Cut off Sound at Top of Page.
"Taught history" and U. S. Federal tribal laws concerning "race", often distorts and politicizes our modern views of history. All the "white" and "black" natives of various states, such as Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama, if not those from the Eastern seaboard states, know that there was a tremendous amount of intermarriage between Native Americans, blacks, and whites in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, especially before the Civil War. Sam Houston had at least one Native American wife, perhaps more, after his first marriage to a white woman failed. Andrew Jackson raised a Native American child as his own. Although Oregon outlawed black immigrants at one time, the first U. S. settlers to next-door Washington State were a black man with his white wife, George Washington Bush and Isabella James Bush. Although it became illegal for whites and blacks to intermarry in most of the South, this prohibition never occurred with the Native Americans. During the War of 1812, General Andrew Jackson organized a very racially diverse group of fighters, including Native Americans, black slaves, free-"blacks", "pirates" such as Jean Lafitte, and "white" people, to successfully defend New Orleans from the British invaders in the Battle of New Orleans. These were just the tips of the icebergs, so to speak, and these examples are just a few cases of how "taught-history" has become distorted in U. S. culture. Research should show us that the USA has always been a mixed-race place, especially on the frontier if not everywhere else as well.
- Admission of error by myself regarding the U. S. Civil War: click here.
- Four Explorations of Possible Lies Commonly Promulgated about the War of 1812:
- Was there a conspiracy among many U. S. state militias, or a direct order from President Madison, to NOT invade Canada at the beginning of the War of 1812? Lies about the War of 1812-1:, More Lies about the War of 1812-2:
- Did the War of 1812 Expand the USA? Yes King George. But Merry Christmas King George.
- Longest Unguarded Border in the World.
- The list of America's first POW's, the 8000 names of Prison Ships Martyrs kept by the British during the Revolution. This list is directly from the online book found online on Oct. 8, 2022, AMERICAN PRISONERS OF THE REVOLUTION, linked to 3 paragraphs below.
The same list I linked to was originally at the United States Merchant Marine website.
The prisoners were housed on horrible prison ships anchored mostly in Wallabout Bay, Brooklyn, New York City USA during the revolution. This would be near the original site of the Brooklyn Naval Yard, where ships were built for the early U. S. Navy until quite recently. The Prison Ships Martyrs Monument is located in Fort Greene Park, Brooklyn, New York City. The actual number of prisoners kept on numerous prison ships is believed to have been more than 11,500, but most probably died before the survivors were freed. This list of 8000 names is all that there is, from the Revolution.
Online book just found on OCT. 8, 2022:
AMERICAN PRISONERS OF THE REVOLUTION, written in 1910 by
By Danske Dandridge
- ENGLISH HELL. Something you've probably never heard about, but will probably NEVER FORGET! It is an absolute fact that we are all former slaves in the USA.
- What was probably the main causeof the U. S. Civil War? Slavery. Although the fear that Lincoln would abolish slavery was well known to be the main cause for South Carolina to secede, once the war broke out, the main publicly discussed issue soon became the general power struggle between Federal and state authorities.
Once fighting began and civil discourse ended, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, and any discussion of same, would have to wait until the North began to win the war.
If no actual war had broken out, Lincoln would absolutely have discussed the ending of slavery issue, as well as probably reparations for the Southern slave owners in return for granting emancipation for the former slaves.
The U. S. was the only country in the world to have a war break out about the issue of abolishing slavery. But the federal political structure enshrined state and federal powers both.
The word, "freedom" is exclaimed loudly in nearly all American cultural artifacts. In fact, the song Dixie does not mention slavery in any manner or form, as far as I know. "Dixie" was a very popular American tune until the song was stolen by ex-American confederates.
- Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc. We can't understand Thomas Jefferson unless we understand women's rights throughout history.
- The European Age of Enlightenment.
- The Baratarians and the War of 1812: the extent to which Jean Lafitte and his group of Baratarian pirates helped Andrew Jackson defeat the British in the Battle of New Orleans beginning in Dec. 1814, may have been greatly understated in American history circles for about 200 years.
The fact is that the Lafitte group were presumed to be under attack by the American government for smuggling violations (customs duties violations) just days before the Battles of New Orleans, so they were not part of the New Orleans/Louisiana militia until probably hours before the first BONO, which occurred in Dec. 1814. Therefore, there is no record of their involvement since they were admitted into the militia due to their having numerous cannons and ammunition, though their ships had apparently just been seized by the U.S. government in a major raid.
