The War Hawks—the new wave of Congressmen who had come to
power during the first part of Madison’s Presidency—heavily influenced the
United States’ decision to attack Canada and to go to war with Great Britain in
1812. To be sure, the United
States of the early 1800’s was facing conflicts with the Indians in the new
territory gained in the Louisiana Purchase (1803) and in the Northwest
Territory (1785, 1787) and the British supported the Indians to some
extent. Moreover, the British had
been directly threatening U.S. ships and sailors with impressment and
indirectly threatening the United States’ manufacturers with the far more
developed British shipping fleet. The U.S. also still faced the direct threat
of the presence of British Loyalists in Canada. However, the war also resulted in several disastrous
battles, wanton destruction on U.S. soil including the burning of Washington
D.C., 6,000 Americans wounded or killed, and an initial divide between the
political parties and the eventual collapse of the alternative voice of the
Federalists. And all that for a
war that ended with both countries returning all of their conquered territory.
With that said, A) do you agree or disagree with the War
Hawks’ decision to start a war? If
you agree, why? If you disagree, why? And B) Whatever the case, do you think
the War Hawks’ policy was justified? If so, why? If not, why?
Please use your book and cite from it at least twice in
using concrete historical examples to support a thoughtful response to these
questions in AT LEAST 10 STRONG SENTENCES (10 SENTENCES TOTAL IN ANSWERING BOTH QUESTIONS -- NOT 20). Posts must be completed by 12:30PM on Wednesday.
Posts submitted on time and according to the requirements
will receive 10 POINTS as always (which is the equivalent of a very short quiz
so you know). Thanks so much and
looking forward to reading.
I think that although not a lot was achieved during the march on Canada it was a good decision. They were representing farmers trying to stop the impressing of Americans (page 215) and it seemed like a good idea at the time. I also think that the war hawks policy was justified because they thought it would be a good idea to try and weaken the British power and also hurt the Indians at the same time. (215) it didn't turn out to be a good plan because the British highly valued their domination of world trade and that meant that they needed to fight for Canada. The US was still a rising country and there was a centralized power but it wasn't completely in control and this was a way for them to try and get more control. They thought that it would drive the British finally out of North America and gain almost full control of the country. At the time it seemed like a good idea, and even though it didn't pan out the way they thought, I think that their decision and policy were justified.
ReplyDeleteThe War Hawks were a group of young politicians who took lead in congress. As the book states, they represented farmers and settlers from the southern and western states (215). They hoped the war against Britain would help restore national honor, and that it would deprive the Indians and carry the British out of North America (215). I do agree with the War Hawks action of creating a war. The effects of the war included increasing America’s population, and at the time the British was a very big, superior power and the U.S was a smaller, less powerful body. However, the war strongly increased respect to the U.S from other countries as well as the military and manufacturing being a much stronger force. Because of the many accomplishments and effects that were created because of the war, I do believe the War Hawks policy was justified.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the War Hawks' decision to start a war with Britain in Canada because the casualties and depletion of resources outweigh any benefits that stemmed from the war. It was a rash decision that, in the end, didn't change the distribution of land or the progression of US image all that much. I don't believe that they were justified in their actions because of their motive. The War Hawks had an overwhelmingly nationalist motive: "The War Hawks pushed for. War against Great Britain to restore national honor" (215). The War Hawks had a need to prove themselves and America rather than seeking out peaceful alternatives to their minor conflicts having to do with impressment and their suspicions that the British were aiding the native americans. Although the war is said to have furthered US credibility, it was really that the Americans chose to view it as a victory, there was no substantial gain. The "sequence of events created the illusion that Jackson had forced the British into submission." The events are said to have caused the decline of the Federalist Party. This party, however, was a minority that did not possess substantial power, so the war didn't have much political effect. If anything, the war showed america the need that they had for a stronger army. The war of 1812 was gave the illusion of victory but it was based on the need to fight and prove America's power (which was largely inexistent leading to casualties) and it provided no substantial gains to America
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to argue that the decision by the Warhawks to invade Canada was justified. Having the benefit of hindsight, seeing as though all land was returned to its original owner, I have to disagree with the idea that the war was justified in any sense. I understand the reasoning behind the invasion – the British had been threatening US ships with impressments, the desire to push Britain entirely out of North America (215) – but the only end result of the war was lives lost. The US was rising in prominence at the time, but may have become a bit overconfident and even greedy with this decision to invade Canada and fight the British – a nation that greatly valued world trade (215). By invading Canada, the US put itself in danger of damaging itself – which was still a young country. Yes, the US helped its worldwide reputation, but was it really worth it? I believe it was not.
