Wallenfeldt J. The American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812: People, Politics, and Power

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

jurisdiction. The principles and rules enforced by that nation, when a neutral nation,

against armed vessels of belligerents hovering near her coasts and disturbing her com-

merce are well known. When called on, nevertheless, by the United States to punish the

greater o enses committed by her own vessels, her government has bestowed on their

commanders additional marks of honor and conﬁ dence.

Under pretended blockades, without the presence of an adequate force and some-

times without the practicability of applying one, our commerce has been plundered in

every sea, the great staples of our country have been cut o from their legitimate markets,

and a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and maritime interests. In aggravation

of these predatory measures, they have been considered as in force from the dates of their

notiﬁ cation, a retrospective e ect being thus added, as has been done in other important

cases, to the unlawfulness of the course pursued. And to render the outrage the more

signal, these mock blockades have been reiterated and enforced in the face of o cial

communications from the British government declaring as the true deﬁ nition of a legal

blockade “that particular ports must be actually invested and previous warning given to

vessels bound to them not to enter.”

Not content with these occasional expedients for laying waste our neutral trade, the

cabinet of Britain resorted at length to the sweeping system of blockades, under the name

of orders in council, which has been molded and managed as might best suit its political

views, its commercial jealousies, or the avidity of British cruisers.

To our remonstrances against the complicated and transcendent injustice of this

innovation, the ﬁ rst reply was that the orders were reluctantly adopted by Great Britain as

a necessary retaliation on decrees of her enemy proclaiming a general blockade of the

British Isles at a time when the naval force of that enemy dared not issue from his own

ports. She was reminded, without e ect, that her own prior blockades, unsupported by an

adequate naval force actually applied and continued, were a bar to this plea; that executed

edicts against millions of our property could not be retaliation on edicts confessedly

impossible to be executed; that retaliation, to be just, should fall on the party setting the

guilty example, not on an innocent party which was not even chargeable with an acquies-

cence in it.

When deprived of this ﬂ imsy veil for a prohibition of our trade with her enemy by

the repeal of his prohibition of our trade with Great Britain, her cabinet, instead of a

corresponding repeal or a practical discontinuance of its orders, formally avowed a deter-

mination to persist in them against the United States until the markets of her enemy

should be laid open to British products; thus asserting an obligation on a neutral power

to require one belligerent to encourage, by its internal regulations, the trade of another

belligerent, contradicting her own practice toward all nations, in peace as well as in war,

and betraying the insincerity of those professions which inculcated a belief that, having

resorted to her orders with regret, she was anxious to ﬁ nd an occasion for putting an end

to them.

The War of 1812: An Overview | 185

186 | The American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812: People, Politics, and Power

Abandoning still more all respect for the neutral rights of the United States and for

its own consistency, the British government now demands, as prerequisites to a repeal

of its orders as they relate to the United States, that a formality should be observed in the

repeal of the French decrees, nowise necessary to their termination nor exempliﬁ ed by

British usage, and that the French repeal, besides including that portion of the decrees

which operates within a territorial jurisdiction as well as that which operates on the high

seas against the commerce of the United States should not be a single and special repeal

in relation to the United States but should be extended to whatever other neutral nations

unconnected with them may be a ected by those decrees. And as an additional insult,

they are called on for a formal disavowal of conditions and pretensions advanced by the

French government, for which the United States are, so far from having made themselves

responsible that, in o cial explanations which have been published to the world and in a

correspondence of the American minister at London with the British minister for foreign

a airs, such a responsibility was explicitly and emphatically disclaimed.

It has become, indeed, su ciently certain that the commerce of the United States is

to be sacriﬁ ced, not as interfering with the belligerent rights of Great Britain; not as

supplying the wants of her enemies, which she herself supplies; but as interfering with

the monopoly which she covets for her own commerce and navigation. She carries on a

war against the lawful commerce of a friend that she may the better carry on a commerce

with an enemy — a commerce polluted by the forgeries and perjuries which are for the

most part the only passports by which it can succeed.

