How did the dividied sentiments about the war in 1812 reflect regional differences?
146361
From the American perspective, the New England states they wanted no part in the war at all. A town in Maine is reported to have bought gunpowder for its July 4th celebration from a supplier in New Brunswick, Canada. Likewise in Acadia they didn't want a war with the USA and kept up trade throughout the war.  \n     Now Quebec is a whole book so i'll be brief. The French called it an english war and wanted no part. When the British tried to draft soldiers in Quebec Riots broke out, people died, mayhem reigned. Many feel Quebec wanted the Americans to win. \n     Michigan was only a territory at the time, mostly farmers and fur traders who were mainly french canadian and traded with the native tribes. Washington was a world away. Many actually aided the British forces in the capture of Detroit. \n     Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky seemed to be the war mongering states. Simmering fueds between different tribes and new settlers created many "Indian Wars". These were a rough, tough breed of people always eager for a fight and a touch or three of the whiskey. Too bad no one told them it snows in Canada and they might want to bring a coat. \n     Upper Canada(Ontario) was primed and ready for the War. A Year before war was declared an alliance was formed between General Brock and Tecumseth's Northern Tribes Confederacy and they even discussed creating a Native state or country between Canada and the US. The residents of Ontario at the time were also largely "Loyalist" of British or Irish decent, or were former Americans who came north for free land grants who did not agree with the American ideals.
248231
The majority of Americans were against it, therefore it would've been a very unpopular war, look at what's happening today in Iraq.  Americans were 'isolationist' in their thinking before Pearl Harbor.
90053
There are entire books on this subject, so I'm not going to get too detailed.\n\nThe practice of slavery was an issue left up to individual states.  The states in the Southern region chose slavery because their economies were largely agrarian.  They produced raw goods like cotton.  The states in the Northern region were primarily industrial.  They produced finished goods, which meant they had less of a need for slave labor.\n\nWhen the country started spreading to the West, the Southern states assumed the new territories would be able to vote individually on the slavery issue.  The federal government, which tended to sympathize with the more developed Northern states, decided that it should be the one to assign 'slave' or 'non-slave' status as each new state was recognized.  The idea that individual states would no longer have the power to determine their own policies was objectionable to Southern representatives in Congress.  They voted to secede from the Union in order to preserve the rights of individual states.  The federal government desperately wanted to keep the supply states and the manufacturing states together for economic strength.\n\nIt's easy to portray the Southern cause as immoral, but in reality the number of large plantations with large slave populations was minimal.  The majority of Southerners were no more racist than Northerners.  The federal government eventually prevailed through superior firepower, not superior morality.
1053842
Tough question....\nMuch of Europe, particularly in the north, was growing rapidly though industrialization.  This was an era of urbanization and more overland trade, as the railroads allowed for transport across the country, rather than just coastal towns shipping oversea.\nGermany was brought together for the first time as a unified entity, rather than just a collection of disparate principalities, setting the stage for big conflict in the 20th Century.\nIn southern and eastern Europe, the Ottoman Empire was in great decline, as was the Austro-Hungarian.  Both were supplanted by the growing influence and wealth of the English and French colonial empires, with resources from abrouad fueling finance and manufacturing at home.
