How New Englanders Reacted to the War with Britain (continued)

Posted on June 29, 2014 by “Caius”

Governor Strong, and clerics Elijah Parish and John Gardiner were not the only ones to object to war with Britain. They were in touch with public opinion.  By August of 1812, New England was rocked by protests:

“Our common interests, liberties and safety are now more injured, oppressed and endangered, by the doings of our own National Government, than they were when in 1775 we took arms to protect and defend them against the measures of the government of Great Britain.”[1]

                                                                             Essex County Federalist

New Englanders reconsidered disunion.  They saw no need to help the war effort.  Federalists revived plans for a convention.  Thomas Dawes, a prominent Massachusetts politician, hinted at this in a letter to Noah Webster, the well-known lexicographer and political writer:

“There is but one way left to save us from the yoke of Bonaparte and Virginia, the rising of the New England people.  I mean nothing illegal or unconstitutional; I do not mean a Whiskey rebellion or any thing like it.  You know what I mean, and tho’ late, I think with you it is not too late.”[2]

Next:  What Noah Webster had already done       

Look for it Monday, July 7                                            

 

[1] Quoted by James M. Banner, Jr. in To the Hartford Convention:  The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts 1789-1815, (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf)  307-8.

[2] Thomas Dawes to Noah Webster, quoted by Banner in To the Hartford Convention, 308.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in From The Desk | Comments Off on How New Englanders Reacted to the War with Britain (continued)

How New Englanders Reacted to the War of 1812

Posted on June 21, 2014 by “Caius”

Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong urged New Englanders to fast.  Touching on his region’s roots in English history he denounced the war “against the nation from which we are descended, and which for many generations has been the bulwark of the religion we profess.”[1]

Congregationalist clergyman Elijah Parish preached, “proclaim an honourable neutrality; let the southern Heroes fight their own battles and guard…against the just vengeance of their lacerated slaves…Break those chains, under which you have sullenly murmured, during the long, long reign of democracy;….and once more breathe that free, commercial air of New England which you fathers always enjoyed…Protest did I say, protest?  Forbid this war to proceed in New-England”[2]

Congregationalist churches in New England were not the only ones to protest.  John Gardiner, an Episcopal priest from Boston preached “…[either] cut the connexion” [with the South] “or so far alter the national constitution, as to ensure yourselves a due share in the government.”  He added “…this portion of the disunited states should take care of itself…The time has arrived when common prudence is pusillanimity, and moderation has ceased to be a virtue.”[3]

How New Englanders Reacted to War with Britain (continued)
Look for it Monday, June 30

 

[1] James M. Banner, Jr. To the Hartford Convention:  The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts 1789-1815, (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf)  306-7.

[2] Banner, To the Hartford Convention,  307.

[3] Banner, To the Hartford Convention,  307.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How New Englanders Reacted to the War of 1812

Who Were “War Hawks” Peter Buell Porter and John C. Calhoun

Posted on June 15, 2014 by “Caius”

Peter Buell Porter (1773-1844) was the only War Hawk born in New England, in Salisbury Connecticut.  In 1791 he graduated from Yale, and studied law in Connecticut with Judge Tapping Reeve.   In 1795 he moved to Canandaigua, New York.  Originally he was a Federalist.  He became disillusioned with the party during the election of 1800.   He joined the Democratic-Republicans.  In 1804 he supported Aaron Burr with Timothy Pickering and Roger Griswold in the gubernatorial race in New York State.  The winner of that election, Morgan Lewis, moved to strip Porter of a clerking post he held.   Porter became a land speculator in the upstate New York Niagara frontier.  In 1808, back in politics, he was elected to the House of Representatives.  Henry Clay was his mentor.  Porter joined the War Hawks, urging war with Great Britain. Once the United States declared war, Porter served in the New York militia, distinguishing himself and earning a gold medal from Congress.  He was re-elected to Congress in 1814.[1]

John Caldwell Calhoun (1782-1850) was, like most of the War Hawks, a youthful thirty year old serving in Congress as a representative from South Carolina in 1812.  His parents were slave owners on the South Carolina frontier.  They  recognized his intellectual abilities, and sent him to Yale University in 1802.  Like Peter Buell Porter, he studied law with Judge Tapping  Reeve.  Under Henry Clay’s direction, Calhoun became chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee.  He joined the War Hawks in promoting war with Great Britain.[2]

Next: How New Englanders Reacted to War with Britain
Look for it Monday, June 23

 

 

[1] “Peter Buell Porter” American National Biography.

[2] “John C. Calhoun” American National Biography.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Were “War Hawks” Peter Buell Porter and John C. Calhoun

Who Were the War Hawks from Tennessee?