Anxious to make every experiment short of the last resort of injured nations, the

United States have withheld from Great Britain, under successive modiﬁ cations, the ben-

eﬁ ts of a free intercourse with their market, the loss of which could not but outweigh the

proﬁ ts accruing from her restrictions of our commerce with other nations. And to entitle

these experiments to the more favorable consideration, they were so framed as to enable

her to place her adversary under the exclusive operation of them. To these appeals her

government has been equally inﬂ exible, as if willing to make sacriﬁ ces of every sort rather

than yield to the claims of justice or renounce the errors of a false pride. Nay, so far were

the attempts carried to overcome the attachment of the British cabinet to its unjust edicts

that it received every encouragement within the competency of the executive branch of

our government to expect that a repeal of them would be followed by a war between the

United States and France, unless the French edicts should also be repealed. Even this

communication, although silencing forever the plea of a disposition in the United States

to acquiesce in those edicts originally the sole plea for them, received no attention.

If no other proof existed of a predetermination of the British government against a

repeal of its orders, it might be found in the correspondence of the minister plenipoten-

tiary of the United States at London and the British secretary for foreign a airs, in 1810,

on the question whether the blockade of May 1806 was considered as in force or as not in

force. It had been ascertained that the French government, which urged this blockade as

the ground of its Berlin Decree, was willing, in the event of its removal, to repeal that

decree, which, being followed by alternate repeals of the other o ensive edicts, might

abolish the whole system on both sides.

This inviting opportunity for accomplishing an object so important to the United

States, and professed so often to be the desire of both the belligerents, was made known

to the British government. As that government admits that an actual application of an

adequate force is necessary to the existence of a legal blockade, and it was notorious that

if such a force had ever been applied its long discontinuance had annulled the blockade

in question, there could be no su cient objection on the part of Great Britain to a formal

revocation of it, and no imaginable objection to a declaration of the fact that the blockade

did not exist. The declaration would have been consistent with her avowed principles of

blockade, and would have enabled the United States to demand from France the pledged

repeal of her decrees, either with success; in which case the way would have been opened

for a general repeal of the belligerent edicts; or without success, in which case the United

States would have been justiﬁ ed in turning their measures exclusively against France.

The British government would, however, neither rescind the blockade nor declare its

nonexistence, nor permit its nonexistence to be inferred and a rmed by the American

plenipotentiary. On the contrary, by representing the blockade to be comprehended in

the orders in council, the United States were compelled so to regard it in their subsequent

proceedings.

There was a period when a favorable change in the policy of the British cabinet was

justly considered as established. The minister plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty

here proposed an adjustment of the di erences more immediately endangering the har-

mony of the two countries. The proposition was accepted with the promptitude and

cordiality corresponding with the invariable professions of this government. A foundation

appeared to be laid for a sincere and lasting reconciliation. The prospect, however, quickly

vanished. The whole proceeding was disavowed by the British government without any

explanations which could at that time repress the belief that the disavowal proceeded

from a spirit of hostility to the commercial rights and prosperity of the United States; and

it has since come into proof that at the very moment when the public minister was hold-

ing the language of friendship and inspiring conﬁ dence in the sincerity of the negotiation

with which he was charged, a secret agent of his government was employed in intrigues

having for their object a subversion of our government and a dismemberment of our

happy Union.

In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain toward the United States, our attention is

necessarily drawn to the warfare just renewed by the savages on one of our extensive

frontiers — a warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex and to be distinguished

by features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It is di cult to account for the activity and

The War of 1812: An Overview | 187

188 | The American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812: People, Politics, and Power

combinations which have for some time been developing themselves among tribes in

constant intercourse with British traders and garrisons, without connecting their hostility

with that inﬂ uence and without recollecting the authenticated examples of such inter-

positions heretofore furnished by the o cers and agents of that government.

