why did the war of 1812 begin?
360532
Armed conflict between the United States and Great Britain, 1812—15. It followed a period of great stress between the two nations as a result of the treatment of neutral countries by both France and England during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, in which the latter two were antagonists (1793—1801, 1803—14).\n\nCauses of the War\n\nAmerican shippers took advantage of the hostilities in Europe to absorb the carrying trade between Europe and the French and Spanish islands in the West Indies. By breaking the passage with a stop in a U.S. port, they evaded seizure under the British rule of 1756, which forbade to neutrals in wartime trade that was not allowed in peacetime. In 1805, however, in the Essex Case, a British court ruled that U.S. ships breaking passage at an American port did not circumvent the prohibitions set out in the rule of 1756. As a result the seizure of American ships by Great Britain increased.\n\nThe following year Great Britain instituted a partial blockade of the European coast. The French emperor, Napoleon I, retaliated with a blockade of the British Isles. Napoleon's Continental System, which was intended to exclude British goods or goods cleared through Britain from countries under French control, and the British orders in council (1807), which forbade trade with France except after touching at English ports, threatened the American merchant fleet with confiscation by one side or the other. Although the French subjected American ships to considerable arbitrary treatment, the difficulties with England were more apparent. The impressment of sailors alleged to be British from U.S. vessels was a particularly great source of anti-British feeling, a famous incident of impressment being the Chesapeake affair of 1807.\n\nDespite the infringement of U.S. rights, President Jefferson hoped to achieve a peaceful settlement with the British. Toward this end he supported a total embargo on trade in the hope that economic pressure would force the belligerents to negotiate with the United States. The Nonimportation Act of 1806 was followed by the Embargo Act of 1807. Difficulty of enforcement and economic conditions that rendered England and the Continent more or less independent of America made the embargo ineffective, and in 1809 it gave way to a Nonintercourse Act. This in turn was superseded by Macon's Bill No. 2, which repealed the trade restrictions against Britain and France with the proviso that if one country withdrew its offensive decrees or orders, nonintercourse would be reimposed with the other.\n\nIn 1809, after the passage of the Nonintercourse Act, a satisfactory agreement had been reached with the British minister in Washington, David Erskine, who promised repeal of the orders in council. The pact was disavowed by Foreign Secretary George Canning, however, and Erskine was replaced by F. J. Jackson, who soon proved himself persona non grata to the U.S. government. Subsequently, by a dubious commitment, Napoleon tricked James Madison, who had succeeded Jefferson as President, into reimposing (1811) nonintercourse on England. Negotiations with Britain for repeal of the orders in council continued without result; just before the declaration of war, yet too late to prevent it, the orders in council were repealed.\n\nIn reality, it was not so much the infringement of neutral rights that occasioned the actual outbreak of hostilities as the desire of the frontiersmen for free land, which could only be obtained at the expense of the Native Americans and the British. Moreover, the West suspected the British, with some justification, of attempting to prevent American expansion and of encouraging and arming the Native Americans. Matters came to a head after the battle of Tippecanoe (1811); the radical Western group believed that the British had supported the Native American confederacy, and they dreamed of expelling the British from Canada. Their militancy was supported by Southerners who
328898
Well, for starters the War of 1812 would never have been fought.  England might have eventually sold us to pay off the war debt.  We might have ended up speaking French or Spanish, or something else!  So we wouldn't be speaking English and we wouldn't have a lot of the same culture.  We wouldn't have had any of our early presidents so our country might not have expanded in what they called "manifest destiny."  We could still occupy only New England and we wouldn't be the longest lasting republic in the world.  Our constitution would not have been written and the abolitionists might never had succeeded.  Rights in all parts of the world might never have evolved.  Many countries might still have monarchies today, including us!
17442
The War of 1812 was fought between the United States and United Kingdom from 1812 to 1815, on land in North America and at sea around the world.
120343
Yes !!! I live in New ORleans (one of the ports). My family has been hear long before the LOuisiana Purchase. We are Americans rather that French today only because the America of 1803 had enough sense to realize the port of New ORleans was critical to the survival of the United States. During the War of 1812 we fought the Battle of New Orleans to stop the British from taking the port. During the Civil War the the first move of the Union Andaconda Plan was to seize the port of New Orleans and during WWII the first place combat occured between the U.S. and Germany was with German submarines trying to close off the port of New Orleans. Now, in 2006, we sell our ports to a country which helped produce the 9/11 highjackers? What is going on in Washington these days?
