Let me know what you think
Presumed Problem
The British were boarding American vessels, taking sailors believed to be British, including some Americans, and forcing them into service in the British navy: a practice known as impressment.
Solution
Declare war on the world’s great naval power and make them stop impressing our seamen.
Narrative
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not the first time the USA used war as the solution to a non-existent problem. For another example, we’ll look at one of America’s oddest wars, one that is little understood by Americans: the War of 1812.
At the opening of the 19th century, Britain was caught up in a long, expensive war with Napoleon Bonaparte and France. America was theoretically neutral, which offended both parties, but American merchantmen were actively supplying France much of the time. Matters were further complicated by divided loyalties among American citizens. For many, England was still felt as their cultural homeland, despite political independence. Others felt a special loyalty to the land of LaFayette for their support of the American fight for independence decades earlier. Still others saw an opportunity for money to be made.
American-British relations became more strained through the policy of impressment. As the French war dragged on, a number of British seamen had decided to desert the British Navy sign on with American ships for better pay and less danger. At the same time, Britain was feeling the pinch of diminishing resources–and the lack of able-bodied seamen was part of the problem. The British solution was to begin boarding American commercial ships at sea and capturing any crew members who seemed to be British–including some American citizens. The captured seamen were impressed into service on British ships of the line. American unhappiness with Britain also involved economic issues, but outrage at the impressment of American seamen was a powerful rallying cry.
The British policy of stopping American merchantmen at sea, which laid the grounding for inspecting the crews and seizing any believed to be British, was known as “Orders in Council,” first enacted on January 7, 1807. American official protests to Britain were to no avail, and the British continued stopping American commercial vessels at sea and impressing any seamen who looked and sounded British. President James Madison became convinced that more deliberate action was needed, and he lobbied Congress for a declaration of war against the most powerful nation on earth. Congress was reluctant, but Madison’s urging finally paid off with a divided vote in his favor, and he was able to sign a declaration of war on June 18, 1812.
The war that followed was not America’s most gallant. Initially, Britain ignored the declaration of war as something of a farce. America’s navy was hardly a threat to the British fleet. America decided to make the war more real through several invasions of Canada. All failed, despite a relative lack of support from Britain for the locals. Canadians celebrate the War of 1812 as their own War for Independence. Americans were the bad guys in that version of the war.
Once the British had defeated Napoleon’s troops in Europe, they were able to turn their attention to the annoying fuss across the pond. As you may recall, the British invaded Maryland, marched to the nation’s capital in Washington, trashed the city and burned the White House. You may have read about FLOTUS Dolly Madison’s heroism as she stayed in the White House until she was able to rescue important documents and paintings–fleeing the city just ahead of the British firebugs.
So, all things considered, the war wasn’t going really well for the Americans. But I’m sure you know of the one shining exception: thanks in large part to singer Johnny Horton. The Battle of New Orleans, culminating on January 8, 1815, was America’s finest engagement in the war. Overwhelming British forces under the command of the great British general, Edward Pakenham, faced off against General Andrew Jackson and a smaller, less professional, less experienced American force.
The final score sheet for the battle was as lopsided as such things can be. The British lost 2600 men: 700 of them died in battle, 1400 were wounded, and another 500 were taken prisoner. On the other side, 7 Americans died and another 6 were wounded.
Another oddity about the January 8th, 1815, battle had to do with timing. Being fought 167 years before the advent of the internet, 110 years before television, and 43 years before the transatlantic telegraph cable, the Battle of New Orleans was fought two weeks after the Peace Treaty of Ghent ended the war.
.
Was the Problem Real?
What qualifies the War of 1812 for inclusion in this project? While the practice of impressment had been a “recruitment” policy for the British navy for centuries, American Independence saw treaty procedures for the return of any Americans falsely impressed in the belief that they were British. (The common language and lack of formal birth certificates made some degree of erroneous impressment inevitable.) John Deeben argues that the size of the problem was much less than commonly imagined. Moreover, he offers federal archival evidence that the United States was also impressing seamen into service and, like the British, made mistakes as regards the nationality of their new recruits.
In June, 1812, in response to American complaints, Britain repealed the “Orders in Council” that allowed them to board American ships at sea. Two days later, James Madison signed the declaration of war. Obviously the U. S. did not know about the suspension of the Orders until after war had been declared, but it was known before serious fighting began.
