A History, of the War of 1812-15 Between the United States and Great BritainJohnson, Rossiter
History
A History, of the War of 1812-15 Between the United States and Great Britain
Johnson, Rossiter
United States -- History -- War of 1812
But these figures, taken alone, are deceptive; since a very large part
of the British force was engaged in the European wars, and the practical
question was, what force the United States could bring against so much
as England could spare for operations on the high seas and on this side
of the Atlantic. In that comparison, the discrepancy was not so great,
and the United States had an enormous element of strength in her fine
merchant marine. Her commerce being temporarily suspended to a large
degree, there was an abundance both of ships and sailors, from which to
build up a navy and fit out a fleet of privateers. Indeed, privateering
was the business that now offered the largest prizes to mariners and
ship-owners. Yet so blind was President Madison's Administration to the
country's main strength and advantage, that he actually proposed to lay
up all the naval vessels, as the only means of saving them from capture.
Of what use it would be to save from capture war-vessels which were not
to {024}sail the sea in time of war, he seems not to have thought. From
this fatal error he was saved by the pluck and foresight of Captains
Stewart and Bain-bridge. Those two officers happened fortunately to
be in Washington at the time, and succeeded in persuading the
Administration to give up this plan and order the vessels fitted for sea
at once.
War with Great Britain being determined upon, the plan of campaign that
first and most strongly presented itself to the Administration was the
conquest of the British provinces on our northern border. This had
been attempted during the Revolution without success, but none the
less confidence was felt in it now. And it was certainly correct in
principle, though it proved wofully disastrous in the execution. It
is observable that in all recent wars, the party on whose ground the
fighting has taken place has been in the end the losing party. Thus the
Mexican war in 1846-7 was fought in Mexican territory, and the Mexicans
were defeated. The Crimean war was fought in Russian territory, and the
Russians were defeated. The war between France and Austria, in 1859,
was fought in Austrian territory, and the Austrians were defeated. The
Schleswig-Holstein war was fought in Danish territory, and the Danes
were defeated. The war between Prussia and Austria, in 1866, was
fought in {025}Austrian territory, and the Austrians were defeated. The
Franco-German war of 1870 was fought in French territory, and France was
defeated. The Russo-Turkish war of 1877 was fought in Turkish territory,
and the Turks were defeated. The war of the American Rebellion was
fought in territory claimed by the rebels, and they were defeated. It
only needs that a war should continue long enough for us to see where
the battle-ground is to be, and we can then tell what will be its
result. The reason is obvious. A nation that is strong enough to carry
the war into its enemy's country, and keep it there, will certainly
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account