War of 1812 pension claim investigations in the late 1800's: click here.
American historians never ignore Lafitte and his private navy, but the degree to which his forces were essential to an American victory, has been nearly forgotten until very recently. FACT: Lafitte's large group of Baratarian seamen and ships were the only large naval forces in the New Orleans area at the time just before the last battles in the War of 1812, other than the British Navy.
Without Lafitte's help, the U.S. would have probably lost in New Orleans. But the British and U. S. governments were both actively trying to destroy the Baratarian pirates in late 1814 until both sides tried to enlist Lafitte's forces as allies.
After being raided and "looted" by U.S. military forces on behalf of the U.S. Customs Department, the Lafitte brothers amazingly decided to fight for the Americans with his remaining assets, though he had probably just lost his ships, most of his loot, and his home located at Grand Terre, south of New Orleans on the Mississippi river.
- The Five U. S. Wars Fought Against Slavery: click here.
- The English led by King Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon King of England, were defeated by the Norman invaders led by William the Conquerer in 1066 at the battle of Hastings. But the defeated group were not necessarily all Anglo Saxons, and the Normans also included people of Anglo-Saxon background, whatever that is.
- When about one fourth (some say one half) of the entire U.S. Army was massacred in one battle.
- Was Sam Houston trying to move his troops to Galveston from the San Jacinto area when he accidentally encountered Santa Anna's forces? At that moment, the provisional government of Texas was located in Galveston. All Houston needed to travel with his troops to Galveston was many boats. So many Texans at that very moment were trying to travel to either Galveston, New Orleans, or at least, to the Louisiana border.
- The Founding Fathers of the USA Began the Abolition of Slavery in 1789 with the 2nd and current Constitution of the U.S., which contains the following section enabling the abolition of the importation in or after 1808 of those already enslaved. (The Founders who wrote the current U.S. Constituiton were apparently ashamed to admit that anyone could be initially enslaved by an American.) This genesis of abolition of slavery did not contradict the right of any U. S. states to continue practicing slavery until abolition completely prevailed, which did not occur until 1865. Also, notice that there is no mention of Federal government involvement in the institution of slavey; in the U. S. Constitution of 1789, our current constitution, slavery is mentioned in relation to states where it's already being practiced prior to 1789. Slaves are usually referred to in those days as being in a "state of bondage", as if enslavement was a temporary condition that could be remedied. This also implies that our nation's Founders felt that slavery was a temporary, doomed, and nearly obsolete institution from nearly the beginning of the USA.
The word, "migration" in Article I, Section 9 refers to slaves brought to the USA when their owners immigrated here, such as the free blacks from Haiti who brought their own slaves with them.
(U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9) The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
- Has the USA Always Been Mixed Race?
- Which Confederate leaders were ever tried for Treason? Click here to see the list.
- E-Book by Senator Edmund Gibson Ross, History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Click Here to read the book online.
- The Republic of Hawaii really existed if this item is genuine: click here (link to Ebay item (photo-copy) for sale.)
- The most recent expansion of the USA was largely accomplished by the Democratic Party of Hawaii while ironically, Eisenhower (R) was President (1953-1960).
- Were All Sailors Really Slaves until about 1915? The reform of the traditions of maritime labor: the 1915 "Seaman's Act of 1915" as proposed by Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette.
"Sailor" and "Slave" have nearly the same meaning, but also huge differences, until this act was passed. It appears that taking by force anyone from any particular seaside village or city, usually drunk or drugged men from pubs, onto a ship as a sailor was something that ship captains and agents had commonly done in America, Britain and the rest of the world for at least about 100 years (1800-1915), but probably earlier here and there, such as the taking of persons sold into slavery by the Vikings, etc., etc.
- The superstar "British Invasion" pop group that was actually from Chicago: click here.
- There would probably not be a USA in 2016 without the help of Spain. Spain supplied both sailors and loans. Spain was a major ally of the USA during the American Revolution. The French fleet which arrived just in time for the Battle of Yorktown was also carrying a massive horde of silver from Spanish Cuba which would be used to pay all of Washington's army. There is also a memorial in Spain to the Spanish victims of the British Prison Ships during the American Revolution.
- Vermont, the 14th State Represents Freedom.