ReplyDeleteThe War of 1812 had both positive and negative results. The motives of the War Hawks are questionable, at best, appearing to be stemming from pride, desire for fame, and need to prove themselves. That being said, something needed to be done about the impressment that was continuing to happen to American ships. The War of 1812 was clear and simple a war for the Americans to prove themselves and show that they wouldn’t allow themselves to be bullied by stronger powers. Though the war was likely not the best option to fix this problem and it was not the right time for such a conflict, it is somewhat understandable that they wanted to do something. I don’t think the war was their best choice, but I recognize the fact that the Americans were facing problems and wanted to be recognized as a powerful country. Their decision would be completely unacceptable in most cases, but a war to prove that they would not be pushed around was bound to come at sometime or another. As the book says, “The British did capture the national capital, easily accessible by ship via the Chesapeake Bay, and burned the White House and Capitol in revenge for some American arson in Canada” (217). The burning of the White House was a clear loss on the American side and represents how little planning and care went into the War. This is one of the Key issues with the War of 1812. The War Hawks acted on their desire to gain respect without thinking things through or considering the consequences. The attack on Canada and the losses suffered there and on their home front are demonstrations of their mistakes. It is made clear that the primary concern of the War Hawks is honor, rather than the costs it might bring to the country when it says, “The War Hawks pushed for a war against Britain to restore national honor” (215). The War Hawks failed to provide adequate justification when simply recognizing the importance of honor, but arguments can be made for reasons for the war, being that the Americans were being taken advantage of with impressment. This shows again how the war hawks failed to consider the costs and benefits that the war would bring. They were blinded by pride and looking for war, which are dangerous desires. In conclusion, though there was clearly a need for some action to demonstrate that Americans would not be bullied, the war was poorly planned and resulted in many casualties, showing that it may not have been the best way to deal with the problem at hand.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the War of 1812 had positive and negative outcomes. Positively, the Americans were able to drive back the British in some ways. However, the war was very costly, with 6,000 casualties. Also, after all, the war basically ended in a stalemate/draw, with neither side gaining very much.
ReplyDeleteIf I were in the War Hawks' position at the time and needed to make a decision about whether to go to war, I think I would have definitely said yes. Without being able to see what the outcomes of the war would be, I would feel that due to conflicts with the Indians, impressment, and other threats form the British, we should go to war to stop these things. However, looking back on the war, I think I might have tried to find alternative ways of resolving the conflicts at hand that weren't as costly (both monetarily and in casualties).
Therefore, in summary, I think that the War Hawks' policies were justified at the time under the circumstances. They probably felt that something needed to be done. Should they have thought about what the effects of war would be? Yes. Should they have considered other options? Yes. However, under the circumstances, I don't strongly disagree with their decision or think that it was unjustified; they were merely looking for a way to resolve the conflicts that they saw at hand.
Personally I would disagree with the decision made by the War Hawks to start the war. War Hawks were violent nationalists who felt the need to prove themselves, leading Congress in 1811. They represented farmers and settlers. Part of their reason to attack the British in Canada was "to restore national honor" (215) and stop the wrong impressment of American sailers. Although their motivation could be viewed as good, the choice was extremely impulsive. When they invaded Canada they were unorganized and very unprepared, and there were many negative outcomes of the war of 1812. Some of these include 6,000 Americans killed or wounded, the British burning Washington D.C., and a split between political parties. The textbook referred to this as a failure, and I believe that it was unnecessary and the War Hawks could have sorted their conflicts with a peaceful solution. I understand that this nationalist group was standing up for the country and representing southern and western states. It was valid to want to "drive the British out of North America" (215) But overall, I don't think the was was justified.
ReplyDeletei disagree with the War Hawks gung-ho political strategies. America was still building as a nation and, the potential wars that the alien and sedation acts attempted to prevent happened as a result of the War Hawks. the War Hawks did not think past America's honor, and see that this war could have ended America. The English were almost enough to defeat america and now with the help of the indians America could have been overthrown. also these War Hawks were missing many key factors that colonial america had, like George Washington or fighting for something they believed in or knowing the area better then the enemies knew the area. this war puts a dent in american pride instead of adding the sense of honor the War Hawks were looking for. also this war divides the country, "...the war of 1812 deeply divided the nation" (216). this war divided the country and did not have a clear winner so the War Hawks did not get there glorious victory. theWar Hawks couldn't even take Canada... its Canada really War Hawks you couldn't take Canada... thats just sad. with this division and no glorious victory it would seem the war of 1812 was a complete failure but there was also a good side to this war. For example some of the battles went well, one victory even resulted in a very important part of American history, "...celebrated the American victory by writing a poem that later became the national anthem know as the "'Star Spangled banner"' (217). This celebration of the attack on fort McHenry resulted into a symbol of America for many years to come. The national anthem is very important to modern day America and its creation can be easily hidden in the mostly bad war of 1812. However the worst part of the war of 1812 is the fact that it was the precursor to many horrendous acts against native americans, by war heroes like Andrew Jackson. this war was good and bad but in my opinion the War Hawks should not have started this war because of all of its negative results.
