> Yep. Although Jefferson was still the great
intellect and political
> guru for the Democratic-Republican party.
And woefully ill-informed about the remaining British colonies. The so-called Late Loyalists (later American immigrants who were only up here for the free land) weren't the influence he had hoped, I suspect.
> > Granted, General Hull was a coward, and
> > stupidly surrendered Detroit, but, hey, you chose
him.
Jeff:
> The politics behind the choice of appointments was
pretty interesting. Most of the competent members of
the US officer corps were Federalists and thus
political unreliable. Andy Jackson - although a
Democratic-Republican - was also viewed as politically
unreliable and given a crappy appointment. Believe
me, had he been appointed in charge of the Great Lakes
campaign, things would have gone very different for
the British.
Could well have been. However, this was about as sensible as asking Iraq restructuring candidates did they vote for Bush? and what is their opinion on Roe vs Wade? Which was done, and no wonder Iraq is in the mess it's in, since those were the qualifications of the guys sent over to do the job. Just haven't learnt, have you?
> > Add to that the near-bankruptcy of the U.S.
> > federal government,
> Actually, the US government was nowhere near
> bankruptcy - in 1814 we
> enjoyed a better bond rating than the British.
Actually, you were. The proposed budget for 1814 was $45,400,000, while projected income was only $16,000,000. An amusing game of 3-card monte ensued. Bonds were issued to cover the interest of the series already existing - is it any surprise that Ponzi schemes were invented in the U.S.A.? Certainly foreshadowed the Enron school of accountancy. An American historian (Donald Hickey) commented, "All of this suggested that public credit was sinking and that the government teetered on the brink of bankruptcy."
> However, given that
> neither power had much strategic interest in the war
(Britain had
> little interest in the conflict and the US lost its
interest very
> quickly), it is not surprising that both parties
were willing to
> negotiate.
Very true. The Brits still preferred the Americans as friends, and the actual inhabitants of the Canadian colonies got dick-all say over the matter. Though, we've generally felt that maybe we were better off without Detroit.
> > Implicitly admitting that the U.S. did not
> > succeed in its primary military aim, which was to
> > conquer Canada. So much for Manifest Destiny.
> Yep. But not Manifest Destiny which was not yet
much of an issue in
> the US.
The phrase wasn't much in use, but some of the attitude already existed.
> (Lower Canada was always viewed as problematic).
Too true. Still is.
> Again remember that the War of 1812 is only 30 years
after the War
> of Independence and many had harbored hopes that all
of British
> America would become independent. The British
dashed that hope. > Oh well. Jeff
Most of the Canadian colonists themselves didn't want to be American. The small numbers of British troops wouldn't have had any hope coping with the American troops, had the general populace expressed a wish for unification with the southern British colonies.
Alison
Powered by hypermail