War of 1812 – American History to 1877

March 17, 2014

Politics, Politics, and Politics

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Chapter 5 in The Rise of American Democracy is abundant with political issues. Wilentz discusses several different aspects of this time period, but they all converge on the fact that political troubles become highly volatile and interconnected. This observation seems particularly evident throughout his discussion of Clay, Calhoun, and Randolph (70). Indeed, domestic political struggles served as a catalyst for the War of 1812 because of the conflict between the parties based on differing ideologies. Moreover, Wilentz provides a commentary on the reelection of Madison, and he specifically observes that Madison won by a slight margin. This close election further indicates the political strife of the time. Additionally, Wilentz notes that “a continuing political and spiritual revival among the displaced western Indian tribes” served as the “second key domestic factor in leading America to war” (71). Again, the political interests of the United States motivated them to engage in war with Britain. The reasoning here was that the potential “renewal of British-Indian alliances” would have posed an insurmountable force for the Americans to face (73). Thus the federal government sought to avoid future tensions with these combined powers.

Apart from the macro analysis of partisanship, Wilentz discusses the rise of certain individuals, namely two future U.S. presidents. We are first introduced to William Henry Harrison when he was “the governor of Indian Territory” (72). Later on when in conflict with Indian forces, “Harrison made a decisive strike against Prophetstown” (74). Secondly, Andrew Jackson becomes crucial in this time period, especially because he was “barely known to the citizenry before the war” (81). Wilentz comments on the many political and social factors that contributed to Jackson’s rapid and widespread popularity. In particular, Jackson enjoyed several war successes, including a “crushing military victory in two major battles with the Indians” (85). I find it fascinating that both of these future U.S. presidents are important in the War of 1812. These individuals arguably garnered enough political support from their past military participation to win the presidency.

The work of Harrison and Jackson contributed to the eventual American victory, which gave Madison a “treaty and crushing military victory” (87). In “The War of 1812 and Western Expansion,” my classmate discusses how the War of 1812 essentially rendered the Federalists obsolete. This observation finds its roots in Wilentz, who comments on the effect of the war on domestic politics. This cause and effect of the military struggle brings this post to the end of its full circle: the war escalated from political problems, produced political figures, and ultimately changed the domestic political dynamics.

March 17, 2014

The War of 1812 and Western Expansion

In chapter five of his The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz convincingly debunked myths that the War of 1812 amounted to nothing more than a waste of resources. Declaring it a “bungled, needless, and costly effort,” while not a ludicrous accusation since the war was costly and messy, misses some important points (88). America had the worst of its troubles in the early stages of war, and even if the burning of Washington proved a “symbolic embarrassment,” it was followed by a number of accomplishments. The fledgling country displayed “skillful management of war debt,” returned many captured Americans to their homes, and at last established vital international credibility (88). While America did not win the war, I agree with Wilentz that this conflict was a pivotal moment in American history nonetheless. America had finally proven itself a viable nation amongst the other world powers. I therefore respectfully disagree with Charlotte’s assertion that the war was unproductive and accomplished little to nothing. I do not think Wilentz was attempting to argue this point, for he seemed more focused on providing counterarguments to similar statements from other historians. Instead, Wilentz identified the Indians and Federalists as the “losers” of the war while maintaining that it was an important success for the nation at large (88).

Wilentz also did an excellent job tracing the decline of the Federalist Party. I knew the party’s influence waned as the war they had failed to support drew to a close, followed by the so-called “era of good feelings,” but I was unaware of Federalist activity during the early stages of the war. Indeed, early on in the war, neither the outcome nor the level of support for the Federalist Party was yet clear. Many were, for good reason, skeptical of the war, and it was not clear until later that the Federalist Party would inevitably decline. As Wilentz described, Madison held a “vulnerable” position and incredibly limited military resources (77). Until Madison secured Pennsylvania in the election, DeWitt Clinton had a legitimate chance of winning the presidency and weakening the Democratic-Republican Party’s influence.

The outcome of the war is what ultimately solidified the Democratic Republican Party and doomed the Federalists to “political isolation” (80). I agree with Wilentz’s interpretation here, and I believe it raises the question: what if the war had ended differently? How might the political parties have been affected? Even in the last stages of the war, Madison was eager to proceed with peace negotiations due to a threat of secession from the New England Federalists. I cannot help wondering if the Federalist threat was a very real one, or if the Democratic-Republican Party would have emerged as the sole political party even under different circumstances. Thomas claimed in his blog post that the Democratic-Republicans’ ability to “grasp political power,” unlike the Federalists, defined the subsequent era in American politics. I would need to think about the issue more extensively before arriving to such a conclusion. Especially in an era where political parties were virtually nonexistent, exactly how important was the winner of this struggle? Would a Federalist rise to power have changed everything or almost nothing?