Posted on June 7, 2014 by “Caius”

Flex Grundy and John Sevier

Felix Grundy (1777-1840)  came from a frontier family that moved from Virginia to Pennsylvania and then to Kentucky.  Native Americans had killed at least three of his brothers.  His father died when he was young, yet his mother secured an education for her “youngest and favorite son.”  He read law in Kentucky with a leading lawyer of the West.  After serving in the Kentucky legislature and then the state’s chief justice, he moved to Nashville, Tennessee.  Like Clay, he was a gifted orator, but in Kentucky they clashed over several issues.  When he took his seat in the House of Representatives in 1812 he was 34.  He joined Henry Clay urging war with Great Britain.[1]

John Sevier (1745-1815) was, unlike other War Hawks, a seasoned warrior and politician in 1812.  During the Revolutionary War he fought in the North Carolina militia defending the frontier from the British and Cherokees.  Like Henry Clay and Richard Mentor Johnson he was a Democratic-Republican.  He joined the War Hawks in urging war with Great Britain.[2]

Next:  Who were Peter Buell Porter and John C. Calhoun?
Look for it Monday, June 16

 

 

[1] “Felix Grundy” American National Biography.

[2] “John Sevier” American National Biography.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Were the War Hawks from Tennessee?

Who Were These War Hawks?

Posted on May 31, 2014 by “Caius”

Henry Clay and Richard Mentor Johnson were from Kentucky; Felix Grundy and John Sevier from Tennessee; Peter Buell Porter, from Buffalo, New York and John C. Calhoun from the back woods of South Carolina.[1]

Henry Clay (1777-1852) was, in 1812, an articulate Kentuckian, aged 35.  The youthful orator had twice filled the vacant seats of Kentucky senators.  In 1810 he was overwhelmingly elected as a congressman from Kentucky to the House of Representatives.  He gathered a following of new, young congressmen who wanted to force the United States into declaring war on Britain.  They elected him speaker of the House. [2]

He was a Democratic-Republican adept at managing the mechanics of House leadership.  Soon, he had assigned his fellow War Hawks to head influential committees.  When James Madison asked Congress to declare war, many incorrectly blamed Clay for bringing the nation into war.[3]

Richard Mentor Johnson (1780-1850) also was elected to the House of Representatives, the first native Kentuckian to serve there.  Like Clay, he was a young Democratic-Republican.  When he voted for declaring war against Britain in 1812 he was in his early thirties.  He served gallantly in the War of 1812, fighting under the command William Henry Harrison, sustaining five bullet wounds.  After the war, he was re-elected to the House, where he was chairman of the House Committee on Military Affairs.[4]

Next:  Who were the War Hawks from Tennessee—Felix Grundy and John Sevier?

 

 

[1] Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, V. I  (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1962) 402.

[2] “Henry Clay” American National Biography.

[3] “Clay” ANB.

[4]  “Richard Mentor Johnson” American National Biography.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Were These War Hawks?

How Tecumseh Responded

Posted on May 24, 2014 by “Caius”

Tecumseh, incensed, refused to respect the treaty.  He approached the British in Canada, assuring them he was ready for war.  The British were not.  He recruited more tribes to join his confederacy.  He assured Governor Harrison that he was only defending his tribes’ concerns in traveling to speak to the Creek Nation.  Harrison brought the issue to a head.  Harrison and 1,100 troops encamped near Tecumseh’s headquarters on Tippecanoe Creek.  Tenskwatawa, the prophet, urged his brother not to engage Harrison.  Egged on by a few youthful warriors, Tecumseh ignored his twin, and invaded the encampment.[1]

The Americans fought back.  In two hours they subdued the attack, and burned Tecumseh’s headquarters.    Harrison was hailed as a hero, especially on the western frontier, where settlers were convinced that the British were behind the attacks.  In fact, they were not.  The twin brothers sought only to defend their united tribes from American policies that threatened their existence.[2]

Next:  Who were these War Hawks?

 

[1] Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, V. I  (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1962)  406.

[2] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic, 406.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Tecumseh Responded

Who Were the “War Hawks” and Why Did They Want War?

Posted on May 17, 2014 by “Caius”

Almost half of the Representatives who had passed Macon’s Bill No. 2 were not reelected in 1810-11. [1] Instead, a new breed of young politicians took their place. Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun were the most prominent.  Their reason for war centered on the safety of the western frontier, not on impressment.[2]

As the nation grew, moving westward, pioneers were concerned about their safety.  Native American twin brothers, Tecumseh and Tenskswatawa,  managed to unite tribes on America’s frontier into a powerful confederacy, threatening new settlements.  Tecumseh was the warrior; Tenskwatawa was revered as “The Prophet.”    As The Prophet preached a prohibition of liquor among the tribes, Tecumseh organized the tribes’ warriors into a fighting force.  Forced off their lands by pioneers, the Shawnee twins established a new headquarters where the Tippecanoe Creek flowed into the Wabash River in Indiana.

