Thanks for your 1812 suggestions, Schlimm, but my reading list is filled up right now.
John
Wayne,
I didn't know about the signing vs ratification issue. Thanks for educating me. But I wonder if the British would have seized control of the Mississippi River as you suggest.
After the war the British and Americans resumed trading. This was beneficial to both sides and Britain had none of the liabilities (such as defense) they had when we were colonies. Also, slavery was arising as an issue in Britain. Slavery in their colonies was not yet illegal but there was a movement to make it illegal. Beginning with the invention of the cotton gin in 1790 they were building a textile industry with American cotton grown under plantation slavery but since the slaves were in a different country they did not pose a problem. Finally, Britain had never wanted the War of 1812. The issue of British impressment of American citizens happened to involve American citizens who were born in Britain and emigrated to the US. I think Thomas Jefferson got us into that war and the whole thing was a big mistake that could have been resolved diplomatically. As you point out, Britain's main concern with dealing with Napoleon. They did keep hold of Canada as a colony which was all they really wanted. So I really doubt they would have taken the opportunity to seize the Mississippi although they certainly could have.
In any event, after the war the cotton trade resumed and became even more profitable for both sided.
Best regards, John
War of 1812? I'd suggest the following two works by Donald R. Hickey:
Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812
The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, Bicentennial Edition
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Well John, if you've been to the Chalmette battlefield that's better than I've done, I've never been there.
Winning the battle after the war was done? Well here's the thing, the peace treaty had been signed but not ratified. Had the British won the battle of New Orleans it would have placed them squarely on the mouth of the Mississippi. According to historians Steven Ambrose and Robert Remini that would have caused the British government to say "Hang on a minute! If we can regain control of the Great Lakes that would put us within easy portage distance of the Mississippi's headwaters. We can control the whole line of the river. Let's see how the Yankees deal with THAT!" Hard to argue with that. Westward expansion of the US would have been stopped cold, and who knows with what results. The British had lost control of the Lakes because the Royal Navy personnel they sent over were. quite frankly, second stringers. The best of the RN was involved keeping an eye on Napoleon. A victory at New Orleans would have rectified THAT situation very quickly!
So the Battle of New Orleans was a very important battle which the Americans had to win, even if they didn't know just how dangerous the situation was at the time.
Could the British have won it? I think so. If they'd co-ordinated attacks properly, if they hadn't underestimated the American militias ability to fight from fortifications, (how'd they forget Bunker Hill?), if they hadn't been in such a rush, who knows?
We're getting off-topic again but hey, are we havin' fun or what?
Wayne
Schlimm,
I'll check my library for the books you suggest too. They have a big biography section so I think I'll find at least one of them.
Thanks for the suggestions, John
I'll check my local public library for the books you suggest. In the meantime I did look at Wikipedia. Wiki does say that Biddle caused a panic in 1818 and 19 and that his own bank went broke after Jackson had the US Treasurer withdraw the country's money from it. It also says that after Biddlle's bank went broke he was arrested for fraud but acquitted.
My own understanding is that after Jackson withdrew US funds from the Second Bank of the US he deposited those funds in various state banks which were called pet banks. With the new US funds in their vaults those banks began making a lot of loans while led to a real boom. Among other things, there was a lot of new railroad construction. Somehow the boom caused Jackson to be concerned. To cool things down he issued the Specie Circular. That did cool things down too much and the economy fell into a recession during Martin Van Buren's administration. As far as I know the Specie Circular itself was not connected to Nicholas Biddle.
OK, you guys gotta stop recommending these books. When searching with my Kindle for the one on civil war railroads by John Clark, I came across another smaller one by Robert Hodges which I also found interesting. Now you're bringing up all these other books I gotta read.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Firelock,
I guess my fingers got ahead of my brain and I wrote too fast. I apologize for attributing Nicholas Biddle to you.
No doubt you know more about the Battle of New Orleans than I do. I lived in that fair city for seven years and I've been to the Chalmette battlefield. And I've strolled around Jackson Square and its environs. What I am sure of is that the Battle of New Orleans occurred after the end of the the War of 1812. We did win the battle but I'm not sure what that means.