As for Frederick Jackson Turner’s suggestion that the frontier defines much of American history, this exact thesis was the focus of my American history class a few years ago. I may even have read excerpts from this same article, although I cannot be sure. At any rate, it’s an idea to which I have already devoted a great deal of thought, and I think it is a very useful way to approach American history. The best way to study history, in my mind, is to take a number of different approaches. Giving careful consideration to Turner’s argument alongside other viewpoints ultimately provides the best sense of history, one that encompasses a variety of theses.

March 16, 2014

Political Factions & Unproductive Wars

In chapter 5, Wilentz explores how nationalism plays out in response to war, and the different political makeup of the United States before and after the War of 1812. He begins by discussing the lead up to the War of 1812, and the rise of Republican nationalism through their support of the war. Federalists were against the war, and the two parties seemed to become increasingly distinct and oppositional voices over the war. However, it is interesting to see how the New England Federalists’ initial anti-war activities led this once anti-British party to become pro-British. This can be seen in their threats of secession from the Republican government and their talk of independent peace treaties with British in Maine.

During the lead up to the war of 1812, Wilentz also discusses the dissent among Republicans. New Republicans promoted westward growth and development, and connected internal gains and successful market with agricultural exports. However, to Old Republicans, this new sect seemed to resemble a new type of Federalists. However, this is far from accurate, as Thomas points out in his post. Federalists at this time believed that American success was dependent on trade connections with Great Britain.

As Wilentz points out, during the War of 1812 neither the British nor the Americans were successful at thwarting the other. This is ironic given that the policy over which the US first declared war was revoked right after the declaration, before either side had heard the other’s statement. After two years of fighting, Madison began negotiations with the British. However, it is interesting to note that nothing seems to change policy-wise with Britain and the US, which is what began the conflict and war.

I found it very interesting that American’s fear of Indians allying with Britain became a self-fulfilled prophecy based on the despicable treatment they indured by Americans, such as Harrison burning Prophetstown to the ground and opening Indian graves. Indians, understandably, became allied with British in their opposition of America’s westward expansion. It is also interesting to note that Wilentz mentions the large role Indians had in the deterioration of Britain and American relations leading up to the war. This is a side of the narrative I had never heard. It is also interesting to see how many of the same issues that the War of 1812 tried to resolve were the same as less than 50 years earlier. The issues, motivations, and causes for this war are nothing we haven’t seen before. However, as Wilentz points out, the end of this war led to a new kind of American hero (none who were Federalists), which helped bring the Federalist party to an end.

March 16, 2014

Sectional Differences

The varying opinions and political parties of the nation have been, in many cases, geographically grouped. The Turner reading helps to explain some of these differences through the westward expansion of the Americas, while the Wilentz reading helps to express how the differences coalesce around the War of 1812. As discussed in Knowlton’s post, from last week, the government was set up in such a way that these divisions were bound to have some consequences.

Changing societies in different regions caused ideologies to vary between regions. Turner talks a lot about this in the first chapter of his book “The Frontier in America.” As the North grew away from agriculture and towards industrialization their ideologies changed from those of the southern agrarians. This caused strife between the two groups especially when it came to representation in the government with the three fifths clause. Wiltenz mentions that this strife almost tore apart the nation during the War of 1812. Some of the northern states had talked of secession openly because of Madison’s presidency. The U.S was almost torn apart before it could get a foothold in the global scale by the differing ideologies of the American people.

The War was caused by strife between the two regions of America and its former mother country, Great Britain. The American people had changed from the colonies to a nation that could sustain itself. This is a similar advancement to the advancement of the north to industrialization, or the western frontier to elite farmers. These are the social changes that Turner is talking about in his book. And it was the same change in ideologies of the societies in the different regions that caused strife between Britain and the U.S.

The same differences in society that Turner talks about with the frontier would be the cause for the Civil War. As the west was expanded and slavery extended to half the added states, the resentment between north and south grew. The talk of succeeding by the north during the war of 1812 would shift to the south. The north had thought they were unfairly represented and wanted someone other than the Virginians to be running the government. It caused them to want to succeed just as the southerners would when Lincoln took office.