American Opposition to the War of 1812

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is on opposition within the United States. Wikipedia does not yet have an article on opposition within Britain.
Part of a series on

Anti-war topics
Opposition to…

Military action in Iran • Iraq War • War in Afghanistan • War on Terrorism • Landmines • Vietnam War • Nuclear armament • World War II • World War I • Second Boer War • American Civil War • War of 1812 • American
Revolutionary War
Agents of opposition

Anti-war organizations • Conscientious objectors • Draft dodgers • Peace movement • Peace churches • Peace camp
Related ideologies

Anti-imperialism • Antimilitarism • Appeasement • Nonviolence • Pacificism • Pacifism • Satyagraha
Media

Books • Films • Songs
Politics Portal ·  v • d • e 

Opposition to the War of 1812 was widespread in the United States, especially in New England. It helped lead to a serious consideration of secession by several Northeastern states, and the war is a strong candidate for being the one which has generated the most domestic opposition of any in U.S. history.

Contents

[edit] Background

Many U.S. politicians sought to conquer the then-British colony of Canada.[citation needed] Various sovereignty violations by Britain, such as the searching and seizure of U.S. merchant ships at sea, became the impetus for war. The U.S. Congress declared war on June 18, 1812, with the support of President James Madison and Congressional War Hawks in the Democratic-Republican Party led by Speaker of the House Henry Clay. The Federalist Party, led by its members in New England, was opposed from the beginning. Since the regular standing Army was very small, members of state militias had to be called up to go to war.

[edit] Official opposition

Politicians from the Northern states whose industry depended on trade with Britain were horrified by the prospect of war with that country. The Federalist Party in Congress was united in opposition to the war as soon as it was declared. A document called "An Address of Members of the House of Representatives... on the Subject of War with Great Britain," signed by 34 of 36 House Federalists, was widely circulated and put forward Federalist views on the subject. It argued that the parliamentary procedures used by Democratic-Republicans to launch the war were anti-democratic and hostile to "Representative liberty"; that "war upon the land" as a response to attacks against "commerce upon the ocean" was not justified or effective; that the war would involve a dangerous entanglement with France, then fighting Britain in the Napoleonic Wars; and that with the U.S. unprepared for war and militarily weak, a disaster might result - "a war of invasion may invite a retort of invasion."[1]

Some Federalists refused to cooperate with the war. Caleb Strong, the Governor of Massachusetts, refused to call out the State militia to support the war. He adhered to the "states rights" view that only the Governor had to power to call out the state militia, not the U.S. President. The impact of this action was intensified by the military's problems finding volunteers, which became serious as the war dragged on.

The Federalists had no control of national policy, however. As the war dragged on, they grew increasingly frustrated. Eventually, some in New England, the Federalist stronghold, began to consider secession. The Hartford Convention, with 26 delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and dissident counties in Vermont and New Hampshire, was held in secrecy to consider this. It was called by the Massachusetts legislature on October 10, 1814, ostensibly to discuss proposed Constitutional amendments, and continued through January 5, 1815. Its final report did not openly recommend secession, but called for a list of Constitutional amendments which could not have passed the Democratic-Republican-controlled Congress, which were intended as bargaining positions on behalf of New England, backed by the threat of secession. However, when commissioners arrived in Washington to negotiate, they were greeted with news of a peace treaty with Britain, the Treaty of Ghent, which essentially restored the pre-war status quo. This undercut their potential support, leaving them proposing near-treason without excuse. They quickly returned to Massachusetts, and the Federalist Party was mortally damaged.

[edit] Popular opposition

While a sense of patriotism made initial support for the war, outside of Federalist strongholds, very strong, as the war dragged on and the U.S. suffered several reversals, opposition to the war beyond Federalist Party legislators grew. As a result few could be found willing to actually join the military and fight the war.