Standard bios by historians include: Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., The Age of Jackson. Newer is Remini, Robert V. The Life of Andrew Jackson. Specifically about Jackson and the "bank wars" Remini, RV Andrew Jackson and the Bank War (Norton Essays in American History).
John WR ontheBNSFThe panics happened because Nicolas Biddle planned them as a way getting the bank renewed in fact he was arrested for this.T Wayne, Do you have a source for this? A few years ago I read The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln by Sean Wilentz. He certainly talks about the issues between Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle but as I recall he does not attribute the 1837 depression to Biddle. But it has been a while; I'll have to re-read Wilentz. (This is one of the few books I actually have). Based on your comments guess we don't really see eye to eye about Jackson's policies. But we can't agree about everything. Best regards, John
ontheBNSFThe panics happened because Nicolas Biddle planned them as a way getting the bank renewed in fact he was arrested for this.
Do you have a source for this? A few years ago I read The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln by Sean Wilentz. He certainly talks about the issues between Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle but as I recall he does not attribute the 1837 depression to Biddle. But it has been a while; I'll have to re-read Wilentz. (This is one of the few books I actually have).
Based on your comments guess we don't really see eye to eye about Jackson's policies. But we can't agree about everything.
I recommend one watches The Money Masters (super long but really good and somewhat old), Secret of Oz(shorter and newer), or The History Channel's The President's about Andrew Jackson which covers the bank. Cheers
Railroad to Freedom
Uh John, the "Nicholas Biddle's Revenge" comment wasn't one of mine, I don't know enough about that subject to say anything about it.
Now, if you wan't to get me started on the Battle of New Orleans that's another matter!
"In 1814 we took a little trip, along with Colonel Jackson down the Mighty Missisipp..."
ontheBNSF The defeat of the bank was his greatest achievement. I don't condone the trail of tears though. Anyways with a central bank you always end with one thing and one thing only which is plutocracy. The panics happened because Nicolas Biddle planned them as a way getting the bank renewed in fact he was arrested for this.
The defeat of the bank was his greatest achievement. I don't condone the trail of tears though. Anyways with a central bank you always end with one thing and one thing only which is plutocracy. The panics happened because Nicolas Biddle planned them as a way getting the bank renewed in fact he was arrested for this.
And I suppose that having JP Morgan & Co. as a de facto central bank in the era prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve was better for the country.
John WR Wayne, I agree about the trail of tears. And I agree Andrew Jackson saw himself as looking out for the little man. But I don't think his veto of the Second Bank of the United States really helped the little man. Granted, the bank was sort of a shadow government setting financial policy but it also tended to stabilize the economy. Jackson's pet banks led to a lot of inflation which seemed like a good thing for a while. Then Jackson issued is Specie Circular demanding that all debts to the US Government be paid in gold. That led to the depression of 1837 which was pretty bad for a lot of little men and well as some who were not so little. So on the whole I think Andrew Jackson was pretty misguided. But at Chalmette battle field he did win the Battle of New Orleans for what ever that is worth. And he still stands guard of the city in Jackson Square. Best regards, John
I agree about the trail of tears.
And I agree Andrew Jackson saw himself as looking out for the little man. But I don't think his veto of the Second Bank of the United States really helped the little man. Granted, the bank was sort of a shadow government setting financial policy but it also tended to stabilize the economy.
Jackson's pet banks led to a lot of inflation which seemed like a good thing for a while. Then Jackson issued is Specie Circular demanding that all debts to the US Government be paid in gold. That led to the depression of 1837 which was pretty bad for a lot of little men and well as some who were not so little. So on the whole I think Andrew Jackson was pretty misguided.
But at Chalmette battle field he did win the Battle of New Orleans for what ever that is worth. And he still stands guard of the city in Jackson Square.
The "Rebel Yell." In my experience, I think there wasn't just one, but several, depending on what part of the South that particular soldier came from. How can I say that? Well, in a way, I've heard it. When I was in the Marines, and we were doing a final assault during war games the Southern guys used to cut loose with Rebel yells. All similar, and all just a little bit different. It was amazing to hear, all I could think of was "Man, I'm glad they're on our side!" I can imagine what it was like to be on the recieving end. at least until Billy Yank realized it was just noise and noise can't hurt you.
