Chapter 12: The Second War for Independence and the Upsurge of Nationalism 1812-1824 Flashcards
- Is it valid to call the War of 1812 Americas worst fought war? Was the cause of the failure essentially military, or was it an inevitable result of the political disunity over the wars purposes?
The War of 1812 should not be called America’s worst fought war because America did not lose any territory, even though they didn’t win any either. America suffered losses, no doubt, but they also managed a victory over Britain in the Battle of New Orleans. The real problem behind the failure was the political disunity. The Americans did not have the enthusiasm to win, and with a unified force, military strategy could have improved. The result was not ideal, as it did not guarantee peace and offered no land gains. America was quite lucky to have not lost any territory, however, and a sense of nationalism did arise as a result of the war.
- Examine the Treaty of Ghent. Did the United States “win” this peace agreement? What international forces made this peace settlement a reality? Was the United States lucky that Britain had more important priorities than battling in the United States?
The Tsar of Russia in 1812 was being pressured greatly by Napoleon. He wanted Britain, Russia’s ally, to conserve its strength. Afraid that Britain would suffer exhaustion from fighting in America, he had Americans and British come together to try to make peace in Ghent, Belgium. The British were confident about their success, and made many demands that were unfavorable to the Americans. The wanted an Indian buffer state and a large portion of Maine. Their tune changed the war started to show favor to the Americans. The Americans were fortunate that the British were preoccupied with Napoleon, because they were not full strength in America, and otherwise may have been able to retaliate. Britain and America agreed to stop fighting, and neither side really won the peace agreement. No territory was gained or lost on either side.
- To what degree was the War of 1812 truly a Second War for Independence? Consider the battles, the politics, and the peace settlement. Compare it to the Revolutionary War.
The War of 1812 could be called a Second War for independence in a diplomatic sense. America gained respect for its sly military tactics as well as its skilled negotiators. They fought against what they felt were British grievances against their nation. America’s second war for Independence was not a physical one as much as it was spirited. The Revolutionary War was a battle that gave Americans freedom from Britain, the War of 1812 was a war that brought diplomatic independence and instilled a spirit of pride and independence in the American people. It was less of a war for independence in the overall failure of the war as well as the limited benefits of the treaty. The Americans did not have the issues resolved that they originally disliked.
- What was significant about the strong spirit of nationalism that appeared in America from 1815 to 1824? What were its accomplishments?
The nationalism that arose in the 1800s in America was significant because of the way it drove progress. Even though America did not fight in a unified manner, the war of 1812 helped bring unity to the country by bringing a spirit of national pride. Americans began to write their own textbooks instead of shipping them from Britain, painters proudly portrayed the American landscape, and authors began to obtain international recognition. The capital began to grow back, the Navy grew in strength, and manufacturing industries grew. Henry Clay’s American System blossomed from the seed of nationalism.
- Did the Missouri Compromise effectively deal with the sectional conflict over slavery or merely shove it out of view?
The Missouri Compromise occurred as a result of the dispute between abolitionists and slaveholders. Congress decided to admit Missouri as a slave state, but Maine, which was previously a part of Massachusetts, was admitted separately. This compromise was made to keep 12 states on each side of the controversy. As a result of this agreement, the South won Missouri for a slave state and the north won in the sense that Congress could outlaw slavery in the remaining areas. Neither side was completely happy with this compromise, but it managed to shove the problem out of view for thirty-four years. The problem had not been solved, it had simply been pushed out of the way, as it erupted later and caused the civil war.
- Did the Supreme Court decisions under John Marshall’s leadership extend federal power too much? Is it appropriate that someone who was not elected should have such tremendous power to shape the government and the law? Is it appropriate that a political party’s ideology be implemented through the judiciary?
Supreme Court decisions under John Marshall did not extend federal power too much. He did increase the power of the Supreme Court’s power somewhat as well as increase judicial barriers against democratic attacks on property rights. He increased the Court’s power to decide whether something is constitutional, and therefore increased its power to protect people’s rights. There should not be a problem with Marshall having so much power because of the system of checks and balances put in place. It is not an ideal situation to have a political party’s ideology be implemented through the judiciary, but everyone has a personal bias, and if it reflects the majority, it is a difficult situation to avoid.
- Was the Monroe Doctrine a valuable assertion of the principles of liberty and self-determination in the Americas against potential European and monarchical intrusion, or was it in effect a manifestation of a patronizing and potentially imperialistic attitude by the United States toward Latin America?
The Monroe Doctrine did assert the principles of liberty and self-determination. It looked down on both colonization and intervention, which reflects the American spirit of independence. Adams and Monroe did not want the newborn Latin American republics to be pushed around by their former colonizers. Monroe’s Doctrine upset European monarchs and helped keep them at bay. It wasn’t purely for the benefit of Latin America, however. The intentions behind it were selfish, meant more for the protection of the United States than the scattered southern Republics. It increased America’s sense of isolationism as well as nationalism.