ReplyDeleteNoah Cohen
First, I do not entirely agree with the attack on Canada; secondly, I feel like the War Hawks had justified reasons for doing something about the impressment of American sailors and threats from the Britain, however, they were not capable of achieving their ambitions, which ultimately hurt more than helped the nation. The War Hawks drew direct attention to the British basically taking American sailors from ships and forcing them to join their own navy (210). Impressment, in the long run, would definitely cause problems because the Americans would be losing people to Britain, creating a threat to states and, because the British were taking ships and sailors, Americans would face issues with trade, which would in turn negatively effect the economy. So, in terms of impressment, I think it was necessary that some form of action be taken because if it wasn’t stopped or fought against, the problem would just become an even more pressing issue over time, causing Americans to weaken defensively and creating harm to economic stability. The other main reasons for entering this war were to “deprive the Indians of their main source of arms and drive the British out of North America” (215). These reasons in general, to me, seem a bit bold and I feel that the nation, War Hawks and Madison more specifically, should have been more realistic. By realistic I mean they should have at least weighed the pros and cons, actually considering all the weaknesses Americans had at the time. One thing to keep in mind is that the War Hawks included young, ardent men. If the War Hawks hadn’t been so eager to prove themselves and hadn’t been even somewhat immature, they might have been able to come up with a more well-thought out plan of action to achieve their goals more efficiently and even successfully. Upon making the decision to fight in the War of 1812, the nation was divided. The division was fatal to the nation as well. It severed the unity of Americans, and therefore they were not prepared for what they were doing. I think that the negative effects of the war (as mentioned above in the question) were so detrimental to the nation, which ultimately made the plan attack on Canada, in order to eliminate British threats and make it easier to wipe out Indians, not worth all the damages caused.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the War Hawks decision to start a war and invade Canada. It was not a good decision for the good of America or the American people. America was still a very young country and had just gotten through with a war against Britain. I think they were too eager to start a new conflict. There were two main reasons why they went to war. “The War Hawks denounced the impressments of American soldiers and British support for the Native Americans” (215). Although these were problems to the United States, I don’t think they were worth going to war over. It was not a good time for the U.S. to go to war. As the book states, “Disunited, unprepared, and with only a small army and navy, the United States went to war once again with the world’s greatest power” (216). Also, the U.S. was already fighting against the Indians, the last thing that they needed was another war with Britain. Even though the war was a complete failure, one could argue that the War Hawks policies were justified. At the time and under the circumstances, one could argue that action was needed, maybe not so far as war, but something that would change their problems.
ReplyDeleteAlex Shrader
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the War Hawks decision to start a war. The attack on Canada was a stupid decision that only caused harm and destruction for the new fragile American government. Much like the Ancient Romans and George W. Bush Senior the War Hawks went to war just for the sake of going to war and expanding the dominion of the Country. Nothing good came from the war, 6000 American troops were killed or wounded and it was all for nothing because at the end of the war both sides gave back the conquered territory. P(216) Henry Clay, who was the leader of the War Hawks pushed the war against Britain more then anyone, yet he is praised as one of the best senators of all time.
To some extant the War Hawk policy was justified, but they went about dealing with the issues they face the wrong way. The English were taking advantage the weak American Navy and lack of power off American soil. The impressment of the American sailors was horrible but America dealt with it poorly. Jefferson try’s to fix the problem with Embargo acts but those didn’t do much except piss off the people. The second generation of congress tried to build up their naval and land military powers in an effort to scare off the British abductors which should have been their last resort instead of the first thing they turn to. Jefferson said that the conquest of Canada was “a matter of mere marching” because the population of Canada was so small. P(216) This led to most of the congressman getting convinced that war with Britain was necessary to win what they called “the second struggle for liberty”. The war Hawks created conflict that wasn’t needed and should have been dealt with peacefully instead of a war that caused so much un needed death and destruction.