Mind you, when some of those Southern Marines started yelling "KILL YANKEES!" I made sure I dropped back just a little bit.
Don't know what it's like now, but back in my day I'd swear the US Marine Corps was really Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in disguise. Maybe it still is?
Firelock76 John, looking out for the little guy so the big guys don't shaft 'em is what the best of Jacksonian Democracy was all about. Certainly Jackson wasn't right all the time, but it's hard to fault his concern for the working man. Indians, sadly, didn't count, hence the "Trail of Tears." Can't excuse that in any way shape or form. Oh, and I forgot about some of Jackson's men running out of ammunition at Second Manassas and holding their positions by throwing rocks until Longstreet's corps came up and smashed into Pope's flank. But that's the only time the Rebs had an ammunition problem. AND there's a great Confederate battle cry, almost as powerful as the "Rebel Yell"... "Come on and let's get 'em boys! They got CHEESE in their haversacks!" Wayne
John, looking out for the little guy so the big guys don't shaft 'em is what the best of Jacksonian Democracy was all about. Certainly Jackson wasn't right all the time, but it's hard to fault his concern for the working man. Indians, sadly, didn't count, hence the "Trail of Tears." Can't excuse that in any way shape or form.
Oh, and I forgot about some of Jackson's men running out of ammunition at Second Manassas and holding their positions by throwing rocks until Longstreet's corps came up and smashed into Pope's flank. But that's the only time the Rebs had an ammunition problem.
AND there's a great Confederate battle cry, almost as powerful as the "Rebel Yell"...
"Come on and let's get 'em boys! They got CHEESE in their haversacks!"
I think that my grandfather's regiment (J.B. Brockenbrough's) did not get into Manassas in time to really share in the looting of the depot (it is several years since I read a detailed account of the battle), nor was it one which ran out of ammunition.)
As to the rebel yell, the descriptions of it that I have read indicated that it was a frightening thing to hear, especially if you had never heard it before.
Johnny
Firelock76Did you know the first assassination attempt on a president was on Andrew Jackson? The man's pistol misfired, and Jackson's response? He beat the guy senseless with his cane! "Old Hickory" was one big bundle of walking mad! Not a man to trifle with!
No, I didn't know about the assassination atempt, Firelock. I sure would not wish that on him. But he strongly influenced our ideas about railroads and he still does with his opposition to Federal funds for internal improvements. In his mind all they did was to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor who had to pay the taxes to fund them.
Deggesty, PS
When Lee marched over the mountain wall,—
-- John Greenleaf Whittier
DeggestyWhen the advance group of the II Corps reached the military depot at Manassas, they were overjoyed to find the riches of food and clothing
And there are other examples of Confederate soldiers looting Union food trains. Whatever else I may think about the American Civil War it is hard to object to starving men feeding themselves.
Firelock76But with all that, here's an interesting fact: The Confederates NEVER lost a battle due to lack of guns or ammunition. So, SOMETHING was getting through. Food, clothing, and other ancillarys, yes, that's another matter.
You make a very good point, Firelock. For all of the scarcity and deprivation the Confederates faced they always had weapons and ammunition. They did march barefoot and in rags but now without the means to fight. Christopher Gabel points out that there were 9,000 miles of railroad in the Confederacy. It is true that there were gaps where roads did not connect but that was also true in the north. And while I didn't realize it earlier it is clear that Confederate Generals were quick to see the advantage of using railroads when they needed to as were Union Generals also.
Do y'all have any of that there Gray Poupon?
In at least one battle (Second Manassas) some of the men in the Army of Northern Virginia's II Corps were reduced to throwing rocks because they had run out of ammunition. Nevertheless, the Union general, John Pope, who before the battle had said that he was used to seeing the backsides of the enemy, had to counsel his army to retreat. Did the bull run that day?
