payment page
Was the United States or Britain more responsible for the War of 1812?
Even though the United States was the first to declare war, Britain clearly initiated the conflict, as British troops continued to occupy U.S. territory in the Ohio Valley and the Royal Navy seized American merchant ships and impressed their crews. The United States tried to resolve the disputes diplomatically, and then, when diplomatic attempts failed, imposed trade sanctions on Britain in an effort to gain London’s attention. However, these measures failed, leaving President James Madison and Congress little choice but to defend American sovereignty.
What caused the War of 1812?
The War of 1812 stemmed from the fact that Britain had continued to treat the United States as one of its colonies even after the Revolutionary War and the establishment of a new U.S government. Under the Treaty of Paris, Britain had agreed to withdraw its troops from the Ohio Valley and to respect American shipping. In practice, though, neither promise was ever honored: British troops remained stationed in British forts on U.S. territory, and Royal Navy captains continued to seize American merchant ships. The British made the same concessions again in Jay’s Treaty in 1794 but never honored those commitments either. In fact, seizures of American merchant ships increased in the first decade of the 1800s and Royal Navy officers began to impress an increasing number of American sailors to serve on British warships. Impressment outraged the American public and thus forced the U.S. government to act.
How were the Napoleonic Wars tied to the War of 1812?
Before the war, France had started the Continental System, which closed European ports to ships that stopped in Britain. Britain then issued the Orders in Council, which, using Britain's dominant Navy, prevented ships from trading with Europe if they didn't stop in Britain first. The result hurt American traders, and Jefferson tried to impose his own sanctions on France and Britain, first with the Non-Importation Act of 1806, which attempted to convince the British impressment of American sailors by putting restrictions on trading with the British. It was replaced in 1807 by the broader Embargo Act, which forbade trading with all nations. Next came the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, which lifted the embargo of the previous act for American ships for all ports except those of Britain and France. None of these acts produced their intended effects on the British or the French, and only damaged the US economy further. Ultimately, Jefferson’s successor, James Madison would try Macon’s Bill No. 2, which led to further animosity between the British and the United States and was ultimately a major cause of the war of 1812.
What was Macon's Bill No. 2?
Macon’s Bill No. 2 was last of to a long series of attempts by the U.S. government to try to play hard ball with belligerent France and Britain after the failures of the Non-Importation Act of 1806, the Embargo Act of 1807, and the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, which were all enacted during the second term of Madison’s predecessor, Thomas Jefferson. This complicated new legislation promised to side with one of the two main sides in the Napoleonic Wars if they would drop restrictions for the United States.
Madison had strongly opposed the bill, but he signed it in May 1810, probably feeling that it was at least offered a better chance of ending the economic woes the U.S. was enduring over the trade embargoes brought about by the Napoleonic Wars than the wholly ineffective Non-Intercourse Act had. Napoleon, however, took advantage of the law by falsely promising to drop restrictions. Madison had opposed Macon’s Bill No. 2 and he did not trust Napoleon, but the law basically painted him into a corner, and he had to accept Napoleon’s insincere offer. This ended up being a major step in the long path to a United States declaration of war on Britain in 1812, at a time when the country certainly was not prepared for a war with a major power like Britain.
Who were the War Hawks and why were they so pro-war?
The War Hawks were a contingent of younger congressmen, mostly representing the South and the Western frontier (then places like Kentucky and Ohio). The War Hawks were too young to have fought in the Revolutionary War, and—perhaps tired of hearing the previous generation’s stories of war—were eager for their own generation’s war against the British. While they cited opposition to Impressment and trade restrictions as their reasons for advocating war, the War Hawks may have partly used these as excuses for more “adventurous” reasons for going to war.
Why did the United States lose so many battles early in the War of 1812?
