The war of 1812 was just another yanqui land-grab, an attempt to rob the loyalists again ... to rob the indian nations as well, which is why Tecumseh among others fought for canadian freedom .... that the war hawks had jungle-law robbery in mind is quite plain from the speeches of their leaders, Calhoun and Clay being primary if memory serves .... Daniel Webster lays out a clear picture of the period, when a few years later he is opposing US robbery of the mexicanos, in his speeches come up most of the principal names from the war/slavery party, they are online and provide lots of search terms
Impressment of sailors was used internally in the US as pretext for invasion, yes, no one informed there accepts it as principal cause, and it won't wash beyond the borders, it was just propaganda that's all .... really what was happening was that the warhawk-slaver faction hoped to take Canada from the canadians while Britain was occupied fighting Napoleon .... note that from the start the federalists generally opposed such an attempt [though Jefferson arrogantly spouts in an 1812 letter 'the acquisition of Canada will be a mere matter of marching'], as did the very people you'd expect to support the US being able to trade with Napoleon with impunity - new englander shipping interests ... impressment served as useful pretext, sure, the core of it however was greed for the lands of others
And the warhawk/slaver contingent lost that round, the true north remained strong and free, following considerable struggle, so i guess you could work that into a parallel with Viet Nam [which is what we started talking about in this string of posts, right? .... sort of lost track] ..... Canada was on the tri-lateral commission set up to implement the Geneva Accords, you know, along with India and Poland .... not that US admin cared at the time ... in Ike's defense, there is the weak point that there were other things going on in the mid-fifties, for instance the Suez crisis, in which he acted quite reasonably given the circumstances ..... the major watershed mistake of US policy in re Indochina was made by Truman, imho, when he supported french re-colonisation, whether from ignorance or neglect or faulty weighting of priorities, who knows
Here's a piece on Daniel Webster, gives general overview of US political factions 1812-48ish, sort of incidentally in a ramble on W's rhetoric - csulb.edu
Not mentioned there [i think] is how much greed for Florida on the part of the southern warhawk/slaver contingent, led by Calhoun, was part of the whole push to take land from any of the neighbours who could not defend themselves ... somewhere there is a comprehensive piece on John L O'Sullivan that shows the roots of his support for the taking of Cuba, all about taking more land on which to work their negros ...... can't find it ....... got to go, probably won't be around much this week ..... cheers |
