18 June 1812

U.S. President James Madison signs a declaration of hostilities against Great Britain, setting into motion the War of 1812.

Amen to that, the second United States war for independence I might add and one of the reasons Washington D.C. looks as it does to today! Francis Scott Key for all you who don't know, made the basic lines of the national anthem while watching the bombardment of Fort McHenry during the war(and it was soon put to the music of an old English drinking song "To Anacreon in Heaven" strangely enough... well it was later to become the national anthem in 1931 by US president Herbert Hoover. Nice that you caught that!

What was THIS war all about? I dont want to cause WW3 im just curious.

Cheers.

In two words? "Manifest Destiny".

Like Hitler's "Lebensraum" (Living room) the Americans of the day felt it was their Manifest Destiny to possess the whole North American continent: WE need the space YOU'RE in for our growth, our population, etc. So we're taking yours by force of arms.
The kind of thing to make Anne Coulter smile.
(Google her name for her thoughts on Canada.)

And that meant 'liberating' Canada from the tyranny of British rule despite the fact that everyone who stayed loyal to the Crown went back to England, to Britain's Caribbean colonies, or to Canada during/after the American Revolution.

It wasn't a great idea. Worse was the proclamation issued by the American General commanding the invasion forces.

It sums up as 'We offer you safety and peace and prosperity. But we'll kill you if you resist.' Hardly inspiring of confidence, eh?

Anyway, the whole idea was nuts since nobody here wanted to be 'liberated' from anything except the "evil" of American "Republicanism" as it was called (and considered) back then.

After all: if our forebears wanted to be Americans, they would've just stayed in what was, prior to the Revolution, known as the 13 Colonies.

The timing seemed good however, since the Empire was busy with Napoleon. Part of the American justification was the impressment of American sailors of British birth by Royal Navy ships. (Brits were Brits to the Brits. And if you were a sailor, the Royal Navy needed you and was going to have you even if it meant stopping American shipping at sea and taking you off an American-flagged vessel by force.)

Thus it began: They persisted, we resisted.
And despite what American history books claim, they lost their first ever war.

Because they failed completely to achieve any of their war aims.

Their history books say it doesn't count as a loss because there was a treaty negotiated to end the hostilities.

About the only good Generalship of the war was by a Brit: Isaac Brock. Unfortunately, he copped it early on, personally leading the charge up the hill at the Battle of Queenston Heights on the Niagara Frontier right near the famed Niagara Falls. (He is to us what Nelson & Wellington are to the British.)

He died, but it p*ssed off his troops enough that they whipped a numerically superior force holding the tactically and strategically advantageous high ground and won the battle.

Aside from that, it was a balls-up all around.
The Americans won a few. We won a few.

They did better at the Naval war side of things, at sea and in what battles were fought afloat on the freshwater seas of the Great Lakes. And the problem from the British side was that all the 'good' Generals were busy fighting Napoleon.

The war, incidentally, ended right around the time of Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo.
Just when Britain had a whole battle-hardened military they could devote to the 'side show' war in North America.

My favourite quote of the period comes from Shawnee Warchief Tecumseh, who fought for the Loyalist cause: "War Now. War Forever. War on the Living. War on the Dead."

It sums up the brutal nature of that war; it's atrocities and outrages.
And those who'd fought in both the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812 called it a "gruesome, wretched war."

Recommended reading: Pierre Burton's exhaustive and fascinating works on the subject:

The Invasion of Canada; Flames Across the Border; Capture of Detroit; Attack on Montreal; The Death of Isaac Brock; The Death of Tecumseh (he copped it too, eh?); The Battle of Lake Erie; Revenge of the Tribes; Canada Under Siege; etc.

http://www.best-shops.us/Pierre-Berton

He takes the boring details and (unlike me) makes bloody good reading out of them. Not unlike Cornelius Ryan's 'A Bridge Too Far' & 'The Longest Day'.

That's clearly the Canadian perspective on the matter (seen it a few times now), but from the U.S. point of view, the British actions taken against American shipping were justification enough to go to war. This idea of "Brits were Brits to the Brits" was a direct affront to American independence, considering that sailors who later turned out to have no tie to the Royal Navy had been regularly impressed.
I'll admit that it is possible that some motivation was "manifest destiny" on the part of the war hawks, but that theory was historically applied to westward expansion, not northern. Frankly, the Mexican American war had way more to do with manifest destiny than the War of 1812.