The United States army then consisted primarily of untrained amateurs and militiamen. In the invasion of Canada, American commanders foolishly split their forces into three branches, rather than concentrating an attack on Montreal. Further, the nation was not unanimously behind the war. (The vote to authorize the war in Congress had passed on strict party lines, with the majority Democratic-Republicans voting in favor and the minority Federalists solidly voting against.) Federalist-dominated New England was especially opposed to the war it. Finally, the outstanding and meticulous leadership of Britain's Isaac Brock gave the British many early victories despite being outnumbered in the war on the United States-Canada front.
What happened to the White House and the Capitol in 1814?
After the shocking and rapid defeat on March 24, 1814, of the U.S. army at Bladensburg, Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital city had to be quickly evacuated. Some American advisors suggested blowing up the American Capitol and White House (Executive Residence), so the British could not get access to sensitive government documents. Madison, however, believed that the symbolic value of Britain burning the Capitol and White House would further outrage and unify the nation against Britain. General Robert Ross played into Madison's hands by torching government buildings, including the White House.
What was the result of the British bombardment of Fort McHenry?
The British bombardment of the American fort that protected the important United States port of Baltimore on September 13, 1814, failed. This successful defense by the U.S. forces caused the British to give up their plans for a land attack on Baltimore and it signaled a turning point in the War of 1812, with peace negotiations coming soon afterwards. Strategically, the American perseverance at Fort McHenry was of far more importance than other, better-known acts of warfare, such as the Battle of New Orleans.
The bombardment of Fort McHenry and the consequences of the British failure sometimes get overshadowed by events that occurred on a boat inside the harbor as the assault was occurring, however. Francis Scott Key, an American lawyer, had gone under a flag of truce to negotiate for the release of an American held prisoner by the British. Key was then detained because the British did not want him giving their position away. While watching the bombardment of the fort in Baltimore’s harbor and inspired by the large American flag flying over the fort, Key wrote a poem, “Defence of Fort M’Henry,” which later became the basis for the song, “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Congress would declare the song to be the United States national anthem in 1931.
Did the Battle of New Orleans determine the outcome of the War of 1812?
The battle, which was fought on January 8, 1815, and won by the Americans under the leadership of General Andrew Jackson, had no effect on the outcome of the War of 1812 because the war was already officially over when the battle was fought. The Treaty of Ghent that officially ended the war had been signed on December 24, 1814, but information traveled slowly across the Atlantic at the time. In fact, even the city of Washington learned of Jackson’s victory before it heard about the treaty.
What effect did the Battle of New Orleans have on Andrew Jackson’s reputation?
Because of the slowness of communications about the Treaty of Ghent being signed before the battle, many Americans mistakenly believed that Jackson's victory at New Orleans had forced the treaty. This added to Jackson’s already burgeoning reputation as a leader, a reputation that would ultimately result in his being elected to the presidency in 1828. Some observers believe that this is ironic because they feel that Jackson’s tactics at the battle were not strong. They suggest that the American victory resulted more from the swampy geography of the battle site (in current-day Chalmette, Louisiana), which the Americans were far more comfortable with than the British, and the late arrival of the British army commander, Edward Pakenham, than from anything Jackson did on the battlefield.
What role did Russia play in ending the War of 1812?
The Russian leader, Czar Alexander I, strongly advocated for the US-British peace negotiations at Ghent because he feared that the resources of Britain, Russia’s ally, were being depleted by the War of 1812 in the United States. Facing the threat of Napoleon’s Russian Campaign, Alexander knew he would need Britain’s help in Europe, so he wanted Britain to disentangle itself from its American commitments as soon as possible.
How did the Hartford Convention effectively end the Federalist Party?
Members of the Federalist Party (which was already quite weak outside of New England) met secretly at the Hartford Convention in late 1814 to discuss New England’s grievances regarding the War of 1812. Although the formal demands of the convention were moderate, it was widely known that some members of the convention advocated secession. Thus, the Hartford Convention, in which the Federalists imprudently came up with complaints against the war just weeks before the war was over, so badly tinged the Federalists with suspicion of treason that they never recovered. After badly losing the next Presidential election, the Federalists dissolved.