- Reagan was elected to expand the USA! But unfortunately, the USA SHRANK under his management. Will the USA ever expand again? Was Alaska (Eisenhower, 1959) the last LARGE additional State added to the United States?
- Expansion Plans of Founding Fathers Not Yet Realized.
Has the USA Always Been Mixed-Race?
Mixed Race Native-American/White Americans, such as famous athelete Jim Thorpe, were once considered ubiquitious and normal in the USA.
Founding President of What Later Became the NFL,
Claimed to be of French/Irish/Native-American ancestry.
Historians are always distorting and generalizing the period 1815-1835 or so as if the War of 1812 never ended. But for around 20 years after the War of 1812 ended until the mid-1830's, whites, blacks (as slaves and free), and natives lived side by side in profound peace in most, if not all, of the frontier areas of the USA. During this period, white settlers moving west would travel into "Indian Territory" where "primitive" lodges and hotels were maintained by the Natives. There was much gambling going on during these years. (But these structures were no more primitive than those built and maintained by "whites".)
The evidence of there being peace in these frontier areas 1815-1836, especially in the Alabama and Mississippi Territories, is the fact that the state militias after statehood, and regular U.S. Army before statehood were never called up or activated during this period, nor were any wars or conflicts recorded as having occurred in history. Remember that the numbers of active duty state militia and U. S. Army were extremely tiny in times of peace during these years. We have to jump to 1836 in Alabama history before we find any major troubles recorded as having occurred with the natives after 1815. Sure, there were individual cases of cattle having been stolen by supposed natives, but this was also before estates were fenced. So cattle had to be branded to distinguish ownership.
Why not move to America from Europe and take a Native wife??? Tribal natives had largely been forced to take ownership of individual allottments or parcels of land in many of the "expansion territories" from the Louisiana Purchase and War of 1812 periods. The idea was that Natives should become Christians and learn to live as normal families, just like the white people from Europe. This was one period when "Native"/"White"/"Black" Intermarriage occurred in the USA on a large scale: click here to explore via google search.
Here's another source of accurate information that claims that in the French (and Spanish and British) controlled areas of the USA, such as the entire area that was later called, "the Louisiana Purchase", just over 50 percent of all marriages were recorded (in churches) as being between Native Americans and white "French" colonists. Not all the inhabitants of this area were white "Frenchmen", even before the Louisiana Purchase.
Why is this era of intermarriage nearly totally forgotten or ignored today?
Is it possible that the supposed decline in Native American tribal populations during this period was caused largely by assimilation of many former tribal members into the passing as "white", and passing as "black", races?
Note that the sheer volume of European "white" settlers to the USA that occurred 1865-1920 or so, created the illusion that the USA was dominated by "white culture". But if we look back to the 400 year period before 1865 or so, we find tremendous evidence of race-mixing.
Note that according to honest historians, nearly all of Central and South America (and Mexico) are dominated today by "mestizo" peoples. "Mestizo" means mixed-race Native-American/European. Why should North America, the USA, and early Canada be considered any different? (In fact, Mexicans generally admit that they are mostly mixed race - mestizo.)
My opinion is that the extreme racist attitudes that became evident 1865-1945 didn't start occurring until after the Civil War, when white Europeans flooded into the USA, Mexico, and Canada, by the millions, and brought their racial attitudes from Europe with them, which loosely corresponded with the "white supremacy" and racial attitudes from the far-eastern sections of the deep south, and even into eastern (seabord) New England. But the anti-bellum slaver South was not extremist racist in the frontier areas! Think Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana outside the cities, Mississippi, Alabama, Western Carolinas, Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky.
As a case in point, note that U. S. Vice President Richard M. Johnson from Kentucky was considered married to mixed-race wives sequentially when he was living part-time in Washington, D.C. as Senator, and later as V.P. He even brought his current "slave-wife" to D.C.
BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR, V. P. RICHARD M. JOHNSON
WAS MARRIED TO MIXED-RACE WIVES.
In the presidential election of 1836, note that Virginia was the only U. S. state (our of 26 total) to withhold their electoral votes from Johnson becoming Vice President, resulting in this Vice Presidential election being handled by the U. S. Senate instead of the Electoral College. This manifestation of racism against Johnson was minimal, compared to the situation that began to develop after the Civil War.
About the time that Richard M. Johnson was sporting his mixed-race-slave-wife (or wives) in the District of Columbia, the Second War with the (remaining) Creek Indians Begins: Andrew Jackson's tribal Indian Removal Policy was manifested for a reason.