249417
Parts of Canada have considered joining the US occasionally. For example, the reason that the rail line going to British Columbia was built was because BC was considering joining the US if it was not built. \n\nThe US had hoped to annex parts of Canada in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and the "Patriot War" of 1837. The phrase "Manifest Destiny" was sometimes used as a shorthand expression for the notion that the United States should occupy all of North America. During the Polk administration, the slogan "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" was used to describe where the Americans wanted the border with British North America to be drawn. In the Oregon treaty of 1846, the border was placed at the 49th parallel instead for most of western North America (except for some confusion around Angle Inlet, on the Minnesota-Manitoba border).   \n\nCanada and the US have very different cultures. Being a dual citizen, and having lived half my life in one of the two and half my life in the other, I can say this with a lot more authority than Canadians or Americans who occasionally visit for vacations or for business or for shopping, or know the other country from watching TV and movies. The two countries are quite different in many ways that are not immediately apparent unless you live for an extended period in both. The citizens of both countries have huge misconceptions about the other country, both positive and negative. I suspect that the cultures of the two have never been the same, and are not really getting any closer with time, even in the era of easy travel and communications. I think a merger would be very difficult for this reason.\n\n- - - - - - - - \nmoreacidthanalkaline, you are incorrect. The US has gained territory by invasion, or attempted to, repeatedly:\n1. it seized land from the indigenous peoples\n2. all of the American Southwest acquired from Mexico after an invastion in the Mexican-American war. \n3. the invasion leading to the Aroostook War (on the New Brunswick-Maine border)\n4. repeated invasions during the War of 1812, the Revolutionary War and the Patriot War of 1837\n5. Hawaiian acquisition might be viewed as the result of an invasion of sorts \n6. Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philipines were annexed as the result of the Spanish-American War; not exactly an invasion, but still aggressive action\n7. American Samoa\n8. Florida was acquired after an American invasion\n\nAnd many other more minor examples. There are plenty of examples of aggressive American action in the past, some that resulted in the acquisition of territory, some that resulted in the acquisition of influence, power, markets etc. \n\nI do not think the US wants to acquire Iraq. I would say that would be one of those most unlikely events ever.
322026
The battle was for control of the Mississippi River.  In military terms, whoever controls the major waterways of a country controls the final fate of the war. Describes a battle in the war of 1812.
42705
Washington had basic issues involved in creating a new country.  He had to establish relations with other countries, retire war debt and complete the creation of the new federal government.  \n\nJefferson, on the other hand, took over a government that was largely legitimate (through the British would challenge that assumption in the War of 1812, after Jefferson left office).  He was able to focus on further developing the American government and its territory, which included the Lewis and Clark expedition across North America and the Louisiana Purchase.  \n\nDifferent times, different leaders, different priorities.
1185249
Northerners weren't gung-ho about going to war and especially about being drafted. In New York City, a riot of draft resisters broke out at Tompkins Square Park in Manhattan. Bloody mess. Also most northerners didn't know how to use firearms because they never hunted for wild game. It was new to them. Also the North couldn't find a military leader. They changed them like shirts until U.S. Grant took over. To get soliders the north recruited from Ireland and Germany.
25278
It was part of a much bigger war fought around the world between the French and British--the Seven Years War.  In the French-Indian War, it was Brits/Colonials/Indians vs. French/other Indians.  The Brits won.
358360
These are opinion blogs, not historical references.  I suggest looking at a Canadian library's website for the region on question to find better leads to that kind of info.  Good Luck,
421906
The rise of nationalism.\n\nEurope avoided major wars in the 100 years before World War 1 began. In the 1800's, a force swept across the continent that helped bring about the Great War. The force was nationalism - the belief that loyalty to a person's nation and its political and economic goals comes before any other public loyalty. During the 1800's nationalism took hold among people who shared a common language, history, or culture. Such people began to view themselves as members a national group or nation. Nationalism led to the creation of two new powers - Italy and Germany - through the uniting of many small states. War had a major role in achieving nation unification in Italy and Germany. On the other hand, nationalism weakened the eastern European empires of Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Ottoman Turkey. Those empires ruled many national groups that clamored for independence. The Balkan Peninsula or the "Powder Keg of Europe" caused tensions and therefore threatened to ignite a major war. Rivalry for control of the Balkans added to the tensions that erupted into World War 1.