|
The War of 1812
Today, during a brief “meeting of the minds” (led by Mr. President James Madison), I was presented with two very distinct points of view. As most Americans are well aware, the United States may be on the brink of war—and judging from the arguments neither side is willing to compromise. After an hour of debating, a clear solution did not materialize, which leaves the spectator unsure about the unity of his country. And, indeed, on this issue, the North and South seem most undoubtedly torn in two.
First, I would like to address those in support of the war. The most controversial topic seems to be impressments of American sailors by the British—a heinous and unjust act, according to President Madison. “Violation of America’s right as neutral” was a phrase brought up quite often, and who could disagree? Our liberty is at stake—we, this fledgling country—and should it be proven that we are not strong enough to support our own sovereignty, it will confirm to the rest of the world that we are worthy of invasion. This thought was first mentioned by William Henry Harrison, who later brought up allegations against Britain. “While Britain may be our partner in commerce,” he said, “what kind of partner shows blatant disrespect to its colleague’s rights and liberty?” It was repeated that pride and honor are the very reasons a goes to war—and a total disregard for those sacred entities, especially in our situation, is reason enough to fight the British once more. While the “doves” argued that we would lose a valuable trading partner in war, it was made obvious by “war-hawks” that they did not view Britain as useful in the slightest. With crime after crime committed against our sovereignty, the harms outweigh the benefits, and Britain must be stopped. By allowing this mistreatment to continue, we are merely inviting other countries to do the same. With Britain being preoccupied with France, it is obvious that it would be most advantageous to act now, before America is opened up for more tribulations with other European powers.
The impressments and crimes committed at sea are not the only reasons to go to war with Britain. In a malicious attempt to again stomp on our national independence, the British have sided with the Indians. Yes—it is true—as horrifying and immoral as it sounds. They are paying the Indians for American scalps, encouraging attacks, and bribing the Indians with offers that we could not provide. However, as brought up again by William Henry Harrison, if we were to take Canada, we’d be rid of the British and be able to control the Indians—because of course, with the British gone, the Indians would hardly a threat. Also, the general sentiment is that it would be best if we civilized the savages, and thus we are killing three birds with one stone (some strategy is involved in that): Britain would no longer be invading our sovereignty, the land we gained could be used for successful farming, and the Indians would become “enlightened” and cease to attack American citizens on the frontier. For Calhoun and Grundy, fertile Canadian land is incentive enough to go to war with Britain—though if one considered the situation, there is undeniably profit to gain. The problem that remains in the back of one’s mind is how much could be lost.
The view of those who are opposed to the war is simple: a couple of infringed-upon liberties for the time being is not worth American blood. The problem would still remain—and while no American feels impressment is right, there are some who say that even with impressment, war is not justifiable. These views were expressed rather vehemently by the outspoken Mr. Sheffy. After a relatively short period of peace with Britain, we are jumping back into hostilities and dispute. This is not the time to be arguing about loyalty to the British, but to examine the state of “war” and all it entails. Have its many horrors been so quickly forgotten? Not to mention that defeating Britain would be no easy task, especially because last time we had the aid of the French—who are currently attempting to fight off the British. This time, no one will come to help us. Europe is wrapped in its own affairs, and we would be fighting the most powerful navy in the world with our dismal 16 ships. Not to mention the unleashing of Napoleon onto America—Britain is the only thing checking his power. We would, in effect, be fighting two very powerful enemies: Britain, and the rest of Europe (represented by Bonaparte and his army). We have neither the funds nor the manpower, nor the blessing of most of Americans. Plunging into war hastily will only lead to resentment towards the government—by both the people and other countries. We would be losing our most valuable trading partner, who participates in 2/3 of our trade, thus damaging the economy dramatically. No, argue the Doves, war is not beneficial to America right now.
The other reason for going to war is widely seen as ridiculous—the expansion of land. How greedy—how hypocritical, the doves say. First the War Hawks complain about Britain taking our land, and then they turn around and want to take over Indian territory for their own personal gain. As Americans, do we disregard other’s culture? How can the southern states expect New England to go to war for such a trivial and selfish reason? These questions were raised by Mr. German. Mr. Macon brought up Louisiana—the fact that it still remains unexplored, yet the southerners still want more land. More land would lead to extreme stress on the reach of the government’s power, said Mr. Webster. It is obvious to the people of New England that the reason of expansion is only a cover-up for the impressment of soldiers and resentment towards Britian: the real reason of this pending war.
Watching all this, I could not help but agree with the Southern states. Being an American, I am greatly disturbed by the atrocities the British display on the high seas, and think it is completely justified to reclaim our sovereignty, our honor, and our pride. It is necessary to appear strong to earn ourselves credibility internationally. Land expansion would also be beneficial to America, giving its farmers more land and thus improving the economy. I believe that bloodshed is necessary to maintain freedom and sovereignty. If we were to go to war—which, my dear reader, is not too far from speculation—my heart would be completely dedicated to America’s cause.
At the meeting today, it was clear that America is divided in two: one half supports war with Britain, the other is adamantly against it. Nevertheless, Americans and their government delegates must realize that in order to become a successful country, opposing sides must join together once a course has been set. If the two different viewpoints remain separate if and when the war starts, it can only lead to the beginning of the demise of America and all we were fighting for in the first place.
Okay. I spent way too much time on this gay essay to NOT post it.
Happy reading. *Draw arrow extending from this statement, to above the title.*
Love,
Kelly |