The thrice failed Canadian invasion (including the razing of Toronto) was a tactic to defeat the British, not annex the region. Without the necessary capabilities to fight the British overseas, Canada was the logical alternative, especially considering the British need for Canadian supplies in order to defeat Napoleon in Europe.

As for aims of the war... No, the U.S. did not capture Canada, but the issue that started the war, the extent of American sovereignty, was resolved. The length and difficulty of the war on both sides meant that the United States would not be ignored on issues of sovereignty, etc...

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.1812.html

Perspective has nothing to do with it.
Perspectives are thoughts, opinions and feelings on any given matter.
Facts are something else entirely: Fact is, they lost.

Sure, they flexed their muscles. But what'd it gain for them?
Dead soldiers and debts. A waste of time and valour on both sides.

By what fact-based measure of profit and loss CAN the War of 1812 be seen as anything but a military loss for America?
By what military measure of success WASN'T that war a loss?

Saddam set out to annex Kuwait in the First Gulf War. He lost.
America set out to annex Canada in the War of 1812. They lost.
It's not a matter of perspective. It's a matter of fact.

As for British provocations as justification for the war:

You didn't need ANY ties to the Royal Navy to end up serving with it.
All you needed was to be of British birth: to have been born in Britain, or anywhere that Britain had established her Empire.

And that included the former 13 Colonies: America.
Sure there'd been a Revolution.
Of course Americans were touchy over their sovereignty.
Britain didn't care. The Navy needed men to fight Napoleon and boo-hoo about what any colonial traitors to the Crown thought about things.

Yes, that's high-handed and arrogant and conceited and etc. So what?
It was war, and the first casualty of war isn't truth; it's mercy.

And finally, the Treaty of Ghent that ended the War of 1812 didn't do anything towards establishing American sovereignty over anything:

On Christmas Eve of 1814, the members of the British and American negotiating teams, scrawled their signatures and affixed their individual seals to the document, which once ratified by their respective governments, would end the war of 1812.

Almost immediately after declaring war on Britain, American president James Madison began searching for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. He might even have ratified the August 20, Dearborn-Prevost Armistice if it hadn’t have been for the unresolved issue of impressment. When Russia offered to mediate, Madison sent his negotiators to St. Petersburg, but the British were adamantly opposed to anything except face-to-face negotiations. Both sides eventually agreed to meet in the Belgian town of Ghent in August of 1814. Where the British left the American delegation cooling it's heels awaiting their sufferance.

By then the U.S. had dropped the impressment issue.
With Napoleon defeated, Britain had a surplus of sailors and no longer engaged in the practice.

The other major U.S. grievance, the Orders-in-Council forbidding trade with European countries, had long since been repealed by Britain.

Only the territorial issues remained. Once Britain agreed to drop the creation of a First Nations barrier-state between the U.S. and Canada, it was only a matter of time before both countries agreed to end hostilities by returning to the exact same borders and conditions that had existed before the war.

The United States, though it achieved none of its stated war aims, did achieve the less openly stated aim of pushing many of the First Nations off their traditional territories, which were now open for white settlement.

These facts indicate that the War of 1812 actually did have more to do with the 'Go West, Young Man' era of Manifest Destiny's heady yet blood-soaked westward expansionism than the Mexican War did.

Invading Canada wasn't merely a tactic to fight the British.

Their intention WAS all-out conquest.

This is the text of the Proclamation issued by American General William Hull when he invaded:

INHABITANTS OF CANADA!

After thirty years of Peace and prosperity, the United States have been driven to Arms.

The injuries and aggressions, the insults and indignities of Great Britain have once more left them no alternative but manly resistance or unconditional submission.

The army under my Command has invaded your Country and the standard of the United States waves on the territory of Canada.

To the peaceful, unoffending inhabitant, It brings neither danger nor difficulty I come to find enemies not to make them, I come to protect you not to injure you.

Separated by an immense ocean and an extensive Wilderness from Great Britain you have no participation in her counsels no interest in her conduct.

You have felt her Tyranny, you have seen her injustice, but I do not ask you to avenge the one or to redress the other.

