Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WarOf1812] Cruikshank Documents

Expand Messages
  • Rob Taylor
    FR wrote: When the Indian problem not only did not cease but increeased. Rob ... See I thought that the Indians being armed by the British was was greatly
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      FR wrote:
      When the Indian problem not only did not
      cease but increeased.

      Rob ... See I thought that the Indians being armed by
      the British was was greatly exaggerated by the
      Americans who were encroaching on Indian lands, and
      that the weapons the Indians did have came by the way
      of normal trade.

      FR wrote:
      and impressments continued, Washington
      decided that the British would just not deal in good
      faith.

      Rob ... I see, that is why they did not want to call
      off the declaration of war when the British on June
      23, 1812 voluntarily revoked the restrictions on
      American commerce. Seems like a big misunderstanding
      eh?

      FR wrote:
      Even so, one of the obscure facts of the war
      was that despite the problem with England, the senate
      still almost declared war on France instead, the vote
      losing by only four votes!

      Rob ... I did not know that, was it because France was
      also interfering with American commerce?


      Rob

      =====
      War of 1812 Website: war1812.tripod.com

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
      http://invites.yahoo.com/
    • Fitzhugh MacCrae
      ... Hudson s Bay was quite unscrupulous in those days - there is a great deal of documentation that they were stirring up the Indians, sometimes with the help
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 2, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Rob Taylor <niagara_falls_98@...> wrote:
        > FR wrote:
        > When the Indian problem not only did not
        > cease but increeased.
        >
        > Rob ... See I thought that the Indians being armed
        > by
        > the British was was greatly exaggerated by the
        > Americans who were encroaching on Indian lands, and
        > that the weapons the Indians did have came by the
        > way
        > of normal trade.

        Hudson's Bay was quite unscrupulous in those days -
        there is a great deal of documentation that they were
        stirring up the Indians, sometimes with the help of
        certain British officials in Canada who saw this as a
        reasonable way to counter american settlement in the
        Great Lakes region. Keep in mind that Tecumseh was
        told he would have active British military support
        against the Americans as early as early 1811.


        >
        > FR wrote:
        > and impressments continued, Washington
        > decided that the British would just not deal in good
        > faith.
        >
        > Rob ... I see, that is why they did not want to call
        > off the declaration of war when the British on June
        > 23, 1812 voluntarily revoked the restrictions on
        > American commerce. Seems like a big misunderstanding
        > eh?

        Actually, the Orders in Council were not revoked -
        they were only suspended. By the time the US found out
        that the British were wwilling to deal, both
        Michelmacinac and Detroit had fallen, the Fort
        Dearborn massacre had happened, and there was no
        turning back - it was no longer a war, it was an
        affair of honor under the code duello (JQ Adams even
        referred to it by that specific term in his
        correspondence - and he was no Hawk)
        >
        > FR wrote:
        > Even so, one of the obscure facts of the
        > war
        > was that despite the problem with England, the
        > senate
        > still almost declared war on France instead, the
        > vote
        > losing by only four votes!
        >
        > Rob ... I did not know that, was it because France
        > was
        > also interfering with American commerce?


        Probably more so than England, by that time. Keep in
        mind that there was a growing awareness that Nappie
        had been manipulating US foriegn policy for his own
        ends, andf this was greatly resented, as well. Peace
        with England and war with France meant that the
        Americans would get fat from feeding Wellington's
        army.
        You should also keep in mind that the Czar offered to
        mediate a settlement between the British and the
        Americans - the americans immediately sent a
        delegation to negotiate, and the British refused to
        meet with them or even acknowledge their existance for
        quite some time. It wasn't until American privateers
        began doubling and tripling insurence costs that the
        Gambier delegation went to Ghent. Even then, they
        constantly changed the ground rules and refused to
        seriously negotiate until the British army started to
        suffer reverses.
        Even then, there was an angle - the British government
        went ahead with the New Orleans expedition, under the
        assumption that if successful, it would be a seperate
        negotiation to settle.