When the advance group of the II Corps reached the military depot at Manassas, they were overjoyed to find the riches of food and clothing. Some of the soldiers were able to commandeer such supplies as French mustard that they were able to trade their booty for other foodstuffs for several days.
Could the Confederates have won by using the railroads better? Possibly, especially if they'd adopted the Lincolnian policy you mentioned.
But with all that, here's an interesting fact: The Confederates NEVER lost a battle due to lack of guns or ammunition. So, SOMETHING was getting through. Food, clothing, and other ancillarys, yes, that's another matter.
And could the Confederates have won with no railroads at all, North or South? That's another good point to kick around. Howvever, there were secession rumblings from South Carolina as early as 1832, over an import tariff issue I believe. President Andrew Jackson said if they tried it he'd head south with the Army and when he crossed the border into South Carolina he'd hang the first man he got his hands on. Well, that was the end of the secession talk. As everybody knew, "When Andy Jackson start's talkin' about hangings, start lookin' for a rope!"
Did you know the first assassination attempt on a president was on Andrew Jackson? The man's pistol misfired, and Jackson's response? He beat the guy senseless with his cane! "Old Hickory" was one big bundle of walking mad! Not a man to trifle with!
Firelock76I will say one thing. when you go to war remember ANYTHING that hurts the enemy, anything at all, no matter how big or small, helps YOU. Blockades, interdiction of supplies, inflicting casualties with the least possible loss to yourself, mis-or-dis-information, anything you can do or try.
I have to agree. I'm pretty much of a died in the wool Yankee with little sympathy for Confederate war goals. But I have a lot of sympathy for the men who actually did the fighting and even a lot of individual Confederate leaders including Jefferson Davis. I think Davis did a pretty good job given the dissent by he fellow Confederates. He had to deal with states who wanted to secede from the Confederacy.
But I do think the Confederacy should have managed their railroads better. The view of the Confederate government seems to have been that railroads were private enterprise and had nothing to do with government. Lincoln didn't believe that for a minute. He didn't expropriate them for the war effort like Woodrow Wilson did but he make it clear he expected cooperation and he wasn't beyond twisting arms to get it. Although he tended to rely on the carrot of paying the railroads rather than the stick of coercion.
That is why I see the Confederate diversion of so much iron to ironclads as ignoring another important problem, keeping the railroads running.
Had there been no railroads north or south I think the Confederacy would have won. What I wonder is if the Confederates could have won by using their railroads better.
I don't have an over-all answer myself. A lot of what I could say would get into "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" which i don't like to do, especially about something like the Civil War. It's so much easier for us 150 years later to see the big picture that eluded both sides.
I will say one thing. when you go to war remember ANYTHING that hurts the enemy, anything at all, no matter how big or small, helps YOU. Blockades, interdiction of supplies, inflicting casualties with the least possible loss to yourself, mis-or-dis-information, anything you can do or try.
Firelock76To say the blockade was a war-winning measure would certainly be wrong, but to call it ineffective would be just as wrong.
But I said the blockade was "never very effective." I didn't say it wasn't effective at all. The ironclads are interesting or at least I think so. As I recall they sunk more than one Union navy ship. They had problems but they were the first generation of their kind of ship. The big issue I see is did the Confederacy use its iron to build them that would have done more good elsewhere (like repairing their railroads and locomotives)? But I don't know what the answer is.
Never very effective? Well, I don't know, it was effective enough. Every ship that couldn't get through was a loss to the Rebs in needed articles. The Confederates considered it effective enough to come up with ideas like the ironclad CSS Virginia, popularly known as "Merrimac", the submarine "Hunley" and a small fleet of semi-submersibles known as "Davids" to try and break it.
To say the blockade was a war-winning measure would certainly be wrong, but to call it ineffective would be just as wrong.
Firelock76Certainly the blockade couldn't be enforced at first
Actually the blockade was never very effective. The Port of Wilmington, North Carolina was open up to February, 1865. At the end of the war there were warehouses full of all kinds of goods that had been shipped in. Among other things were road rails. But Confederate railroads had been destroyed to the point that the Confederates could not get these supplies to the places where they were needed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.