The United States are sufficiently powerful to afford you every security consistent with their rights & your expectations.

I tender you the invaluable blessings of Civil, Political, & Religous Liberty, and their necessary result, individual, and general, prosperity.

That liberty which gave decision to our counsels and energy to our conduct in our struggle for INDEPENDENCE and which conducted us safely and triumphantly thro' the stormy period of the Revolution…

In the name of my Country and by the authority of my Government I promise you protection to your persons, property and rights, Remain at your homes, Pursue your peaceful and customary avocations.

Raise not your hands against your brethern, many of your fathers fought for the freedom & Independence we now enjoy Being children therefore of the same family with us, and heirs to the same Heritage, the arrival of an army of Friends must be hailed by you with a cordial welcome, You will be emancipated from Tyranny and oppression and restored to the dignified status of freemen…

If contrary to your own interest & the just expectation of my country, you should take part in the approaching contest, you will be considered and treated as enemies and the horrors, and calamities, of war will Stalk before you.

If the barbarous and Savage policy of Great Britain be pursued, and the savages are let loose to murder our Citizens and butcher our women and children, this war, will be a war of extermination.

The first stroke with the Tomahawk the first attempt with the Scalping Knife will be the Signal for one indiscriminate sense of desolation, No white man found fighting by the Side of an Indian will be taken prisoner Instant destruction will be his Lot…

I doubt not your courage and firmness; I will not doubt your attachment to Liberty. If you tender your services voluntarily they will be accepted readily.

The United States offers you Peace, Liberty, and Security your choice lies between these, & War, Slavery, and destruction, Choose then, but choose wisely; and may he who knows the justice of our cause, and who holds in his hand the fate of Nations, guide you to a result the most compatible, with your rights and interests, your peace and prosperity.

— WM. HULL

And in the interests of balance, here's Isaac Brock's reply to Hull's Proclamation:

The unprovoked declaration of War, by the United States of America, against the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Ireland, and its dependencies, has been followed by the actual invasion of this Province in a remote Frontier of the Western District by a detachment of the Armed Force of the United States. The Officer commanding that detachment has thought proper to invite his Majesty's subjects not merely to a quiet and unresisting submission, but insults them with a call to seek voluntarily the protection of his Government. Without condescending to repeat the illiberal epithets bestowed in this appeal of the American Commander to the People of Upper Canada, on the Administration of his Majesty, every Inhabitant of the Province is desired to seek the confutation of such indecent slander in the review of his own particular circumstances: where is the Canadian Subject who can truly affirm to himself that he has been injured by the Government in his person, his liberty, or his property? Where is to be found in any part of the world, a growth so rapid in wealth and prosperity as this Colony exhibits,-settled not thirty years by a band of Veterans exiled from their former possessions on account of their loyalty, not a descendant of these brave people is to be found, who under the fostering liberality of their Sovereign, has not acquired a property and means of enjoyment superior to what were possessed by their ancestors. This unequalled prosperity could not have been attained by the utmost liberality of the Government or the persevering industry of the people, had not the maritime power of the mother Country secured to its Colonists a safe access to every market where the produce of their labor was in demand.

The unavoidable and immediate consequence of a seperation from Great Britain, must be the loss of this inestimable advantage, and what is offered you in exchange? to become a territory of the United States and share with them that exclusion from the Ocean, which the policy of their present Government enforces.-you are not even flattered with a participation of their boasted independence, and it is but too obvious that once exchanged (estranged) from the powerful protection of the United Kingdom you must be reannexed to the dominion of France, from which the Provinces of Canada were wrested by the Arms of Great Britain, at a vast expense of blood and treasure, from no other motive than to relieve her ungrateful children from the oppresion of a cruel neighbor: this restitution of Canada to the Empire of France was the stipulated reward for the aid afforded to the revolted Colonies, now the United States; the debt is still due, and there can be no doubt but the pledge has been renewed as a consideration for Commercial Advantages, or rather for an expected relaxation in the Tyranny of France over the Commercial World.-Are you prepared Inhabitants of Upper Canada to become willing subjects or rather slaves to the Despot who rules the nations of Europe with a rod of Iron? If not, arise in a Body, exert your energies, co-operate cordially with the King's regular Forces to repel the invader, and do not give cause to your children when groaning under the oppression of a foreign Master to reproach you with having too easily parted with the richest Inheritance on Earth - a participation in the name, character and freedom of Britons.

