War of 1812 Documentary - PBS Documentary

[oldjones]

Well, no. In 1814, the honours were about even. British invasions were turned back in upstate NY and even the burning of DC was more in the nature of a big raid than a real invasion.

There's nothing in political morality that would commit Britain to investing massive amounts of money and manpower in a military intervention into US territory and internal affairs to protect an erstwhile ally. The territory south of the Lakes was the USA. Britain occupying that territory in order to protect a few thousand Amerindians from the US Army and white American settlers would not have been militarily feasible or legal under international law. The US would ALWAYS have been able to project more military force into the northwest than Britain could and would inevitably have driven the British back out.

I didn't like how the Taliban treated the people of Afghanistan either; but I did not support the Western intervention in that country for the reasons stated above.

Well it was a war, and settling territory's a traditional part of war. Back then Michigan was a Territory, possession of which depended on who controlled the Forts at the confluence of the Upper Lakes. That was why Tecumseh and the First Nations from far and wide had thrown in their lot with the Brits, to secure that territory to the west as their Homeland, by international treaty. In this case it was the Treaty of Utrecht (after abortive sessions in Moscow and Paris I believe), which betrayed their hopes.

My understanding of international law is that it is defined by such treaties, not by the willingness, or ease of a nation to project its power abroad. 'Abroad' was only just across the Lakes, and as you say, neither nation was able to accomplish 'projection of power'. Since it was the American purpose, thus the conclusion they lost, along with Tecumseh. I'm sure it's my misunderstanding when I read you as suggesting the US would have broken such a treaty—with the ink hardly dry—and forced Britain to renew hostilities in the NorthWest had the provisions favoured the Indians. But they did not, leaving the West to be taken up by those settlers once the inhabitants had been killed or driven off. A better deal than conquering Quebec, Upper Canada or Rupert's Land.

Of course the record with regard to subsequent treaties between those white American 'settlers' and the First Nations who then had only American law to depend on was savage and sad.

 

[mandrill]

But OJ, the "territory" was a US territory by prior treaty. It would have been conceded to them by Britain in whatever treaty ended the American Revolution. While holding Fort Michilimackinac might have given either the US or GB the strategic edge in the fighting in that area of North America, holding the fort did not make US territory British any more than the US holding Fort York would have made Upper Canada legally American.

While one can certainly force new and more favourable treaties on one's opponent if one wins a war, you have to actually win the war first. The War of 1812 was a standoff. We kicked their asses out of Canada and they more or less kept us out of the US - apart apparently from some moose pasture in Maine. Nobody won the War and so nobody got to rewrite the treaties in place beforehand.

Anyway, how would you suppose that a couple of hundred British soldiers in a few blockhouses and forts would keep the US from settling the Michigan Territory, even if we did own it? American migration to the West was a massive, million-person tide of settlement througout the Nineteenth Century.

 

[Aardvark154]

OJ if you are referring to the Peace Treaty which concluded the War of 1812 that was the Treaty of Ghent.

 

[oldjones]

OJ if you are referring to the Peace Treaty which concluded the War of 1812 that was the Treaty of Ghent.

Pardon me, those Low Countries confuse me.

 

[oldjones]

But OJ, the "territory" was a US territory by prior treaty. It would have been conceded to them by Britain in whatever treaty ended the American Revolution. While holding Fort Michilimackinac might have given either the US or GB the strategic edge in the fighting in that area of North America, holding the fort did not make US territory British any more than the US holding Fort York would have made Upper Canada legally American.

While one can certainly force new and more favourable treaties on one's opponent if one wins a war, you have to actually win the war first. The War of 1812 was a standoff. We kicked their asses out of Canada and they more or less kept us out of the US - apart apparently from some moose pasture in Maine. Nobody won the War and so nobody got to rewrite the treaties in place beforehand.

Anyway, how would you suppose that a couple of hundred British soldiers in a few blockhouses and forts would keep the US from settling the Michigan Territory, even if we did own it? American migration to the West was a massive, million-person tide of settlement througout the Nineteenth Century.

But in 1812 the Cumberland Gap was still big news, and a million settlers a pipe-dream. Look at it through contemporary eyes. The Treaty of Paris—I checked—assigned land that neither side yet occupied and had barely begun to be mapped. But it was land which the First Nations had long populated and used, that included Michigan and everything west until you started meeting Russians and Spaniards. Oh yes, and Indian Nations. But they didn't count, did they? And to some still don't, clearly. If the Lakes hadn't made it easy to describe a boundary, it woulda taken decades to survey it. And most of the land it divided would still belong to other nations.

Other nations whose last best hope was to rally with Tecumseh, and support the British who, as you say, were too thin on the ground to be the threat the American occupying horde became. A threat Tecumseh clearly saw. Had the British actually held out for proper recognition of their ally as a nation with a right to a seat at the table or at the very least as having a right to its territory, the subsequent easy steamrollering over Indian claims would have had quite a different character. And perhaps not have been quite so shameful a story.

Call the European's 1812 a draw if you want, but it was a huge loss for the First Nations of America.

 

[Aardvark154]

Look at it through contemporary eyes. The Treaty of Paris—I checked—assigned land that neither side yet occupied and had barely begun to be mapped.

Take a look at the Mitchell Map which was used to negotiate the Treaty of Paris. It is remarkably detailed about the upper mid-west for the 1770's (Sheet 2).

 

[diehard]

So why did Britain attack New Orleans after the peace treaty was signed?

 

[Aardvark154]

So why did Britain attack New Orleans after the peace treaty was signed?

For the simple reason that only 16 days latter they didn't know that a peace treaty had been signed.

Almost all (or at least all of those I've bothered to read) such seventeenth through nineteenth century peace treaties had a staggered implementation dates to allow those many thousands of miles away to be informed.

It certainly had an important effect on Andrew Jackson's subsequent career that most in the Southern U.S. heard about his victory before they heard of the peace treaty.

 

[Keebler Elf]

So why did Britain attack New Orleans after the peace treaty was signed?

It took time for the news to reach America from Paris.

 

[shai]

While one could argue about your conclusion - perhaps more important is what the Hell do you think military service has to do with imprisonment?

They devote such a large percentage of their national wealth either to killing people or to imprisoning them or both. And we're not even counting the amount of policing a US citizen has to pay for. We don't spend a fraction of that on these concerns