Note that no account online of the Second Creek War even mentions the actual start date! There is no evidence that I have found that a war was already in process when Roanoke, GA was burned down. But here is evidence of the actual date this war started:
Second Creek War begins on May 15, 1836: a band of tribal Creek Indians burned down the mostly empty town of Roanoke, Georgia, killing a small group of defenders who were taken by surprise. This town was never rebuilt, and the soon-to-be defeated remaining tribal Natives were later banished to "Indian Territory" (later to be called, "Oklahoma") after the Second Creek War was over. But plenty of Natives had already married into the "white and black races", so to speak, or visa-versa and probably blended into the white and black races in the SE USA.
The last wars with tribal Native Americans in the southeastern USA was occuring at about the same time that much of the midwest was joining the USA as new states. So there was also probably a lot of inter-marriage in territorial/frontier places like Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, and Kansas, just before the Civil War.
Did President Madison Actually Order
the U. S. Army to Invade Canada
at the Start of the War of 1812?
OR DID HE ORDER THEM NOT TO INVADE?
War of 1812: brief discussion of the War of 1812 from the U.S. Library of Congress.
According to most (British influenced) American historians, The U.S. lost this war and the USA did not expand because of it! It's true, however, that the U.S. lost Canada for good in terms of expansion, and in terms of democracy, once we invaded.
Note that history records that in the early days of the War of 1812, two or three U. S. armies (nationalized state militias, or maybe even regular U. S. Army troops) sent to the Canadian border were COMMANDED not to invade on Constitutional grounds, since doing so might persuade Canadians from wanting to become citizens of the USA, voluntarily. The historical account predominating states that these U.S. Commanders who refused to invade Canada, were cowards and failures!!!!
Yet, seven brand new states suddenly became part of the USA beginning with Louisiana on April 30, 1812. Then less than two months later, the second war with the British (and Canada) started, ending in Jan. 1815 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Except for Louisiana's joining, this expansion wave of new states, all occurred after the British military actually left U.S. territory after losing the Battle of New Orleans. (War of 1812 states: Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Maine, and Missouri.)
There had to be some connection to that war for the tremendous expansion, excepting Canada, that occurred during this period. In fact, the U.S. terriory originally called, "The Louisiana Purchase", which wasn't really owned fully by the USA until the War of 1812 was successfully fought, continued to become U.S. states until about 1907 when Oklahoma Territory, mostly cut from the Louisiana Purchase land, became U. S. state number 46.
But the (British influenced) historical liars state that "King" James Madison SCREWED UP, and was a SHRIMP (like Napoleon) of a PRESIDENT?
Everybody thinks it was General Andrew Jackson that "won" the War of 1812. Not so. The war was already over when he became victorious in New Orleans. General Jacob Brown is the forgotten hero of the War of 1812. I find it extremely odd and inappropriate that hardly anyone in the USA has ever heard of this guy! I also do not think that war is the primarly method by which democracies expand into new territory. Democracy is how democracies expand into new territory, ultimately. If war is how countries expand, then the USA would be much larger now than it was in 1890, but we're about the same size now as we were then, in terms of territory controlled, and we have had lots of wars since 1890. Same for the U.K., which has shrunk a lot since 1890, and fought a lot of wars.
The War of 1812:
One of the main problems in studying the War of 1812 is that the British burned down so many buildings in Washington, D.C., containing valuable historical records. So speculation rather than fact, flavors our "history" of this war. In this case, state militia records might reveal more of the truth, rather than anything that ever existed in Washington, D.C.
The fact that a fairly large number of certain U. S. state militias at the beginning of the war failed to invade Canada when "ordered" to do so is taken as fact, rather than an indication that these militias might never actually have been ordered to invade Canada, and maybe never ordered to actually shoot at Canadians; people who would hopefully soon be new American citizens! I would like to see the record of those direct orders that were not followed. Are there any such records?
The fact that these multiple U. S. state militias actually just sat there camping out at the Canadian border is still seen erroneously as proof of lack of U. S. courage, these days!!!!
I propose that these "acts" to not invade were part of the original Madison plan to persuade Canada to become part of the USA, very soon. Note that as soon as one Canadian or one American was killed, fighting was sure to start between the Canadians and the USA, and Canada would never be voluntarily annexing itself into a new part of the USA. Stopping at the border was the perfect way to convey a peace message to the future Americans on the other side.