The same spirit of Justice, which will make every reasonable allowance for the unsuccessful efforts of Zeal and Loyalty, will not fail to punish the defalcation of principle; every Canadian Freeholder is by deliberate choice, bound by the most solemn Oaths to defend the Monarchy as well as his own property; to shrink from that engagement is a Treason not to be forgiven; let no Man suppose that if in this unexpected struggle his Majesties Arms should be compelled to yield to an overwhelming force, that the Province will be eventually abandoned; the endeared relations of its first settlers, the intrinsic value of its Commerce and the pretensions of its powerful rival to repossess the Canadas are pledges that no peace will be established between the United States and Great Britain and Ireland, of which the restoration of these Provinces does not make the most prominent condition.

Be not dismayed at the unjustifiable threat of the Commander of the Enemies forces to refuse quarter if an Indian appear in the Ranks. The brave bands of Natives which inhabit this Colony, were, like his Majesty's Subjects, punished for their zeal and fidelity by the loss of their possessions in the late Colonies, and rewarded by his Majesty with lands of superior value in this Province: the Faith of the British Government has never yet been violated, they feel that the soil they inherit is to them and their posterity protected from the base Arts so frequently devised to over reach their simplicity.

By what new principle are they to be prevented from defending their property? If their Warfare from being different from that of the white people is more terrific to the Enemy, let him retrace his steps-they seek him not-and cannot expect to find women and children in an invading army; but they are men, and have equal rights with all other men to defend themselves and their property when invaded, more especially when they find in the enemies Camp a ferocious and mortal foe using the same Warfare which the American Commander affects to reprobate.

This inconsistent and unjustifiable threat of refusing quarter for such a cause as being found in Arms with a brother sufferer in defence of invaded rights, must be exercised with the certain assurance of retaliation, not only in the limited operations of War in this part of the King's Dominions but in every quarter of the globe, for the National character of Britain is not less distinguished for humanity than strict retributive Justice, which will consider the execution of this inhuman threat as deliberate murder, for which every subject of the offending power must make expiation.


GOD SAVE THE KING

Unless you can catalogue every thought and motivation held by EVERYONE responsible for the war, then it yields to perspective. Where I'm sitting, the war of 1812 was concerned with hostile British policy. Where you're sitting, the war was about American expansionism. Neither one of us can really prove either case. Your answer to RMaule wasn't really fair to the U.S.. I honestly can't imagine why anyone would still have so much pent up hostility against the U.S. over a war between two countries (and its satellites) that have been allied for nearly a century now.

There are a number of ways that victory, stalemate, and loss can be qualified in the case of 1812. Victory- the U.S. sucessfully repelled British invasion in the latter segment of the war (also leading to the development of a powerful standing army and navy). Impressment ends though not a factor in the peace treaty, but the fact that the practice had encouraged an unwanted war likely made that motivation a factor. Stalemate- borders are restored after the war and both sides exist in a state basicially unchanged from prior to the conflict. Loss- U.S. invasion of Canada fails.

This here:
------------------------------------------------
You didn't need ANY ties to the Royal Navy to end up serving with it.
All you needed was to be of British birth: to have been born in Britain, or anywhere that Britain had established her Empire.

And that included the former 13 Colonies: America.
Sure there'd been a Revolution.
Of course Americans were touchy over their sovereignty.
Britain didn't care. The Navy needed men to fight Napoleon and boo-hoo about what any colonial traitors to the Crown thought about things.

Yes, that's high-handed and arrogant and conceited and etc. So what?
It was war, and the first casualty of war isn't truth; it's mercy.
------------------------------------------------

That goes back to perspective. That's likely a popular British notion of the practice itself and cause for war with the U.S. It's that same perspective that demonstrates how the war, from the American point of view, was about sovereignty. The Americans fought for eight years; Risked life, limb, property, and liberty to break away from a crown (and crowns altogether) that was understood to not directly represent its people. Because the British seemed to think that they still had propriety in taking Americans to man their warships, that is plenty cause to go to war. Yes, it is "war", as it were, and the British (and their satellites) got the natural response to their actions. It's just an easy way out to blame it on American "Manifest Destiny."