Such is the spectacle of injuries and indignities which have been heaped on our

country, and such the crisis which its unexampled forbearance and conciliatory e orts

have not been able to avert. It might at least have been expected that an enlightened

nation, if less urged by moral obligations or invited by friendly dispositions on the part

of the United States, would have found in its true interest alone a su cient motive to

respect their rights and their tranquillity on the high seas; that an enlarged policy would

have favored that free and general circulation of commerce in which the British nation is

at all times interested, and which in times of war is the best alleviation of its calamities to

herself as well as to other belligerents; and more especially that the British cabinet would

not, for the sake of a precarious and surreptitious intercourse with hostile markets, have

persevered in a course of measures which necessarily put at hazard the invaluable market

of a great and growing country, disposed to cultivate the mutual advantages of an active

commerce.

Other counsels have prevailed. Our moderation and conciliation have had no other

e ect than to encourage perseverance and to enlarge pretensions. We behold our seafar-

ing citizens still the daily victims of lawless violence, committed on the great common

and highway of nations, even within sight of the country which owes them protection. We

behold our vessels, freighted with the products of our soil and industry, or returning with

the honest proceeds of them, wrested from their lawful destinations, conﬁ scated by prize

courts no longer the organs of public law but the instruments of arbitrary edicts, and their

unfortunate crews dispersed and lost, or forced or inveigled in British ports into British

ﬂ eets, whilst arguments are employed in support of these aggressions which have no

foundation but in a principle, equally supporting a claim to regulate our external com-

merce in all cases whatsoever.

We behold, in ﬁ ne, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United

States, and, on the side of the United States, a state of peace toward Great Britain.

Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpa-

tions and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their

national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of

Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other

powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable reestablishment

of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely conﬁ des to

the Legislative Department of the government. In recommending it to their early delib-

erations, I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened

and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.

Having presented this view of the relations of the United States with Great Britain

and of the solemn alternative growing out of them, I proceed to remark that the commu-

nications last made to Congress on the subject of our relations with France will have

shown that since the revocation of her decrees, as they violated the neutral rights of the

United States, her government has authorized illegal captures by its privateers and pub-

lic ships, and that other outrages have been practised on our vessels and our citizens. It

will have been seen, also, that no indemnity had been provided or satisfactorily pledged

for the extensive spoliations committed under the violent and retrospective orders of the

French government against the property of our citizens seized within the jurisdiction

of France. I abstain at this time from recommending to the consideration of Congress

deﬁ nitive measures with respect to that nation, in the expectation that the result of

unclosed discussions between our minister plenipotentiary at Paris and the French gov-

ernment will speedily enable Congress to decide with greater advantage on the course

due to the rights, the interests, and the honor of our country.

with the army, and during this retrograde

the war’s costliest engagement occurred

at the Battle of Lundy’s Lane (July 25).

Riall, reinforced by Drummond, fought

the Americans to a bloody stalemate in

which each side su ered more than 800

casualties before Brown’s army withdrew

to Fort Erie.

ThE

CONTINuING

STRuGGLE

In 1814, Napoleon’s

defeat allowed sizable

British forces to come

to Amer ica. That sum-

mer, veterans under

Can adian Governor-

general George Prevost

marched south along

the shores of Lake

Champlain into New

York, but they returned

to Canada after Thomas

Macdonough defeated

marched south along

the shores of Lake

Champlain into New

York, but they returned

to Canada after Thomas

Macdonough defeated

U.S. frigate United States capturing the British frigate

Macedonian, Oct. 25, 1812. Colour lithograph by Currier & Ives.

Currier & Ives/Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (neg.

no. LC-USZC2-3120)

The War of 1812: An Overview | 189

190 | The American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812: People, Politics, and Power

a British squadron under Capt. George

Downie at the Battle of Plattsburgh Bay,

N.Y. (Sept. 11, 1814). British raids in Ches-

apeake Bay directed by Adm. Alexander

Cochrane were more successful.