Frankly, until the early 20th century with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U. S. Constituition for the USA, all women, not just black women, were pretty much treated as slaves.
FACT: in the USA, white women were generally not allowed to have bank credit cards in their own names until the 1970's! That means that my own mother was one of the first women in the USA to have a (cash replacement) credit card!!!! I had no idea until recently of these facts!
In the modern world, if we describe "women's rights" in the early USA, we would have to conclude that Sally Hemmings was not treated very badly by Thomas Jefferson compared to how all other women were being treated at the time. I am suspicious that the current "cancelation" of Thomas Jefferson is essentially an anti-American act, with no good coming from it.
The European Age of Enlightenment:
A better understanding of U.S. and western hemisphere history is gained by understanding the context in which the various American, South American, and French Revolutions occurred in the context of the so-called, European Age of Enlightenment.
This was the period when the educated middle and lower classes of Europe and their colonists in the Americas and elsewhere, basically took more control of their countries' governments, and to some extent, merged with the old landed-nobility and royalty, in terms of the rights and privileges being enjoyed.
To villify Thomas Jefferson is absolutely not a proper act in any context in my opinion. In response to what just occurred in New York State concerning the removal of the statue of Thomas Jefferson, Trump complained that this was an un-American act. I agree with him on that point.
Personally, I think the current growing awareness of unfairness in drug war practices 1900-2021 concerning race is much more horrible than what happened in the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries with slavery and race. In fact, we can extend that time frame all the way back to the earliest of ancient history, and include enslaved white people as well, with little change until the 18th century, really.
QUESTION: WHERE DID ABOLITION OF SLAVERY BEGIN FIRST? Slavery first began to be abolished in Europe, mainly at the behest of the Catholic Church! I am not aware of any other "beginnings of abolitionism" occurring after the "fall of Rome" around the year 400 to 500 A.D. It can be argued that abolition was embraced in the Americas by the U.S. founding fathers of European descent during the European "Age of Enlightenment", and the current U.S. Constitution from 1787 is a part of that abolitionist movement to some extent. There is certainly no evidence whatsoever in the current U.S. Constitution of any plans from our founding fathers to promote the institution of slavery.
The U.S. founding fathers did enable the abolition of the importation of slaves beginning in 1808 in the current U.S. Constitution written and ratified 1787-1791.
Historically, people of all races on earth, not just blacks, are still extricating ourselves from slavery all over the world, in every country and culture in 2021! As I write this, a number of white people from the U.S. midwest were just captured and enslaved in Haiti by presumably black persons! Those black enslavers are seeking ransom money of 17 million dollars before they will release the 17 enslaved whites.
During World War II, American, British, Dutch, Jewish, French and other people, of varied races but mostly white people, from the Allied Nations and from elsewhere, were often captured and enslaved by the Japanese and Germans and others of the Axis powers. The Japs had already enslaved a lot of Koreans.
The Allies generally did not torture or exterminate any of the people captured or held as POW's from the Axis powers, though some ethnic Japanese people, U.S. citizens, living in the continental USA and Hawaii during WWII were forced to live in internment camps, and some POW's from Axis nations were allowed to work in the USA if they wanted, during the war. (Quite a few of those Axis nation POW's after being shipped to the USA, developed a strong affection for the USA during their period of mild-imprisonment as POW's in the USA during the war.)
I wish to point out that many Japanese-Amerians were very likely to join the U. S. Armed Forces, and were highly decorated during the war as exemplary.
The same cannot be said of those people from the Allied nations captured and held by the Axis nations during WWII. Ironically, Germanic peoples seem to generally be anti-slavery for much of recorded history, so what happened during WWII does not really fit into their culture.
Benjamin Franklin, Francisco de Miranda, the Marquis de Lafayette, Simon Bolivar, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, were six of the revolutionary founders of the USA, Napoleonic France, and many South American countries which split from Spain, and who are seen today worldwide as major figures during this so-called "age of enlightenment".
The term "enlightenment" refers to a new phenomenon in the world: a large mass of fairly well educated and free persons who were not all born into, or otherwise associated with "nobility", and were not all super-wealthy. The lower and middle classes were becoming more and more prosperous and influential, if not eventually dominant, in the world.