And on that note... Are you familiar with the Mexican American War? There is absolutely no way that the War of 1812 had more to do with American expansionism than the 1846 conflict.

"Neither one of us can really prove either case."

Say what?

Hull clearly stated his intentions & motivations in his proclamation.
He then attempted to make good on them by force of arms.

MacArthur was recalled in 1951 for his stated desire to springboard the Korean War into a general global war against communism.
That was contrary to his orders to limit the war to the Korean peninsula, and Washington's desire to contain it there.

But what actions did Congress and the Presidency take with Hull?

-Did they recall Hull, or reprimand him for his proclamation?
-Did they order him to rescind, revise, or remand his proclamation?
-Did they issue an counter-claims or contradict Hull in any way?

No. So what gives?

Either Hull (on his own initiative) exceeded his mandate and launched an unsanctioned war of conquest. Or he did not.
He either exceed his orders, or he was following orders.

Are you trying to say Congress and the Presidency was so cowed and bullied by Hull that they allowed him to usurp their authority over (and their responsibility to) the American people? That they just let some General start deciding American foreign policy for them?
That they fiddled while the Frontier burned?

And further: That Congress and the Presidency sat quietly and just allowed Hull to send American soldiers into combat as part of his unsanctioned aims? That they were unwilling accessories before, during, and after the fact?

Well, Hull WAS court martialled in 1814.
But for what?

For exceeding his mandate to only strike British targets in Canada in reprisal for British actions on the high seas?
For attempting to expand his mission into a general war of conquest?

No.


Hull was court martialled for his bloodless surrender of Fort Detroit — giving up his superior force to a smaller force under the command of General Brock in August of 1812.

He was charged with cowardice and treason for his action in Detroit, court-martialled and sentenced to death, but was granted a last minute reprieve by the president, who cited his meritous conduct during the American revolution.


Back when President Madison declared that a state of war existed between the United States and Great Britain in 1812, he issued a challenge to all American citizens to re-create the spirit of 1776 through the sword, for the War of 1812 "was a revival of the American Revolution."

Thomas Jefferson boasted that the United States would easily strip Britain of her North American possessions. The conquest of Canada he commented was, in Jefferson's own words, "a mere matter of marching."

In 1808 an undercover expedition was sent to the United States by the governor of Nova Scotia.
When its members returned they reported "It was amusing to hear the Americans talk of the ease with which they can possess themselves of the British provinces. No man of either party seems to imagine there would be any difficulty in effecting the project, that is, capturing British North America."

Andrew Jackson said it would be a military promenade.

It was widely believed by American leaders that many if not all of the late Loyalists (that is, Americans who had come to Canada solely for the free land) would prefer Congress over King.
To these more recent arrivals the war would be "one of liberation freeing them finally from Britain's heavy yoke."

Henry Clay, the Speaker of the American House of Representatives, confidently declared, "It is absurd to suppose we will not succeed. We have Canada as much under our command as Great Britain has the ocean and the way to conquer her on the ocean is to drive her from the land. I am not for stopping at Quebec or anywhere else, but I would take the whole continent from her and ask her no favours. I wish never to see peace until we do. God has given us the power and the means. We are to blame if we do not use them. The Militia of Kentucky alone are competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at the feet of Congress.

One enthusiastic entrepreneur offered to take on the job and capture Canada by contract. "I will raise a company and take it within six weeks." The American Secretary of War really got caught up in the bombastic bravado, threw caution to the winds, and boldly vowed, "We can take Canada without soldiers." Emboldened by such boasts another confident congressman asserted, "The Falls of Niagara itself could be resisted with as much success as the American people when roused into action."

If all this isn't enough evidentiary proof for ANY court of law or opinion, then I ask you: WTF is?


"I honestly can't imagine why anyone would still have so much pent up hostility against the U.S. over a war between two countries (and its satellites) that have been allied for nearly a century now."

When the facts are plain, a little frustration's only natural when those facts are ignored, dismissed, denied, or otherwise revised to fit a preconception or cherished belief that those facts do NOT support.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DarkAutumn,

I've read Hull's proclamation as you have posted it and I do not see where Hull actually proclaims that Canada will become a part of the United States. Yes, he does make clear that the Canadian region, following his success, would be occupied. He also talks about Canadian liberty though. It would seem that Hull's success would yield a Canada largely seperate from the U.S., but severed from the crown as well. That is my honest interpretation of the document.

