"Ah rendova, you disappoint me. I don't want to hijack the thread, but
it was the "Embargo Act" passed by Congress in 1807, which restricted trade with Europe.
Madison was having success persuading the Royal Navy to cease boarding US ships. In fact he was against the war! He was forced into it by the "War Hawks" of Clay and Calhoun. They desired more land and sought to invade Canada while Britain was still involved with France.
Start a new thread if you want to debate it further."

************************************************** ************************************************** ******


Sure, oldtimer.

Jefferson and his supporters (Republicans) began a new foreign policy.

Protect US interests on the seas
clear Western territories of foreign influence
break free from all dependence on Europe


Still, we continued to be entangled in Europe's nonstop wars. When the Napoleonic Wars broke out, the French and British began preying on neutral US ships.

(side note--the English claimed that many of their deserters were working on US ships. They were right--they were!)

However, this impressment (forcing US sailors to serve on British ships) of sailors by the British infuritated Americans, who were one scant generation away from the bloody Revolution. The British also interfered with our trade by seizing and searching our ships inAmerican waters.


Americans felt the English were using the war in Europe as an excuse to destroy our commerce. ....between 1808-12, England and France had seized 900 US ships.

(Would I have been a War Hawk?
Yes.:)-- not sporting of France or England

Canada---Republicans felt that British Canada might be a good target to attack because it was poorly defended. As Henry Clay said, The US did not want to conquer Canada. We only felt it was important to strike where the enemy was weakest.

OK, we could write from now to doomsday and not fully agree. I was trying to make the point that there was more than one reason for the war.
Your point is well taken and many would agree with you.
However, at least some would agree with me that Madison was driven to war fearing the political pressures of Clay etc.
Did Clay just want Canada or a war with Britain? Who really knows what goes on in a politicians mind? (Given that he has one :))

OK, we could write from now to doomsday and not fully agree. I was trying to make the point that there was more than one reason for the war.
Your point is well taken and many would agree with you.
However, at least some would agree with me that Madison was driven to war fearing the political pressures of Clay etc.
Did Clay just want Canada or a war with Britain? Who really knows what goes on in a politicians mind? (Given that he has one :))

I would agree with that 100 percent.
As for Clay--I have very mixed feelings aboit that man. In any event, it's very interesting to think how history would have been affected if the US HAD annexed Canada...assuming we'd succeeded, which is unlikely, IMO.

I think that what really surprised the US was how the French in Quebec fought so ferociously in the defence of Canada.

No doubt....The US just was not financially prepared for this war either--too broke. Also New England was dead against the entire idea--refusing to send militia for the conflict.

I have 3 gggg grandpas who fought in this war (that I know of)--John March Snook, Daniel Van Voorhees, and Abram Spencer, who served in a cavalry regiment out of Ohio. All fought in the Western campaigns, and had fathers who served in the Revolution. Lots of good War Records at the National Archives, Washington DC, a city that the British kindly burnt down because I guess they didn't like the looks or layout of it......Certainly a fun loving bunch, those British.

Perhaps they didn't like Dolly's cooking? :)
Long way to trace your ancestors. You should be proud of them.

Wow, Ren. Only about a quarter of my ancestors were even in America for the War of 1812... (That would be my French/British side.) The Irish didn't show up until 50 years later and the Italians and Swedish weren't here until my great-grandmother's time, and she's still alive!

Sounds like you've done a lot of work on yr family, Df. It's a fun hobby and interesting, and also what I do for a living.

My dad's family has been in America since 1620, Plymouth, and mom's since 1630 MASS and 1640, New Amsterdam. I especially enjoy tracking these folks' military records for some reason--prob because we have extensive records.:)

I'm especially interested in the Revolutionary guys; I have 8 5x grandpas who fought in that war and am working on a 9th--John Cullins of Virginia. My sons esp think those guys are cool and enjoy learning about what they went through and how they lived.

Keep up with yr research!

Well I only guessed about the Irish part of the family (my dad was adopted, all they knew about his family was that they were Irish and Catholic). I know about the Swedish & Italian because my great-grandma, who came from Italy in 1917, is still alive. Her husband came from Sweden around the same time, but he's been dead since before I was born. The French/British side of my family I know about thanks to my grandma. With the help of the extensive records kept by the French Huguenot Society, she traced her ancestors back to colonists who came to Virginia in 1550. Their names were Bartholomew and Susannah Du Pui. She doesn't know a lot about what came between or the other side of her family though.

Yr grandma might want to contact these folks, DF:

http://www.vgs.org/

The Virginia Genealogical Society. They might be able to help.