Slavery and serfdom still existed everywhere in the world other than in Europe, but slavery and serfdom were steadily being abolished during this epoch of "enlightenment", perhaps slightly earlier in Europe than in the colonial areas such as in the Americas. But serfdom in Russia did not end until 1865, the same year that the USA finally abolished chattel slavery.
The Treaty of Ghent that Ended the War of 1812,
and the LONGEST UNGUARDED BORDER in the WORLD on Canadian/U.S. border,
are both honored (honoured) by the Peace Arch in Blaine, Washington/Surrey, British Columbia.
The longest unguarded border in the world is also honored in North Dakota, here.......
Vermont is said to have threatened to join Canada until the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, but Vermont remained an independent Republic until 1791.
Note that the U.S. Bill of Rights, the new U.S. Constitution, and the new Whiskey Tax, were all about to go fully into effect about the time that Vermont joined. Same year anyway. The Bill of Rights began when 14 U.S. States including Vermont ratified 10 amendments by Dec. 15, 1791. Many states were not going to ratify the constitution without the Bill of Rights.
U.S. NAVY TAUGHT THAT THE USA EXPANDED DUE TO WAR OF 1812!!!!http://youtu.be/WQDDcn1w5z0
NOTE: U.S. Navy Film about the War of 1812 contradicts
most historical accounts of this war's outcome.
Famous "Pet-Banker" to Andrew Jackson & Martin Van Buren.
Stephen Girard (d. 1831)- War of 1812 "Financial Savior" of the USA.
STRANGE BUT TRUE: Two years after Girard died, the Bank of Girard became
one of Andrew Jackson's "pet banks"; its home office building
had once housed the original Bank of the United States!
After the war (of 1812), Girard became a large stockholder in and one of the
directors of the Second Bank of the United States. (When Andrew Jackson vetoed the
re-charter of the Bank of the United States), in September 1833, Secretary of the
Treasury Roger B. Taney transferred the government's Pennsylvania deposits in the Second
Bank of the United States to the Bank of Girard. Therefore, this made Girard
Bank a very significant example of so-called "PET BANKS" from the Jacksonian era.
Lies about the War of 1812.
Expansion Plans of the U.S. Not Yet Realized at Various Points Along the Way to 50 States.
- Founding Fathers who Wrote the Articles of Confederation: believe it or not, there is an eternal invitation in this original U.S. Constitution, which is largely grandfathered into the 1787 one, to Canadians to join the Revolt against Tyranny in the form of the King or Queen of England, and for Canada to become a free Republic, and new States of the United States.
Nothing personal - this is a replacement of that feudal social class system that historically often led to strife and feuds with relatives, civil war, etc., etc., etc. Democracy was designed to prevent war within our own governmental system, usually.
I think I read that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that Canada was on the verge of joining the U.S. at various early moments in U.S. history, well after the new constitution of 1787. Should we have started shooting at future Americans? Probably not.
This indicates that the constitutionally mandatory invitation for Americans to persuade Canadians (Canada) to join the U.S. peacefully, must've still been in effect when Jefferson and Madison were president. (And note that our Secretary of War position, was still abolished as of July 4th 2012, as I write this (paragraph)! Peace prevails!)
Was this the first Peace Festival at the border with Canada? I'm glad that during the War of 1812, entire U.S. armies two or three times refused to invade Canada, supposedly contradicting direct orders. I'm also sorry that we eventually did invade, and burned down many important parts of the city of "York", later to become Toronto.
I know I didn't read that, but it makes sense that those incidents to not invade, were not accidents, and not due to cowardance, or ineptitude. It was the Jeffersonian/Madisonian attempt to get Canada to change sides at the beginning of the War of 1812. But it didn't work, yet.
In each case, I'm sure there were Canadian forces, small or large, camped nearby on the other side. Everyone on both sides of the invisible line smoking Indian tobacco and singing campfire songs, etc., etc., probably. If I'm right, at least two large U.S. armies never invaded Canada during the War of 1812, citing constitutional reasons in at least one, perhaps two, of those cases.
Changing methods for different state trophies? The idea that functioning Canadian states or provinces, but not Vermont(14), Kentucky(15), Tennessee(16), Ohio(17), and Louisiana(18) had to be taken by force with armies, rather than gained politically and peacefully ahead of time, is strange, odd, and out of place in our national expansionary methodologies. None of those states were taken by force leading up to the year 1812 when Lousisiana became the 18th state, so why screw up with Canada? But we did. Parts or all of Canada did not join the USA then, and do not seem, at the moment, to be on the verge of doing so. Military force does not necessarily lead to succussful expansion, and might sabatoge it here and there.