Historically, the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada as a whole does not really fit the course of action the U.S. has followed in its existence. It is likely that lands, especially those uninhabited or lightly inhabited (frontier) by subjects of the crown would have been forfeit to the U.S. (i'm not entirely sure how far west Canada had extended in 1812). It is also likely that areas with considerable populations of American citizens could be annexed. But nonetheless, U.S. conquest of Canada doesn't neccessarily mean the end of sovereign Canada. If that were the case, then all of Mexico, Spain, Germany, France (liberated), Western North Africa (liberated), and Japan, would be part of the United States by precedent.

"The Americans fought for eight years; Risked life, limb, property, and liberty to break away from a crown (and crowns altogether) that was understood to not directly represent its people."

Just for the sake of argument:

- WAS the Revolution of 1776 even actually necessary?
Canada gained independence bloodlessly.
As did Australia and other former Colonies.

Think that one over...

--------------------------------

As for the Mexican War of 1846:
That too became a war of conquest, by intention or by accident.

"The war was fought to defend the right of a free people, namely the citizens of the Republic of Texas, to determine their own destiny, that is to join the American union of states. This was a right that the government of Mexico sought to deny them."

http://www.dmwv.org/mexwar/history/concise.htm

The U.S. goes to war to defend Texas's right to self determination.
But ends with Mexico agreeing to American demands to cede California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming to the United States.

So now you have the U.S. denying the citizenry of THOSE regions the right to determine THEIR own destinies.
By force in some instances: There were insurgencies against American occupation in New Mexico and California put down by U.S. forces.

Contrast that with this:

The American Revolution was fought, in part, against the insufferable arrogance of Britain that whatever they (the British) did was right, so they (the Brits) could and DID do anything they wished.

It was fought, in part, against the British prejudice that whatever they (the Brits) thought right obviously WAS and MUST BE right.
And anyone who disagreed was (obviously) deluded, mistaken, or wrong.

And it was fought with weapons, not words, because the British had no compunctions about using deadly force to do what they pleased, to whomever they pleased, when they pleased, for whatever reasons pleased them.

Perhaps, more than America realizes, they are their 'father's son.'

And so is Canada: We spread westward to the Pacific our own selves for no better reason than not wanting Americans to have the land that became our prairie and western Provinces and northern Territories.

The only difference is we did so politely.
But the results were the same: Whites got land, Natives got reservations.

The study of History, like the man said, truly is the study of hypocrisy.


-----------------------------------------

Now, as to me saying the War of 1812 had more to do with Manifest Destiny than the Mexican War did:

My basis for that contention is one name: Tecumseh.

Tecumseh was born in 1768 as a member of the Shawnee Indian tribe, native to Ohio. He had one brother, Tenskwatawa, also known as Shawnee Prophet.

The successful native trading post, Keth-tip-pe-can-nunk, also known as Tippecanoe, thrived in Illinois' Wabash River Valley until 1791, when it was destroyed to make room for the white man.

In May 1808, Tecumseh and his brother left Ohio and founded the village Prophet's Town in the same location as the former Tippecanoe. The land had been claimed by the Potawatomi and Kickapoo tribes, but Tecumseh and his brother were granted settlement.

Their village would eventually become the Indian equivalent to Washington, D.C., the capitol of a great Indian Confederacy.

The brothers' main idea behind such a confederacy was to form a Native union against the western settlers in protection of the land they had lived on for thousands of years. Prophet's Town became not only the center of diplomacy, but also a rigorous training center for their warriors.

In modern terms: he was engaged in Nation Building.

In the late summer of 1811, while Tecumseh was on a summer recruitment drive in an attempt to bring the Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek nations to Prophet's Town, Governor of the Indiana Territory, General William Henry Harrison sent an army into Prophet's Town to drive away the Indians.

Prophet's Town was destroyed. Tecumseh decided not to rebuild it, feeling that doing so under the United States government would be useless and much too risky. Together, he and his remaining followers allied themselves with British forces for the War of 1812 against the Americans.