        Fitz
        >
        >
        > Rob
        >
        > =====
        > War of 1812 Website: war1812.tripod.com
        >
        > __________________________________________________
        > Do You Yahoo!?
        > Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
        > http://invites.yahoo.com/
        >


        =====
        Founder, Pagan Liberation Antique Twinkies Collectors Front and Marching Chorale

        "Fluff Bunnies - The OTHER White Meat"

        "Come back, Guy Faulkes - all's forgiven. We'll leave a light on in the Capitol basement for you. . . ."

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
        http://invites.yahoo.com/
      • mmathews@VAX2.WINONA.MSUS.EDU
        (snip) ... I m curious about this part, being a bit of a Napoleonic addict. Can you give me some examples of this foreign policy manipulation please?
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 3, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          (snip)
          >> FR wrote:
          >> Even so, one of the obscure facts of the
          >> war
          >> was that despite the problem with England, the
          >> senate
          >> still almost declared war on France instead, the
          >> vote
          >> losing by only four votes!
          >>
          >> Rob ... I did not know that, was it because France
          >> was
          >> also interfering with American commerce?
          >
          >
          >Probably more so than England, by that time. Keep in
          >mind that there was a growing awareness that Nappie
          >had been manipulating US foriegn policy for his own
          >ends, andf this was greatly resented, as well. Peace
          >with England and war with France meant that the
          >Americans would get fat from feeding Wellington's
          >army.

          I'm curious about this part, being a bit of a Napoleonic addict. Can you
          give me some examples of this foreign policy manipulation please?
          Certainly the US took advantage of some of the situations Napoleon created
          (or tried to), but I respectfully question how much direct influence
          Napoleon had. It has always been my conclusion that the United States was
          just trying to be opportunistic, much like our unfortunate attempt to seize
          Canada and "finish the business started in 1776."

          For example, the French battle fleet was effectively neutralized after
          about 1809. Privateers were slipping out, but getting a message to America
          by that route would be chancey at best. Plus there is not much to indicate
          that American ships were significantly impacted by these French privateers
          in their efforts to trade with England. Granted the Continental System
          would greatly impact the sale of goods with the rest of Europe, but England
          also had a standing policy to prevent materials from reaching France or her
          allies. This included, but was not limited to, the seizure of said ships.

          We could certainly get rich supporting Wellington and England's other land
          ventures, but that could be done without a formal declaration of war.
          After a fashion, England's navy protected America from French
          intervention/influence as much as she protected her own shores. Napoleon
          may well have wanted this or that, but how could he enforce his desires?
          i.e., where would he find his leverage to manipulate?

          Thanks in advance,

          Michael

          Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
          Voice: (507) 285-7585 Cel: (507) 450-3535 Fax: (507) 280-5568
          ------------------------------
          "I've decided to be happy, because it's good for one's health." - Voltaire
        • Fitzhugh MacCrae
          ... About six months before war was declared, the US issued a Cease and desist ultimatum to both france and England. The implication was that the US would
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 3, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            --- mmathews@... wrote:
            > (snip)
            > >> FR wrote:
            > >> Even so, one of the obscure facts of the
            > >> war
            > >> was that despite the problem with England, the
            > >> senate
            > >> still almost declared war on France instead, the
            > >> vote
            > >> losing by only four votes!
            > >>
            > >> Rob ... I did not know that, was it because
            > France
            > >> was
            > >> also interfering with American commerce?
            > >
            > >
            > >Probably more so than England, by that time. Keep
            > in
            > >mind that there was a growing awareness that Nappie
            > >had been manipulating US foriegn policy for his own
            > >ends, andf this was greatly resented, as well.
            > Peace
            > >with England and war with France meant that the
            > >Americans would get fat from feeding Wellington's
            > >army.
            >
            > I'm curious about this part, being a bit of a
            > Napoleonic addict. Can you
            > give me some examples of this foreign policy
            > manipulation please?

