Civil War message opened, decoded: No help coming

[davparlr]

Err...in my history books, the Napoleonic wars ended in 1815 after Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo - that was 3 years after the war of 1812. No "crack English troops" were deployed from the European theatre to America, indeed the Canadian garrison was milked of the best soldiers because they were needed in Europe.

Let's straighten out some timelines.

May, 1808 – April, 1814 Peninsular War (Napoleonic War)
June, 1812 - War of 1812 starts
April, 1814 - Napoleon abdicates
April, 1814 to January, 1815 - England reassigns Napoleonic War troops, some to America to support the War of 1812
December, 1814 - Treaty of Ghent signed, ending the War of 1812
January, 1815 – Battle of New Orleans is fought
March, 1815 – Napoleon escapes Elba
June, 1815 – Battle of Waterloo is fought

For nine months prior to the battle of New Orleans and three months afterward, Britain was not at war with anyone except the U.S.

British Commanders at New Orleans with noted successful Napoleonic War experience

Sir Edward M. Pakenham
John Keane
John Lambert

Some British regiments with noted successful Napoleonic War experience

93rd Highlanders
43rd Regiment of foot
44th Regiment of foot
I am sure there are others, but I could not find records.

Again the RN was rather preoccuppied with the French fleet. It never sent its best to the Americas - why would you if you had one of the world's largest armies (ie the French) on your doorstep rampaging through Europe?

Of course by the battle of New Orleans this had not been true for nine months.

Again, have to disagree. The whole purpose behind the war of 1812 was an attempt to get Canada to rise up against the "English oppressor". Britain had no interest in fighting America in 1812 - it had its hands full on Continental Europe. Note that the peace treaty between America and Britain was signed before the American victory at New Orleans. America didn't force Britain to the negotiating table, rather Britain didn't want to fight America whilst also taking on Napoleon.

President Madison's Cause statement

causes of the war of 1812

The War of 1812 was thus the first war "sold" to the American public via popular appeal. On June 1, 1812 he gave a speech to the U.S. Congress, giving several reasons for war:
Causes of the war of 1812.Ongoing impressment of American sailors into service on British Navy ships, an insulting breach of American sovereignty; Britain's navy "violating the rights and the peace of our coasts";
Britain's blockade of U.S. ports ("our commerce has been plundered in every sea");
Britain's refusal to repeal its Order-In-Council forbidding neutral countries to trade with European countries, and the British Navy's enforcement of this order;
Britain's incitement of Native Americans (conventionally referred to as "savages") to violence against the Americans.

There is evidence that the western areas of the US wanted Canada and believed it would be a easy conquest and the Southern areas wanted Spanish Florida. Many Northern states were not for the war. To say that the whole reason for the war was to incite Canadians to rise up against their oppressors is simplistic. What riled up the population was the violations at sea and impact to commercial operations, not a desire to annex Canada.

 

[davparlr]

Not really the US ruined whatever chance there was to draw Canada into the Union and that was a serious possibilty.

Hmmm, I never really new anything about this. Interesting.

It still does not affect the fact that the U.S. came out of the war with a better view of itself.

 

[syscom3]

Renrich, if there was no slavery, there would be no need for a federal intervention to eliminate it.

As for you assertions about new free states and slave states, geography and population was against the south. The north was going to out number the south in senate seats sooner than later and would by virtue of political power, end the institution.

You are also forgetting the Dred Scott decision {parts of} that prevented the federal regulation of slavery in any territory, effectively upending the agreed policies of creating a free state/slave state. The civil war started in Kansas because of this. It did not start in S. Carolina, but here.

As for moral clarity of the north; it was there . It was nearly unanimous that slavery was not going to be allowed to expand in the new territories.

Have you ever wondered what would have happened if the hot heads in Charleston never fired on Fort Sumter and let the fort be resupplied? They fired the first shots and the south ultimatly paid the price for it. The south rebelled not because of northern dominance but because of the need to maintain slavery. Thtas the gist of it. No slavery, no issue.

 

[davparlr]

Have you ever wondered what would have happened if the hot heads in Charleston never fired on Fort Sumter and let the fort be resupplied? They fired the first shots and the south ultimatly paid the price for it. The south rebelled not because of northern dominance but because of the need to maintain slavery. Thtas the gist of it. No slavery, no issue.

Have you ever wondered what would have happened if reasonable heads in the North would have ceded or sold Ft. Sumter in Charleston and Ft. Pickens in Pensacola to the South? No country could tolerate forts of other countries at the inlets to their important ports. The US knew that and knew that it would give them an excuse for forcing their will on the South.

Of course I don't think the South even tried to negotiate a solution nor was the North willing.

If either side had known the cost of the war, it would not have happened.

 

[renrich]

Lincoln, in his campaign for president, stated that he was against the extension of slavery in the territories. He also said after his inauguration that he would not interfere with slavery in the Southern states. If the cotton states of the Lower South were in no danger of having to give up slavery in their home states and the only issue was whether slave states could be formed in the territories, then the big concern of the cotton states was politics, not slavery. In other words, if all future states formed in the territories were free states, the cotton states were going to find themselves more and more outnumbered and isolated with their pet issues, such as tariffs, railroads, rivers and harbors, etc. ignored or legislated against. Just more examples of Northern tyranny. Many people already recognised that the western territories were not fertile areas for slavery. Slavery in Texas was pretty much confined to the blacklands of East Texas.

The non cotton southern states of Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Maryland, Deleware and Virginia stiil hung in the balance even after Lincoln decided to revictual Fort Sumter. The tipping point came when Lincoln called up the 75000 strong state militias. Again from Churchill, " History of English Speaking Peoples", "Upon Lincoln's call to arms to coerce the seceding states, Virginia made without hesitation the choice which she was so heroically to sustain. She would not fight on the issue of slavery, but stood firm on the constitutional ground that every state in the Union enjoyed sovereign rights. On this principal Virginians denied the claim of the Federal Government to exercise coercion. By 88 votes to 55, the Virginia Convention at Richmond refused to allow the state militia to respond to Lincoln's call. Virginia seceded from the Union and placed her entire military forces at the disposal of the Confederacy. This decided the conduct of one of the noblest Americans who ever lived and one of the greatest captains known to the annals of war." Robert Lee, of course, would not obey orders to coerce his own people and rightfully so.

It is strange to me that I have not heard one word,during this discussion, from anyone on how it was right for the colonists in 1776 to declare independence from Britain and defend themselves but wrong for the South to do the same thing.

A good example of many of how the Northern States had already used their power to discriminate against and marginalise the Southern States was the Transcontinental Railroad. There had been surveys done well prior to the CW which showed that the southern route which wound up in California through the Gadsden Purchase land was the most practicable route for a Transcontinental Railroad. Efforts in Congress to get started on that railroad were always stymied by Northern congressmen who did not want to see the South benefit from the building of that railroad, so sorely needed. When the war began, the North's congress readily arranged to begin construction of the road over the central route which crossed the mountains near Donner Pass. This route has often been big trouble.