For example, after the British seized Fort Niagara and sacked the town of Lewiston, New York, General George McClure tried to call up the local militia to drive them back, but found that most would not respond, tired of repeated drafts and his earlier failures. Even those who did appear, McClure wrote, were more interested "in taking care of their families and property by carrying them into the interior, than helping us to fight."[2]

This was shown in national recruitment efforts as well. While Congress authorized the War Department to recruit 50,000 one-year volunteers, only 10,000 could be found, and the Army never reached half of its authorized strength. A national conscription plan was proposed in Congress, but defeated with the aid of Daniel Webster, though several states passed conscription policies. Even Kentucky, home state of the best-known war hawk Henry Clay, was the source of only 400 recruits in 1818. It was not until the war was concluded that its retrospective popularity shot up again.[3]

James A. Bayard of Delaware (Federalist minority leader in Congress) said "No war of any duration will ever extort this concession" about the War of 1812 eliminating impressments. Timothy Dwight was afraid of entering an alliance with France, remarking "The touch of France is pollution. Her embrace is death."

[edit] Backlash

Many members of the Democratic-Republican Party viewed opposition as treasonous or near-treasonous once war was declared. The Washington National Intelligencer wrote that, "WAR IS DECLARED, and every patriot heart must unite in its support." The Augusta Chronicle wrote that, "he who is not for us is against us."[4]

This sentiment was especially strong in Baltimore, at the time a boomtown with a large population of recent French, Irish, and German immigrants who especially hated Britain. In early 1812, several riots took place, centering around the anti-war Federalist newspaper the Federal Republican. Its offices were destroyed by a mob. Meanwhile, several Black people thought to be sympathetic to Britain were assaulted. Local and city officials, all war hawks, expressed disapproval of the violence, but did little to stop it.[5] When the editors of Federal Republican tried to return, they were removed from protective custody in a jail by a mob, on the night of July 27, and tortured; one, Revolutionary War veteran James Lingan, died of his injuries. Opponents of the war then largely ceased to openly express their opposition in Baltimore.[6]

The Baltimore riots were the height of violent backlash during the war, whose popularity dropped through 1813 and 1814. However, after the war, when the Hartford Convention's existence became public just after a peace treaty was signed with Britain, there was a longer-term backlash against the Federalist Party, which became associated with secession and treason. The party never regained national predominance, fielding its last Presidential candidate in 1816 and fading away entirely by the end of the 1820's.

[edit] Legacy

 This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007)

The War of 1812 was the first official war fought by the United States, as the U.S., and so was the first to develop widespread anti-war sentiment. There is little direct continuity between the opponents of the war of 1812 and later anti-war movements, as the anti-war Federalist Party collapsed soon after the end of the war. However, the war did result in the formation of the New York Peace Society in 1815 in an effort to prevent similar future wars. The New York Peace Society was the first peace organization in the United States, lasting in various incarnations until 1940. A number of other peace societies soon formed, including eventually the American Peace Society, a national organization which exists to the present day. The American Peace Society was formed in 1828 by the merger of those in New York, Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.[7]

The War of 1812 is less well known than 20th-century U.S. wars, but no other war had the degree of opposition by elected officials represented by the Hartford Convention and its consideration of secession. However, the War of 1812 did not generate a protest movement,[citation needed] with massive street demonstrations led by organizations independent of electoral political parties and inflected by political radicalism, as did the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, and to a lesser degree the First World War. Nevertheless, historian Donald R. Hickey has argued that, "The War of 1812 was America's most unpopular war. It generated more intense opposition than any other war in the nation's history, including the war in Vietnam."[8]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^  Hickey (1990), pp. 54-5
  2. ^  Hickey (1990), p. 142
  3. ^  Hoey (2000), web
  4. ^  Hickey (1990), p. 55
  5. ^  Hickey (1990), pp. 56-58
  6. ^  Hickey (1990), pp. 64-66
  7. ^  "Guide to the Microfilm..." (2006), web
  8. ^  Hickey (1990), p. 255

[edit] References

Languages