennessee who was part of a group of fellow congressmen known as War Hawks who sought with Great Britain. In "Felix Grundy Gives the War Hawks' Battle Cry, 1811", he, too, uses the example of forced impressment of seamen as justification for war, calling it an "unjust and lawless invasion of personal liberty" (127). While the writer of "A Republican Newspaper Protests British Impressment, 1811" appeals to Americans' hearts, Grundy is more effective in his persuasion because he details the benefits that war would bring. Not only would it finally drive the British from North America, he argues, but that would also mean that they would no longer be able to influence the Native Americans into killing American citizens (127). While this would mean that Canada could no longer trade with Great Britain, Grundy is more than willing to accept it, along with Florida, into the United States as a means of balancing the power that New England would surely lose once the Louisiana Territory becomes populated (127). In Grundy's opinion, war with Great Britain would only strengthen the union.

In "John Quincy Adams Comments on the Tragic Necessity for War, 1812", from a letter to his mother, Adams expresses his support for war with Great Britain. This is surprising because he is a Federalist from New England and this position puts him at odds with many in his party who oppose the war. Though he does support the war, he does so with great reluctance, lamenting "the declaration of war as an event which in the actual state of things when it passed was altogether unnecessary, the greatest and only insuperable causes for it having been removed..." (127-128). Adams feels that the nation has exhausted all other options and that war is inevitable.

Adams' fellow Federalist Daniel Webster takes the opposing viewpoint. In "Federalist Daniel Webster Criticizes the War, 1812", he takes particular aim at the popular use of forced impressment as justification for war, saying that it has been misrepresented and while it has occurred and some Americans have been taken prisoner, the actual number of times this has happened has been greatly exaggerated. Had such a significant number of Americans been captured by the British, he argues, he and others would have heard from their families (128-129). Though Webster agrees with his opponents that impressment has taken place and that it is a bad thing, he does not find it to be a credible reason for war. Citing the precedent of former Presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, he claims that they would have never started a war for such a reason, especially when the product of it would cause the deaths of ten times as many people who were captured under impressment (129). Though the issue of forced impressment was for some a reason for war, Daniel Webster was not one of them.

Another cause of the War of 1812, one that would have lasting implications for the United States, was the issue of the purchase of Native Americans' land and the subsequent removal of those people from the land. According to "Tecumseh Confronts Governor William Henry Harrison, 1810", after Harrison purchased large tracts of land from the Native Americans in 1809, Shawnee chief Tecumseh expressed dissatisfaction with the purchase (130). When Harrison invited Tecumseh to present his claim to the land, Tecumseh said "the white people have no right to take the land from the Indians who had it first -it is ours- it belongs to us" (131). Ultimately, no decisions were made at the council, but Tecumseh's desire to keep Native American land out of the hands of white Americans was made clear.

Harrison, however, saw the matter differently. In "Governor William Henry Harrison Describes Tecumseh and the Indian Threat, 1811", he states that he has no doubt that Tecumseh's real desire is to incite Native Americans into war with white Americans (131). Though he could not see things from Tecumseh's point of view, Harrison nevertheless had some respect for the prophet, declaring that he had the potential to "be the founder of an Empire that would rival in glory that of Mexico or Peru" (132). Whether it was Tecumseh's wish or not, he would eventually go to war with Harrison's troops. His death, immortalized in "The Killing of Tecumseh, 1813", was one of many instances of violence, both past and present, against Native Americans (132).

After war was declared, one of the most memorable attacks on American soil was when British troops burned Washington, D.C. in 1814. "A Newspaper Reports on the Burning of Washington, D.C., 1814" estimates that anywhere between 4,000 and 6,000 British troops stormed the capital (133). Not only were several public buildings destroyed, but among the casualties was the President's Mansion, which would be renamed the White House after the smoke damage it received was painted over. One positive by product of the War of 1812's affect on American soil was that it is the source for the national anthem. After the firing on Fort McHenry, in "Francis Scott Key Immortalizes the American Victory in Baltimore, 1814", Key set pen to paper to write what would become "The Star-Spangled Banner" (133).

One by-product of the war that was perhaps not as positive, at least not to Federalists such as Daniel Webster, was the Hartford Convention. There, the Federalist Party, who had not supported the war, which was not showing itself to be a success, met to air their grievances against the United States government and to consider the possibility of the New England states, those their party controlled, from the union. Their intention was, as "The Hartford Convention Lists Its Grievances, 1814" says, to protect the citizens of the states involved in the convention against acts passed by the United States Congress (134). The convention and the grievances they aired were to do the party irreparable harm as news of it reached the public at the same time the news of Andrew Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans and the end of the war were made public. The party, in the face of such positive things for the United States, seemed incredibly un-patriotic. One who gained much at this time was the aforementioned Jackson, who became a hero to all Americans. "A Hero is Born, Undated" shows that songs were being written to honor this man who would one day become the president of the United States (136). The Federalist Party would have no songs written in their honor.

Another possible reason for the relative forgetfulness of the American public toward the War of 1812 is that its legacy, even two centuries later, is still not entirely clear. "In Improbable Success Story", Reginald Horsman sees the war as marked by an incredible degree of ineptness, but ultimately a near success because the Unites States lost no land and the government did not collapse (137, 139). Gregory Evans Dowd, in "The Indian Resistance Crushed" concentrates more on the affect that conflicts with Native Americans had on the Unites States' legacy. According to him, the Native American losses in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and the Creek War caused the end of the pan-Indian movement, a seventy year movement that had united previously warring tribes (143). The end of the movement was a signal of weakness to the United States and ultimately led to further removal, the most famous of which was perpetrated by that national hero of the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson. These actions would prove catastrophic to all Native peoples.

The War of 1812 was complex both foreign and domestically. That no clear victor existed then and no clear legacy exists now is a testament to the complexity and contentiousness of the conflict. Perhaps, then, because both the conflict and legacy remain muddled, it could be considered the most American war: neither right nor wrong, fraught with partisan bickering, and the genesis of waves of patriotism and the veneration of a national hero.

Sources:
All sources are from:
Wilentz, Sean and Jonathan H. Earle, eds., Major Problems in the Early Republic, 1787-1848, 2^nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008