All historians seem to agree that the British stopped the practice of impressment altogether upon the defeat of Napoleon in 1814. Thus, the presumed cause of the war had completely disappeared prior to the invasion of Maryland, the burning of Washington, and the Battle of New Orleans. While impressment, real and imagined, may have been a key problem for which war was the intended solution, it ceased as a problem before the war commenced and was surely not a problem that could be solved by the most dramatic events of the war.
Negative Consequences
Well, let’s see: the British burned the White House and most of Washington. There was expense, destruction, and loss of life throughout the young nation.
While Britain may have learned to take the USA a little more seriously, Canada learned not to. Any visions the Americans had for annexing their northern neighbors were dashed in the War of 1812.
I mentioned earlier that President Madison had some trouble getting Congressional approval for the way, and the division of opinion was largely regional. New England was generally opposed, and the war’s conclusion left some bitter feelings on both sides of the issue. To some degree, the Southern hawks viewed Northern opposition as disloyalty to the nation.
The South suffered in another way. Prior to the war, they were able to maintain a view that their slaves were contented with their status. However, when the British offered freedom to any slaves who would join them, and many slaves deserted their masters and did precisely that. What must have been a disappointment to slaveholders was a preview to a similar disenchantment later on, in the Civil War.
Compared to other American wars, the negative consequences of the War of 1812 were relatively mild, but we need to remember it was a solution to a problem that didn’t really exist.
© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved Terms of Service/Privacy
Sources
An excellent history of the War of 1812 is Troy Bickham’s The Weight of Vengeance: The United States, the British Empire, and the War of 1812, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Another wonderful article. It is a fascinating consideration, to look back and wonder at what might have happened if that clearly unnecessary war starting in 1812 had never occurred? How might have events unfolded differently? Might slavery have ended sooner rather than later or ended without the horrors of the American Civil War? Might Canada have become part of the United States? Might Andrew Jackson have never been elected president, resulting in a completely different, and possibly more benign outcome for the plight of Native Americans. Might the horrific Cherokee Trail of Tears have never happened. Might Boston, rather than New York, have become America’s economic and financial center?
I’m reminded of the far more disastrous invasion of Iraq, considering what might have been in place of the rapidly unfolding chaos that has subsequently characterized the Middle East. Is fair to say we can never know. But we can certainly see that a solution to a problem that didn’t exist didn’t help with any of the real problems that did and do, and brought with it costs and far greater problems with immeasurable suffering. Many analyses bear this out. Just a few examples include:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG892.pdf
https://www.globalpolicy.org/humanitarian-issues-in-iraq/consequences-of-the-war-and-occupation-of-iraq.html
http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/03/10-years-after-iraq-war-what-do-we-have-show-it
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/17/iraq-war-10-years-later/1993431/
http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-war-bushs-biggest-blunder-294411
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/12/15/what-did-the-iraq-war-cost-more-than-you-think
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/1210/How-the-Iraq-war-has-changed-America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
I especially like to imagine what the Middle East would be like without the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. I don’t think it would be a land of milk and honey, but I can’t imagine it being worse than it is–particularly as regards to the USA. Taliban, al Qaeda, and Daesh would all have a harder time arguing that the USA is at war against Islam.
It would be useful to do a concise update like this one for the war in Iraq – it was clearly a solution to a nonexistent problem. Oh wait: there _was_ Saddam Hussein’s alleged plot to assassinate
George HW Bush . . .
I like John’s idea, to spell it out in some simple, clear, comprehesive way that removes any doubt and contributes to the harsh realites sinking in with the voting public and policy makers alike.
This article strikes a chord with me and I think about such issues regularly. I’m sure this will be an over simplification, but it is necessary.
Imagine school lunch is $1 a day. A particular bully begins robbing you for your $1 a day. The economic question is this, “Is $5 a week worth not getting beaten up?”
I suggest that only some people will even ask the above question. This is a matter of personality, temper, upbringing, etc. Other people might ask themselves other questions:
Is there any price for my self-esteem?
Might I be able to stop the bully from picking on me by fighting back? He may get the $1 a few times, but won’t he eventually get tired of fighting me and victimize someone else?
If I don’t stop this from happening what else will the bully (and his friends) want?
I’m sure there are more. For me there is a balance. Sometimes it’s worth it to let the bully have his $1, but sometimes I need to fight back. Only I can know which time is which.
Great to hear from you, William. You raise an interesting dilemma that comes up often.