On August 24 British troops under

the command of Gen. Robert Ross advanced

from their landing on the Patuxent River

in Maryland and were engaged at

Bladensburg by American forces made

An ancillary conﬂ ict of

the War of 1812, the Creek

War (1813–14) was fought

between the United States

and the Creek Indians, who

were allies of the British.

The Shawnee leader

Tecumseh, who expected

British help in recovering

hunting grounds lost to

settlers, traveled to the

south to warn of dangers

to native cultures posed

by whites. Factions arose

among the Creeks, and a

group known as the Red

Sticks preyed upon white

settlements and fought

with those Creeks who

opposed them. On Aug. 30,

1813, when the Red Sticks

swept down upon 553 sur-

prised frontiersmen at a

crude fortiﬁ cation at Lake

Tensaw, north of Mobile

(now in Alabama) the

resulting Fort Mims Mas-

sacre stirred the Southern

states into a vigorous

response. The main army

of 5,000 militiamen was

In Focus: The Creek War

G. Thompson’s wood engraving of The Burning of the City of

Washington during the War of 1812. At about 8 P M on the

evening of Aug. 24, 1814, British troops under the command

of Gen. Robert Ross marched into Washington, D.C., after

routing hastily assembled American forces at Bladensburg,

Md., earlier in the day. Encountering neither resistance nor

any U.S. government oﬃ cials—President Madison and his

cabinet had ﬂ ed to safety—the British quickly torched govern-

ment buildings, including the Capitol and the Executive

Mansion (now known as the White House). Library of Congress,

Washington, D.C. (neg. no. LC-USZ62-1939)

led by Gen. Andrew Jackson, who succeeded in wiping out two Indian villages that fall: Talla-

sahatchee and Talladega.

The following spring hundreds of Creeks gathered at what seemed an impenetrable village

fortress on a peninsula on the Tallapoosa River, awaiting the Americans’ attack. On March 27, 1814,

at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka, Ala.), Jackson’s superior numbers (3,000 to 1,000)

and armaments (including cannon) demolished the Creek defenses, slaughtering more than 800

warriors and imprisoning 500 women and children. The power of the Indians of the Old Southwest

was broken.

At the Treaty of Fort Jackson (August 9) the Creeks were required to cede 23,000,000 acres of

land, comprising more than half of Alabama and part of southern Georgia. Much of that territory

belonged to Indians who had earlier been Jackson’s allies.

up primarily of militiamen under the

command of Gen. William Winder. Prior

to the battle the American troops received

unauthorized orders to redeploy from

Secretary of State (later Pres.) James

Monroe, who was on the scene and who

had served as a cavalry o cer during the

Revolution. In relatively short order, the

American defense collapsed, the Battle of

Bladens burg was over, and the British

continued on to capture Washington

(August 24) and burn government build-

ings, including the United States Capitol

and the Executive Mansion (now known

as the White House). The British justiﬁ ed

this action as retaliation for the American

destruction of York (modern Toronto),

the capital of Upper Canada, the previous

year. The British assault on Baltimore

(September 12–14) foundered when

Americans fended o an attack at

Northpoint and withstood the naval bom-

bardment of Fort McHenry, an action that

inspired Francis Scott Key’s “ Star-Spangled

Banner.” Ross was killed at Baltimore, and

the British left Chesa peake Bay to plan

an o ensive against New Orleans.

Immediately after the war started, the

tsar of Russia o ered to mediate. London

refused, but early British e orts for an

armistice revealed a willingness to nego-

tiate so that Britain could turn its full

attention to Napoleon. Talks began at

Ghent (in modern Belgium) in August

1814, but, with France defeated, the British

stalled while waiting for news of a deci-

sive victory in America. Most Britons were

angry that the United States had become

an unwitting ally of Napoleon, but even

that sentiment was half-hearted among a

people who had been at war in Europe for

more than 20 years. Consequently, after

learning of Plattsburgh and Baltimore and

upon the advice of the Duke of Welling-

ton, commander of the British army at the

Battle of Waterloo, the British govern-

ment moved to make peace. Americans

abandoned demands about ending

impressment (the end of the European

war meant its cessation anyway), and

The War of 1812: An Overview | 191

192 | The American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812: People, Politics, and Power