400628
War starts because of power. Someone has it and someone else wants it. Also religion is a major cause of war. I think that if there was no religion we would all be much better off.
145657
We have had two wars with Britian, the American Revolution and the War of 1812.  The American Revolution had many causes including taxes without corresponding representation in the British Parliament. Also resentment of the Quartering of British soldiers in colonist homes, the Boston Massacre, and the British punishment of Boston for the Boston Tea party. The War of 1812 was fought because the British were kidnapping American sailors off of American ships, and the British provoking Indians to attack Americans.
7224
The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between Great Britain and revolutionaries within thirteen British colonies in North America. The war began largely as a colonial revolt against the economic policies of the British Empire, and eventually widened far beyond British North America, with France, Spain, and the Netherlands entering the war against Great Britain. Additionally, many American Indians fought on both sides of the conflict.\n\nThroughout the war, the British were able to use their naval superiority to capture colonial coastal cities, but control of the countryside largely eluded them. French involvement proved decisive, with a naval victory in the Chesapeake leading to the surrender of a British army at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 recognized the independence of the United States of America. Because a great number of colonists fled the thirteen colonies and settled in the north, the war also paved the way for the eventual creation of what would become Canada.
810740
Treaty of Paris in 1783 after the British surrended at the Battle at Yorktown. It was negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams in Paris. (The Treaty of Ghent was signed to end the War of 1812.)
470207
Basically, there was a lot of tension between counties at that point due to the world order that came out of the Napoleonic Wars. Due to this tension, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was all that was needed to set off the war. After the assassination, Austria-Hungary send out an ultimatum to Serbia (once they had the promise of Germany's help if war should break out). Serbia had a problem with one demand, so once they had the promise of support from Russia, they rejected the ultimatum. This led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia. Austria-Hungary attacks Serbia, Germany declares war on Russia but attacks France due to Schlieffen Plan, Belgium refuses Germany free passage to France which brings England into the picture...\n\nWhat if the Archduke wasn't shot? Well, some other event may have happened that would have had these alliances invoked. It is hard to say whether war would definitely occurred, however, it is easy to say that it was probable, as a conflict between two countries quickly grew to involve all of Europe (and even Northern Africa and the Middle East with the Ottoman Empire as well as a large part of Asia with Russia).
354133
During this period, the United States government was established by its first president, George Washington, and the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and various Indian Wars expanded and consolidated the land expanse of the United States--while largely displacing the indigenous population.\n\ngo to this link \nhttp://www.animatedatlas.com/movie2.html
1061557
The US did in 1803 when we fought our first over seas war in Monazuma. We were trading with other countries in the Med. sea and we did not pay the "priates" monet to not attack our trade ships. They were called terrorist then. The US went to a short war with the terrorist and won. The Congress adopted a "no negotiation" standard then.
1063650
Really, this is a very broad question. Why was war declared? There are many theories the speculate the reason why; from foreign oil to weapons of mass destruction. The theory that made the most sense to me was the one found in the movie "Fharenheit 9/11." Oil. Of course Bush could not declare war without the power of congress but as you stated, all these branches are republican and President Bush got to do as he pleased. After 9/11, the country was in an uproar, seeking justice for the thousands of lives that were lost needlessly. However, the brief war in Afghanistan and the subsequent war in Iraq are witch hunts. I agree that President Bush is running the country as he pleases. As for those that feel offended by what I am saying, honestly BITE ME! I voted for Kerry !!! (Only wish the popular vote would have made a difference but that a whole other can of worms). Thousands of our soldiers are dying needlessly for a war the most of the country did not approve of; men and women are dying, husband's, brother's, son's, lover's, and because one man got power hungry. What can we expect from a man that choked on a pretzel? If you can't chew your food correctly, chances are you will not be able to run the world's most powerful country either.
196639
Wars happen for two reasons.\n\n1. To expand power.\n2. To protect existing power.\n\nAny other reasons given are what we tell ourselves to make us feel better.
422120
It was important because it was one of the factors that led to the American Revolution. The American delegates at Pennsylvania came up with the Dec. of Independence to show how they had suffered under British rule, and how they planned to use freedom.\n\nThe Dec. of Indpendence was kind of a guiding light to the soldiers and other citizens of US. It always had colonists thinking of what lie ahead - freedom.