Governor of the Indiana Territory, William Henry Harrison, countered the growing threat by recruiting disaffected members of the tribe to negotiate a treaty.  The agreement secured three million acres of land in Indiana opening up pioneer settlements within fifty miles of Tecumseh’s headquarters.[3]

Next: How Tecumseh Responded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, V. I  (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1962)  402.

[2] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic, 405.

[3] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic, 406.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Were the “War Hawks” and Why Did They Want War?

Was Madison Right? Could War Have Been Avoided?

Posted on May 11, 2014 by “Caius”

War with Britain could have been avoided.  In England the winter of 1811-1812 was one of the worst on record.  Crops failed.    Wheat prices soared.  With non-intercourse with Britain in effect, the once lucrative export market to America for manufactured goods dried up.  As factories closed, workers rebelled and rioted.  Britain needed American markets.  A debate raged in Parliament about rescinding the Orders in Council.[1]

The talk of war in American newspapers threatened the British. [2]  On May 11, 1812, a deranged man assassinated the British prime minister, Spencer Percival.  As the government scrambled to reorganize, the debate on rescinding the Orders in Council was shoved aside.[3]  It was not until June 16, 1812 that Lord Castlereagh, the new head of the foreign office, announced Britain’s Orders in Council were rescinded.  It was too late.  News had yet to cross the Atlantic by ship.  Two days later, unaware of the news, the United States declared war on Britain.

Even though impressment was one of the reasons for going to war, New Englanders were against the war.   A new breed of westerners agitated for war.  John Randolph, a congressman from Virginia in the House of Representatives, dubbed them the “War Hawks.”[4]

Next:  Who were the War Hawks?

 

 

 

 

[1] Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, V. I  (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1962)  401-2;  Henry Adams, History of the United States of American during the Administrations of James Madison (New York:  Literary Classics of the United States, 1986)  478.

[2] Adams, History of the United States, 489.

[3] Morison and Commager, 401;  Adams, History of the United States, 490-1.

[4] Morison and Commager, 402.

 

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Was Madison Right? Could War Have Been Avoided?

To Recap: How Madison Responded to Napoleon’s Offer

Posted on May 4, 2014 by “Caius”

After repealing the Embargo, Congress once again passed a non-intercourse act, with a pledge the United States would resume trade with the first nation to repeal its injurious policies toward American commerce.  Jefferson’s successor, James Madison, tried diplomacy, working with the British minister in Washington to draft a treaty, but the British foreign minister rejected both the diplomat and the treaty.

Both Congress and Madison were at wit’s end.  Madison failed to provide leadership.  Congress then passed Macon’s Bill No. 2, which allowed merchants to resume trade with France and Britain, pledging the United States would stop intercourse with the enemy of the first power that granted its rights to neutrality.

Napoleon realized that he had an opportunity to lure Madison and the United States into his continental system.  In 1810 Napoleon revoked his decrees with a lie the British were repealing their orders in council.  The United States’ savvy ambassador to Russia, John Quincy Adams, advised Madison that Napoleon was setting a trap forcing the country into war with Britain.  Nevertheless, Madison fell for Napoleon’s ploy.  Despite many reports of French depredations on American shipping, Madison stubbornly resisted resuming trade with Britain.[1]

 

 

 

 

 

[1]Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, V. 1, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1962) 401.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on To Recap: How Madison Responded to Napoleon’s Offer

More on Nineteenth Century Economic Sanctions: Napoleon’s Continental System

Posted on April 26, 2014 by “Caius”

By 1806 Napoleon had conquered or formed alliances with every country that mattered on the continent.  Napoleon dominated the land; Britain dominated the sea.  He lacked enough troops to invade Britain.  He was unable to conquer Britain’s formidable Navy. Napoleon resorted to an embargo to cripple Britain’s trade.

The Berlin Decree of 1806 outlawed trade with Great Britain.  It applied to his allies and countries he had conquered.  Britain retaliated with the Order in Council of 1807.  Those orders prevented French trade with Britain, neutrals such as the United States, and Britain’s allies.  The British Navy also blockaded French ports and all other European ports under French control.

Napoleon responded by upping the ante with the Milan Decree in 1807.  All neutral shipping, such as America’s merchant marine, that used a British port, or paid a tariff to Britain, was subject to seizure.  His objective was to sever Britain’s trading ties with the United States, the West Indies, and her other colonies.

Portugal refused to comply with Napoleon, causing the Peninsular War.  Napoleon invaded Portugal in 1807 and Spain in 1808.  He tried to wage a naval war by capturing the Portuguese fleet, and occupying Portugal’s ports.  With the help of the British Navy, the King of Portugal eluded him, sailing with his fleet to Brazil, where he set up his court.  The Portuguese revolted, and the British intervened in their defense.  Napoleon pressured the Spanish King and his family to resign.  Napoleon installed his brother, Joseph Bonaparte, as the new king of Spain.

Next:  How Madison Responded

 

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on More on Nineteenth Century Economic Sanctions: Napoleon’s Continental System