            About six months before war was declared, the US
            issued a "Cease and desist" ultimatum to both france
            and England. The implication was that the US would not
            declare war on whoever responded favorably.
            Napoleon immediately responded in the affirmative,
            despite the fact that if his decree was actually
            enforced, it would seriously undermine the Continental
            System. For instance, if the decree was enforced,
            American holds could legitimately carry English goods
            to, say, Prussia, Denmark, or Italy.
            The English were caught flat-footed by the decree -
            and didn't believe it for a minute. Unfortuately, they
            also didn't believe that the Americans were so naive
            as to believe the French.
            A major reason for declaring war on France was the
            fact that French privateers and light warships were
            seizing American ships in ever-greater numbers (you
            don't need a battle fleet to wreck a maritime nation's
            economy - look at what the US did to England) The four
            votes in the Senate were from silly people who
            believed that the privateers simply had not yet gotten
            the word yet about the decree.
            The state of American perceptions of real politik in
            those days was, well, laughable. What made it so
            tragic was that they were so sincere about their
            rose-colored specs. . . .

            Fitz

            =====
            Founder, Pagan Liberation Antique Twinkies Collectors Front and Marching Chorale

            "Fluff Bunnies - The OTHER White Meat"

            "Come back, Guy Faulkes - all's forgiven. We'll leave a light on in the Capitol basement for you. . . ."

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
            http://invites.yahoo.com/
          • mmathews@VAX2.WINONA.MSUS.EDU
            ... Can you expand for me the specifics of what each power was to cease and desist? Sounds interesting, but is new to me. If I understand the above, we were
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 3, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              >--- mmathews@... wrote:
              >> (snip)
              >> I'm curious about this part, being a bit of a
              >> Napoleonic addict. Can you
              >> give me some examples of this foreign policy
              >> manipulation please?
              >
              >About six months before war was declared, the US
              >issued a "Cease and desist" ultimatum to both france
              >and England. The implication was that the US would not
              >declare war on whoever responded favorably.
              >Napoleon immediately responded in the affirmative,
              >despite the fact that if his decree was actually
              >enforced, it would seriously undermine the Continental
              >System. For instance, if the decree was enforced,
              >American holds could legitimately carry English goods
              >to, say, Prussia, Denmark, or Italy.

              Can you expand for me the specifics of what each power was to cease and
              desist? Sounds interesting, but is new to me. If I understand the above,
              we were asking them to allow us to carry English goods in American hulls to
              the continent? Why not American goods and avoid the middleman? Greater
              profit. Would American ships be allowed by the French (as if they could
              stop it) to come to English harbors? If so it would be very profitable as
              you could carry American goods to England, load up with English goods for
              the Continent, then carry Continental goods to either England or America.

              >The English were caught flat-footed by the decree -
              >and didn't believe it for a minute. Unfortuately, they
              >also didn't believe that the Americans were so naive
              >as to believe the French.

              I doubt they were. It's easy to see that agreeing on principle with
              something while knowing that your enemy would never allow it lets you
              (France) look like the good guy with no risk. Is this what you meant about
              manipulating US foreign policy?

              >A major reason for declaring war on France was the
              >fact that French privateers and light warships were
              >seizing American ships in ever-greater numbers (you
              >don't need a battle fleet to wreck a maritime nation's
              >economy - look at what the US did to England)

              The battle fleet reference was just one of ensuring through strength that
              your wishes and messages were delivered/enforced. Re the privateers, do
              you have any numbers? I would have thought that the only time our
              merchantile service suffered at the hands of the French was during the time
              of the "XYZ Affair" in 1799 and the resulting hostilities at sea. I am
              skeptical about how many French privateers were able to be active after
              about 1809. Certainly the letters of marque that were frequently issued to
              armed merchantmen would have been near to impossible for the French.

              The four
              >votes in the Senate were from silly people who
              >believed that the privateers simply had not yet gotten
              >the word yet about the decree.

              I'm confused and have deleted the original message unfortunately. So four
              senators voted *for* war with France, or the vote *failed* by four votes?

              >The state of American perceptions of real politik in
              >those days was, well, laughable. What made it so
              >tragic was that they were so sincere about their
              >rose-colored specs. . . .

              It's a "cain't win fer losin'" situation. The media was so one dimensional
              and perhaps even more dominating than today that people really did believe
              everything they read. Of course, as has been pointed out at other times,
              the most hawkish group (the South) had the least to lose in theory and the
              heavy merchantile states (New England) were largely opposed to war.

              Thanks,
              Michael

              Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
              Voice: (507) 285-7585 Cel: (507) 450-3535 Fax: (507) 280-5568
              ------------------------------
              "I've decided to be happy, because it's good for one's health." - Voltaire
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.