He fought as a Brigadier General at Frenchtown, Raisin River, Fort Meigs, and Fort Stephenson.
In October 1813, he was killed in action at the Battle of the Thames at Chatham, Ontario, while leading his warriors, dressed in traditional Indian deerskin garments rather than the uniform of a British General.

American Indians were (and remain) a diverse category of peoples with discrete histories; throughout the wars, they were not a single people any more than Europeans were.

Living in societies organized in a variety of ways (the terms tribe or nation are not always accurate), American Indians usually made decisions about war and peace at the local level, though they sometimes fought as part of complex formal alliances such as the Iroquois Confederation, or in temporary confederacies.

That Tecumseh organized and allied as many disparate First Nations Peoples as he had BEFORE the War of 1812 is remarkable beyond words.
Had he survived the war, consider what he WOULD have continued doing:
-Building a political, economic and military entity to resist white encroachment of Indian Lands and ensure the survival of the various First Nations peoples.

And how would he have done that? By continuing what he'd started:
Forging and creating an Indian Nation-State on the North American continent.

Between 1869 and 1878 alone over 200 pitched battles were fought.
Between 1775 to 1890 more than 40 Indian Wars reportedly claimed the lives of some 45,000 Indians and 19,000 whites.

Had those First Nations presented a united front instead of being suborned and conquered one by one, the map of this continent would, without doubt, be far different than it is today.

But his death silenced a voice that had already proven capable of accomplishing that task. And his death demoralized many of his followers, and disillusioned many of the peoples who'd joined his Confederacy.

The guy was even a great orator for pete's sake:

"The way, the only way to stop this evil is for the red man to unite in claiming a common and equal right in the land, as it was first, and should be now, for it was never divided.

We gave them forest-clad mountains and valleys full of game, and in return what did they give our warriors and our women?

Rum, trinkets and a grave.

Brothers--My people wish for peace; the red men all wish for peace; but where the white people are, there is no peace for them, except it be on the bosom of our mother.

Where today are the Peoquot?
Where today are the Narrangansett,the Mohican, the Pakanoket, and many other once powerful tribes of our people?

They have vanished before the avarice and the oppression of the White Man, as snow before a summer sun."

"Historically, the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada as a whole does not really fit the course of action the U.S. has followed in its existence."

Get the stars (and stripes) out of your eyes kiddo.

Where did all that land added to the United States during/after the Mexican War come from?

Where'd all that land from the Eastern Seaboard to the Pacific Coast come from?

And where did all those Native Peoples go that used to live from Florida to Maine; from the Dakotas to Texas; From Nevada to Washington State; and all points inbetween?

In Yugoslavia, when I was there with UNPROFOR, it was called Ethnic Cleansing:
Kill or drive out the people, occupy the land.

What do you think Cowboys and Indians was all about?

Don't talk down to me. I haven't been rude to you, why would you be so to me?

It doesn't matter whether the American Revolution was necessary or not. The fact that they fought the British for so many years to gain freedom put them in a state of experience that made British infringements on American liberty unacceptable.

It's nice to see Tecumseh's story again, haven't seen it in a while. Tecumseh was going to fight the Americans either way. He simply had the chance to ally with the British. America's war against the Indians didn't have anything to do with the hostilities between Britain and the U.S. Tecumseh's actions have anything to do with the war of 1812 due to simultaneous occurence. He was simply good enough to recognize the opportunity. The U.S. didn't fight the British to beat the Indians. I would equate it to the Pacific theatre compared to the Atlantic theatre of the second world war. Though it's the same war, either could have happened without the other occuring.
The point is that though Tecumseh's actions against the U.S. are part of the War of 1812, they are just that; "part" of the war. There are other causes for the war that have nothing to do with "manifest destiny". The Mexican American War (which I only mentioned in the first place in case RMaule wanted to find an example that was all about "Manifest Destiny") in contrast was caused by, fought to further, and achieved the goals of "Manifest Destiny." Its existence is possible, but I cannot quote a cause of the Mexican American War that didn't have something to do with "Manifest Destiny."

Did you ignore the rest of the paragraph that this comes from?:
Historically, the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada as a whole does not really fit the course of action the U.S. has followed in its existence.