In the cases of U.S. expansion into Canada, any expansionary dreams were canceled by military force, eventually: democracy vs. war.
Democracy is usually the easier and more permanent way to expand, as compared to the military method. Jefferson and Madison should be faulted for not having cultivated a strong pro-American group in Canada leading up to the era of the War of 1812. In that imaginary scenario, Canada would've joined without the USA firing any shots, etc.; instead, a referendum to join, or not to join, the USA would've been held, democratically.
I think it's also fair to give some real leadership potentialities to any good ideas from any past leaders of our country. All of our leaders were democratically elected to a great extent, and these ideas from the past still have merit.
And why do so many "historians" ignore the truth based upon the evidence just presented above? The historical records mostly all got burned up (the history was burned) when the British burned down the White House and the Capital of the USA during this horrible war! That is a fact - and most records of the war were stored in the buildings which were burned down by the British!
I'm sure there were also records burned up which were owned by the British (Canadians) which were also burned down when the government buildings in York, Ontario, was torched by the U.S. soldiers who invaded. Sorry about that!
(The longest unguarded border in the world is called, "the Canadian/U.S. border", and is commemorated at The Peace Arch in Blaine, Washington/Surrey, B.C. The longest unguarded border in the world, is also commemorated in North Dakota.)
NOTE: any "constitutional overtures" for the USA and parts or all of Canada to join up in anyway beyond mere trade treaties, were probably canceled by the Treaty of Ghent. However, the current ultra-border between the countries did not exist until quite recent times; same with Mexico. Until about 1846, the Mexican Army had always been free to march right into downtown San Antonio. Until recent times, there was no border between Canada and the USA. Can we blame the Vietnam War and draft dodgers for the current ultra-border with Canada? In Europe, they see this whole sort of thing as going back toward the Nazi era, etc. You can even enter Europe through Turkey, Switzerland, Iceland, and many other countries that are not members of the E.U., and who don't use the Euro currency, either.
- President William McKinley's wars, etc. In addition to probably augmenting or encouraging the deactivation of the Republic of Hawaii, and then seizing the islands as mere real estate, McKinley was also a loser in terms of Cuba and the Phillipines, both quite large places that refused to even consider becoming new U.S. states.
Whatever the case; no matter the degree to which the USA remained loyal to our great and fearless leader, we must eventually face the facts as a nation: he was totally delusional mostly in terms of his own expansion plans, historically speaking, so far.
Or at least, it appears that poor Willy was, in fact, delusional.
McKinley stated that he waged the Spanish-American war for expansionist purposes! That was a tragic mistake in terms of his reputation.
Thanks largely to the Democratic Party of Hawaii, Hawaii joined the USA in 1959. This would not have happened without that particular open-minded and freedom oriented political party in that particular unique American state (a pacific island), in the particular era when it occurred. It's good that the Republicans and others there and in the U.S. Congress, etc., allowed it to happen.
It is also cool that a Republican was President when Hawaii joined the USA totally in 1959.
- Teddy Roosevelt I suppose that Teddy Roosevelt was also one of the loser presidents in terms of true expansion, as the old Panama Canal Zone is associated with Roosevelt. Sorry Teddy - you are a temporary expansionist, which means, it didn't really happen.
We lost the Zone!
- President Ford and Reagan. They promised the people of the U.S.A. that The Canal Zone would be kept by the U.S. if we would only elect him (them) President. It didn't work. We lost the Zone. but He was elected (by Them).
President Carter may have lain the groundwork for possible future expansion by not being so pushy, and giving Panamanians choice in the matter.
- OTHER FAILED U.S. Expansion States and Expansion Dream Subjects of U.S. Presidents, or not:
- Mexico (suitors - Tyler/Polk - status - Republic of Texas joins USA unable to defend borders - war results - Mexico loses - loses/sells additional territory. NOTE: this is also about the rest of Mexico which is probably not on the verge of wishing to join the USA, unlike the former "Tejas" part of "Coahuila y Tejas" states, The "Tejas" state part of which then became "Mexican Texas" for a short time, then the Republic of Texas, then was successfully added as the "State of Texas" along with much unpopulated territory of the Western USA - status - SUCCESSFUL/Mexico sold additional territory with the Gadsden Purchase - otherwise FAILURE in terms of the rest of Mexico),
- Vietnam (suitors, or Presidents being sought - Wilson and Truman - suitor - Ho Chi Minh - status - FAILED - later Vietnam War occurs which further estranges the two nations other than S. Vietnamese refugees, many of whom became U.S. citizens after successfully GETTING HERE ALIVE - NOTE: no Vietnamese TERRITORY gained),
- The United Nations (suitor - President FDR. status: merger never took place - status - FAILED),
Top of Page.