536068
Summary:\n\nThe War of 1812 is one of the forgotten wars of the United States. The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate; it was in fact a war that once and for all confirmed American Independence. The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada. On the other hand, the British army was successfully stopped when it attempted to capture Baltimore and New Orleans. There were a number of American naval victories in which American vessels proved themselves superior to similarly sized British vessels. These victories coming after victories in the Quasi War (an even more forgotten war) launched American naval traditions.\n\nWhile the British and Americans were negotiating a settlement, Federalist delegates selected by the legislatures of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire gathered in Hartford, Connecticut, in a meeting that symbolized opposition to "Mr. Madison's war." New England had managed to trade with the enemy throughout the conflict, and some areas actually prospered from this commerce. Nevertheless, the Federalists claimed that the war was ruining the economy. Some delegates to the convention advocated secession from the Union, but the majority agreed on a series of constitutional amendments to limit Republican influence, including prohibiting embargoes lasting more than 60 days and forbidding successive presidents from the same state. By the time messengers from the Hartford Convention reached Washington, D.C., however, they found the war had ended. The Hartford Convention stamped the Federalists with a stigma of disloyalty from which they never recovered.
435401
British\n\n[modified below to provide source]\n"British forces march on Washington. At a brief battle on the road, known as the Battle of Bladensburg; the British forces defeat the American forces, who withdraw in disarray, thus opening the road to Washington. The British burn the White House and the Capitol, but the rest of Washington is saved by a strong rain storm. The British, under orders not to hold any territory, withdrew."\nhttp://www.historycentral.com/1812/Washington.html\n\n[another modification to provide some more details]\nI'm not a historian, so I will not pretend to be an expert on this subject.  However, I am learning more details as I go along in the effort to more fully answer your question.  At this point, this is more of a challenge and just plain fun, so it doesn't matter if you should choose this as a best answer or not.  The thrill is in the hunt.\n\nWhat I've determined so far is that the burning of Washington (and the White House) was performed by parts of the British Army stationed along the East Coast. Although the Canadian militia did fight on the side of the British, it seems that they were primarily in the Great Lakes regions where they comprised nearly half of the British forces.  The Great Lakes region was a separate theatre of operations during the war. \n\nThe war was conducted in four theatres of operations:\nThe Atlantic Ocean \nThe Great Lakes and the Canadian frontier \nThe coast of the United States \nThe Southern States \n\nThe commander of the British forces on the East Coast was General Robert Ross who served under Admiral Cockburn.  These two men are credited with leading the forces responsible for the burning of Washington.  From my reading, it appears that Ross probably actually led the forces, while Cockburn received credit as the commander of British Naval forces along the US coastal, providing the means for the landing of the ground forces, and as Ross' superior officer.\n\nRoss, himself, commanded a 4500-man army, comprised of the 4th (King's Own) Light, 21st Royal North British Fusiliers, 44th (East Essex) Regiment of Foot, and 85th Regiment of Foot.\n\n(The British commander of the Great Lakes forces was Major-General Sir Isaac Brock.)\n\nThere doesn't seem to be any significant work, citable references, or other resources that indicate any ties between the Canadian militia that served in the Great Lakes with Ross' East Coast forces that participated in the burning of Washington.\n\nFrom additional reading, it would seem that the attack on Washington and Baltimore was performed by components of the British as a diversion so that the British forces in the north (with Canadians) could repel the continual attacks from US forces and make an incursion into the US.\n\n\nSo, it would seem, in my opinion, that it was not Canadians that burned down the White House.  Although Canadians fought alongside the British in the Great Lakes region, they were not instrutmental in Cockburne's and Ross' forces on the East Coast that actually did the burning.  Further, just because the British Army in one region contained Canadian militia members, I don't think it would be correct to conclude, in any respect, that Canadians should get 'credit' for burning down the White House.  That would be like saying that Latvia gets the historical credit for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Hussein.  They had men in the coalition forces, after all.
470985
There wasn't much of a coherent argument. People were scared because of the Panic of 1893 that the US was running out of natural resources and capital, and businesses feared that they would need to have new land to be able to be competitive in the industrial world. The actual expansion that took place was justified by accusations that Spain was abusing its colonies, and so we had a moral obligation to come to their aid, but that's clearly not why we went to war with Spain.