Dissatisﬁ ed with the progress of the war with England, and long resentful over the balance of

political power that gave the South, and particularly Virginia, eﬀ ective control of the national

government, federalist delegates from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

and Vermont called a secret convention at Hartford in the winter of 1814. The more extreme among

them were for considering secession, but others sought only to dictate amendments to the

Constitution that would protect their interests. The latter course was decided upon, and the pro-

posed amendments, along with some stringent criticisms of Pres. James Madison’s administration,

were agreed to by the convention on Jan. 4, 1815. The secrecy of the Hartford proceedings, however,

discredited the convention and its work, and prompted other parts of the country to question New

England’s patriotism and Federalist loyalty. Indeed, its unpopularity was a factor in the ultimate

demise of the Federalist Party. Source: Theodore Dwight, History of the Hartford Convention, etc.,

etc., New York, 1833, pp. 352–379.

If the Union be destined to dissolution by reason of the multiplied abuses of bad admin-

istrations, it should, if possible, be the work of peaceable times and deliberate consent.

Some new form of confederacy should be substituted among those states which shall

intend to maintain a federal relation to each other. Events may prove that the causes of

our calamities are deep and permanent. They may be found to proceed, not merely from

the blindness of prejudice, pride of opinion, violence of party spirit, or the confusion of the

times but they may be traced to implacable combinations of individuals, or of states, to

monopolize power and o ce, and to trample without remorse upon the rights and inter-

ests of commercial sections of the Union. Whenever it shall appear that these causes are

radical and permanent, a separation, by equitable arrangement, will be preferable to an

alliance by constraint, among nominal friends but real enemies, inﬂ amed by mutual hatred

and jealousy, and inviting, by intestine divisions, contempt and aggression from abroad.

But a severance of the Union by one or more states, against the will of the rest, and

especially in a time of war, can be justiﬁ ed only by absolute necessity. These are among

the principal objections against precipitate measures tending to disunite the states; and

when examined in connection with the farewell address of the father of his country, they

must, it is believed, be deemed conclusive.

Under these impressions, the Convention have proceeded to confer and deliberate

upon the alarming state of public a airs, especially as a ecting the interests of the people

who have appointed them for this purpose. And they are naturally led to a consideration,

in the ﬁ rst place, of the dangers and grievances which menace an immediate or speedy

pressure, with a view of suggesting means of present relief; in the next place, of such as

are of a more remote and general description, in the hope of attaining future security. . .

In the catalogue of blessings which have fallen to the lot of the most favored nations,

none could be enumerated from which our country was excluded— a free Constitution,

Primary Source: hartford Convention Resolutions

administered by great and incorruptible statesmen, realized the fondest hopes of liberty

and independence; the progress of agriculture was stimulated by the certainty of value in

the harvest; and commerce, after traversing every sea, returned with the riches of every

clime. A revenue, secured by a sense of honor, collected without oppression, and paid with-

out murmurs, melted away the national debt; and the chief concern of the public creditor

arose from its too rapid diminution. The wars and commotions of the European nations

and their interruptions of the commercial intercourse a orded to those who had not pro-

moted but who would have rejoiced to alleviate their calamities, a fair and golden opportunity,

by combining themselves to lay a broad foundation for national wealth. Although occa-

sional vexations to commerce arose from the furious collisions of the powers at war, yet

the great and good men of that time conformed to the force of circumstances which they

could not control, and preserved their country in security from the tempests which over-

whelmed the Old World, and threw the wreck of their fortunes on these shores.