\n\n\nA build-up of military might occurred among European countries before World War 1 broke out. Nationalism encouraged public support for military build-ups and for a country's use of force to achieve its goals. By the late 1800's, Germany had the best-trained army in the world. In 1898 Germany began developing a naval force that was big enough to challenge the British navy. In 1906, the British navy launched the Dreadnought, the first modern battleship. The Dreadnought had greater firepower that any other ship of its time. Germany rushed to construct on just like it. Advances in technology helped aid in making military forces stronger. Machine guns and other new arms fired more accurately and more rapidly than earlier weapons. By the end of the 1800's, technology enabled countries to fight longer and bear greater losses that ever before.\n\n\nA system of military alliances gave European powers a sense of security before World War 1. They formed these alliances with each other for protection and guarantee that other members of the alliance would come to the country's aid if attacked. Although alliances provided protection, the system also created certain dangers. If war came, the alliance system meant that a number of nations would fight, not only the two involved in a dispute. Alliances could force a country to go to war against a nation it had no quarrel with. In addition, the terms of many alliances were kept secret. The secrecy also increased the chances that a county might guess wrong about the consequences of its actions. The Triple Alliance was made up of 3 countries, Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary. They all agreed to go to war if attacked by Russia. Bismarck also brought Austria-Hungary and Germany into alliance with Russia. The agreement was known as the Three Emperor's League and was formed in 1881. They all agreed to remain neutral if any of them went to war with another country. In 1890 when Bismarck left office it gave a chance for Russia and France to form an alliance. In 1894, France and Russia agreed to call up troops if any nation in the Triple Alliance mobilized. Russia and France also agreed to help each other if either were attacked be Germany. \n\nBeginning of the War\n\nOn June 28, 1914 a Serbian terrorist named Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand.  The Archduke's assassination triggered the outbreak of World War 1. On July 28 Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Because of Austria-Hungary's alliance with Germany, Serbia sought help from Russia. In 1914 Russia vowed to stand behind Serbia, but first Russia gained support from France. Germany declared war on Russia on Aug. 1, 1914, in response to Russia’s mobilization. Two days later Germany declared war on France. The German Army swept into Belgium on its way to France. The invasion of Belgium cause
1140806
If you know anything other than what the media depicts about the two wars, you will know that there are very few similarities between the two conflicts. Any similarities would required stretching the truth in each conflict. \n\nOne unfortunate similarity in both conflicts is that people died. Some died in combat fighting for a cause while others died needlessly because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hopefully, one day the leaders of this world will understand that no one really wins in a war and will find better ways to resolve their differences.
577295
A stupid question these nations are allies.However some contributers to this question seem to be under the impression that the last conflict between these two countries was an american victory. This of course is untrue in fact the british made deep incursions into the us and burnt the whitehouseto the ground.Of course if they mean the war of independance, every one was british.The settlers were revolting about unfair taxes,but they were british How many of the founding fathers were british.I can never envisage a time when britain and america would even be in different camps in any conflict of war
100861
our country was as divided as it is today about major issues and at the time geography had alot to do with because of the economy (farming without slaves etc..)  Where as today even in the red/ blue states there we are still to evenly spread out to divide geographically
525484
In 1914 all of Europe was connected by various treaties.  The Germans to the Austro-Hungarian Empire; Britain to Belgium; Belgium to France etc.  This meant that one small local disagreement would quickly drag in lots of other countries.
84646
While the differences between the east and west are great, I truly can never imagine a geographic civil war in this nation again.\n\nWhat troubles me is the ideological battles that are fought daily in our country that could boil over if we continue to suffer under the kind of leadership George Bush has provided.  I don't think a liberal vs. conservative war would ever break out, but the body blows dealt to our national psyche by Iraq, the Hurricane Katrina response, the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping of Americans, the "outing" of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame could do irreperable harm.\n\nFortunately, American citizens have one of the most powerful weapons available to fight such a war--a ballot on Election Day.  Hopefully, more will begin to see how truly life-changing it can be.
99398
The War of 1812's sea warfare was significant in two main fronts: Niagra and the Blockade of the Atlantic.  Brittain also played a small, but ironic, role.  There is a lot of detail into the Niagra conflict and should be researched indepth on your own. Read Carl Benn's The War of 1812 and various articles in the Madison Presidential Library.