When I said this, "It is likely that lands, especially those uninhabited or lightly inhabited (frontier) by subjects of the crown would have been forfeit to the U.S. (i'm not entirely sure how far west Canada had extended in 1812)," I was making reference to the seizure of land from Mexico that wasn't populated by American citizens. When I said this, "It is also likely that areas with considerable populations of American citizens could be annexed," I was making reference to places where large numbers of Americans had immigrated, such as Texas, and to a far lesser extent California. In the later wars I made reference to, the U.S. made minimal territorial gain and most often was seizing land that had been Imperialized (late 18th century style).

As for the Indians, you said yourself that they were disorganized (they fought against themselves about as much as they did the U.S., especially in the early days). Outside of traditional civilization, they often did not recognize the methods the European centric world used to deal in foreign policy. War resulted (that's the easy way of saying it. I'm well aware of the broader course of events). They were also sparsely populated, especially in the plains and rocky mountain regions, which didn't help their chances when war came.

I do sincerely apologize if I came across as condescending.
That's just my jaded cynicism shining through. But don't let's talk about me.
Back to the debate:

Historically, annexing Canada did exactly fit the pattern.

It's not like Canada had a huge population at the time. Same as it doesn't to this day in comparison with the population density of the United States.
Then, as now, there's a LOT of unpopulated territory.

I would contend that the justification used in the Mexican War: that the U.S. was absolved of seizing territory sparsely populated by any 'actual' Mexicans, originated with events of 1812.

Canada WAS sparsely populated by any 'actual' Canadians. There WAS a lot of territory.
These facts were known and were publicly discussed. Much of the rhetoric about how easy it'd be to conquer Canada was based on the population differences.

What also fits the second pattern you discussed is the large numbers of American settlers in areas the U.S. wished to annex into the Union. You mentioned Texas and California.

Yet Canada was one such location as well.
There were large numbers of American post-Revolution settlers that came north, enticed by the offer of free land in the Canadas. (Upper and Lower Canada to be exact.)

Then there were all the United Empire Loyalists of the Revolutionary period whom many in the U.S. considered them 'American' for having been born in what became the United States.

That they left because of the Revolution was overlooked in all the rhetoric to 'free' their brethren living under British tyranny in Canada.
And all the rhetoric how those Americans in Canada would rally to the cause once the invasion began.

I therefore conclude that the factual events of the war do indeed fit both aspects of the historical pattern of American expansionism that you contend does not apply to the War of 1812.

More on the rest later...

It is entirely possible that "Manifest Destiny" got an early workout in American history with the invasion of Canada. But if anything, ambitions to make parts of Canada permament American soil (I seriously doubt that the populated areas, tories and all would have been subject to becoming a territory.) were a result of hostilities between the Crown and the U.S.. The fact that Madison promptly pursued peace with the British after declaring war is indicative of the significance of causes other than "Manifest Destiny." Peace with the British would have meant the end of the campaign in Canada. It is possible that the U.S. had intended to gain land via a treaty that left borders where they stood post invasion, but the willingness to reestablish pre war borders (though I think the U.S. had some slight gain in Michigan) as seen in the actual treaty indicates that "Manifest Destiny" takes a back seat to what I purport to be the causes of the war; or it could indicate U.S. fear of a less burdened British military post Napoleon (that's one of the things that we can't really know).

Yes, invasion of Canada held a number of benefits for the United States consistent with those of "Manifest Destiny," but the stated cause for war as well as strategic limitation (there were no other targets) negates the theory ("MD") as a cause, meaning that the war was not wholly "about" "Manifest Destiny."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tycho_lives,

That America wanted Canada as part of the Union by Force or Persuasion is a matter of historical record. This dates to, literally, the outbreak of the Revolution.

In 1776, Congress sent a 3 man delegation to Montreal. (Persuasion)

They were "invested with full authority to proceed to Canada and direct military affairs there; to promise a guaranty of the estates to the clergy; to establish a free press; to offer the Canadians free trade with all nations; to invite them to form a free and independent government for themselves, and to join the confederated colonies."

There was already a Revolutionary Army in occupation on Canadian territory PRIOR to the arrival of that commission. (Force)

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_vol_2/invasionc_ib.html

This precedent was part of the rhetoric used in the build up towards the War of 1812. That (along with the statements made prior and during the War of 1812) are fac