Respect abroad, prosperity at home, wise laws made by honored legislators, and

prompt obedience yielded by a contented people had silenced the enemies of republican

institutions. The arts ﬂ ourished; the sciences were cultivated; the comforts and conveniences

of life were universally di used; and nothing remained for succeeding administrations

but to reap the advantages and cherish the resources ﬂ owing from the policy of their

predecessors.

But no sooner was a new administration established in the hands of the party opposed

to the Washington policy than a ﬁ xed determination was perceived and avowed of chang-

ing a system which had already produced these substantial fruits. The consequences of

this change, for a few years after its commencement, were not su cient to counteract the

prodigious impulse toward prosperity which had been given to the nation. But a steady

perseverance in the new plans of administration at length developed their weakness and

deformity, but not until a majority of the people had been deceived by ﬂ attery, and

inﬂ amed by passion, into blindness to their defects. Under the withering inﬂ uence of this

new system, the declension of the nation has been uniform and rapid. The richest advan-

tages for securing the great objects of the Constitution have been wantonly rejected.

While Europe reposes from the convulsions that had shaken down her ancient institu-

tions, she beholds with amazement this remote country, once so happy and so envied,

involved in a ruinous war and excluded from intercourse with the rest of the world.

To investigate and explain the means whereby this fatal reverse has been e ected

would require a voluminous discussion. Nothing more can be attempted in this report

than a general allusion to the principal outlines of the policy which has produced this

vicissitude. Among these may be enumerated:

First, a deliberate and extensive system for e ecting a combination among certain

states, by exciting local jealousies and ambition, so as to secure to popular leaders in one

section of the Union the control of public a airs in perpetual succession; to which pri-

mary object most other characteristics of the system may be reconciled.

The War of 1812: An Overview | 193

194 | The American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812: People, Politics, and Power

Second, the political intolerance displayed and avowed in excluding from o ce men

of unexceptable merit for want of adherence to the executive creed.

Third, the infraction of the judiciary authority and rights by depriving judges of their

o ces in violation of the Constitution.

Fourth, the abolition of existing taxes, requisite to prepare the country for those

changes to which nations are always exposed, with a view to the acquisition of popu-

lar favor.

Fifth, the inﬂ uence of patronage in the distribution of o ces, which in these states

has been almost invariably made among men the least entitled to such distinction, and who

have sold themselves as ready instruments for distracting public opinion, and encourag-

ing administration to hold in contempt the wishes and remonstrances of a people thus

apparently divided.

Sixth, the admission of new states into the Union, formed at pleasure in the Western

region, has destroyed the balance of power which existed among the original states and

deeply a ected their interest.

Seventh, the easy admission of naturalized foreigners to places of trust, honor, or

proﬁ t, operating as an inducement to the malcontent subjects of the Old World to come

to these states in quest of executive patronage, and to repay it by an abject devotion to

executive measures.

Eighth, hostility to Great Britain and partiality to the late government of France,

adopted as coincident with popular prejudice and subservient to the main object, party

power. Connected with these must be ranked erroneous and distorted estimates of the

power and resources of those nations, of the probable results of their controversies, and

of our political relations to them respectively.

Last and principally, a visionary and superﬁ cial theory in regard to commerce, accom-

panied by a real hatred but a feigned regard to its interests, and a ruinous perseverance

in e orts to render it an instrument of coercion and war.

But it is not conceivable that the obliquity of any administration could, in so short a

period, have so nearly consummated the work of national ruin, unless favored by defects

in the Constitution. . . .

Therefore resolved: that it be and hereby is recommended to the legislatures of the

several states represented in this Convention to adopt all such measures as may be nec-

essary, e ectually, to protect the citizens of said states from the operation and e ects of

all acts which have been or may be passed by the Congress of the United States which

shall contain provisions subjecting the militia or other citizens to forcible drafts, con-

scriptions, or impressments not authorized by the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved, that it be, and hereby is, recommended to the said legislatures to authorize

an immediate and earnest application to be made to the government of the United States

requesting their consent to some arrangement whereby the said states may, separately or

in concert, be empowered to assume upon themselves the defense of their territory