Society of the War of 1812:
Amazingly, it's the 200th Anniversary of this war coming up. Jeez.
LIES about, "Mr. James Madison's War."
Less Than 60 Days Before
The War of 1812
AMERICA BEGINS DOUBLING-TRIPLING-QUADRUPLING IN SIZE, EXTREMELY RAPIDLY.
(But Canada was probably lost politically during this war to a great extent.
Sorry about shooting at FUTURE AMERICANS!)
In 1812, the U.K. still had warships anchored in many U.S. harbors in order to protect, or intimidate the new USA?
Was it England, and not the U.S., that VIOLATED PREVIOUS TREATIES of
These Two Nations, Helping to Create the War of 1812,
and a Huge Growth Spurt for the United States?
(((Britain and Spain building and maintaining military forts on U.S. territory was a VIOLATION!)))
THEORY: OUR SHORTEST PRESIDENT, JAMES MADISON, EXPANDS U.S.
THE "KEEPER" OF ALL THAT WHICH THE LOUISIANA-PURCHASE,
PURCHASED, PLUS QUITE A BIT MORE. The Current USA Should be Called
"THE LAND THAT PRESIDENT MADISON KEPT."
The part of this war in Europe mostly unrelated to the U.S. was a huge
victory for Russia, Britian, & Everyone Else, against Napoloen, while the
U.S. is said to have gained ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the war?HUNH???????
Google search for "war of 1812": click here.
When I first began to inquire and post things about the War of 1812, nearly all of the links about just "The War of 1812" in an overall summarizing way, were unanimous that Madison had erred in waging the war, as if the U.K. was totally in favor of growth of the USA at their expense and further loss of territory. I could find stated in all the sources I could find in no uncertain terms that the War of 1812 had been nearly a total error for the USA and FOOLISH President James Madison. There was no mention at all of the huge expansion of the USA about to occur starting on April 30, 1812 with Louisiana, state #18 during the year 1812, less than two months before the war broke out. Prior to that event, the most recent addition to the USA had been State #17 - Ohio in 1803, the same year as the Louisiana purchase.
The War Over the State of Louisiana, and maybe the Louisiana Purchase? Note that the War of 1812 began in June 1812, something like approx. forty five days after Louisiana entered the USA as state number 17 on April 30, 1812, and decisively ended with the Battle of New Orleans, LA., in January 1815, although the Treaty of Ghent was already signed before that "last battle".
Note that in many many parts of U.S. territory, but not in U.S states other than British warships near some, in June 1812, Spanish and British forts in U.S. Territory remained fully operational and manned with hostile (or unhostile) soldiers from those countries, protecting commercial interests who traded with the Natives. This continuous violation of U.S. territory was also in defiance of various signed treaties. Also, in early June 1812, British warships still remained anchored in many or most U.S. ports, protecting the new and weak USA, or intimidating U.S.?
LIST OF LIES: Nearly all printed reference books were recently ALL denying that a vast amount of territory and new States were captured by the Americans just before, during and immediately after the War of 1812. The fact that no states joined the union during the war itself, is irrelevant.
NOTE: under the U.S. constitutional method of expansion of our country, the new state addition process is not necessarily a forced or military event as many college professors today asssume erroneously, but is rather a constitutional and democratic process.
NOTE: the European Union is also not expanding using military force, as far as I know. In fact, I'm not aware of any military trophies ever acquired by the current management of the EU "mega-state" unless we consider the fragments of the former U.S.S.R. to be military trophies, though there was never an actual war between the USSR and Europe.
Go to your local library and read what the books are actually stating. (Many internet reference sites changed about the same time in late 2011 that I became curious. Could be due to the 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812 coming up.)
THEORY: World War I and II both created a huge anti-German sentiment in U.S. culture, and an organized pro-British propaganda effort. Ever since that time, historical truth seems to have suffered here. Also, many Germans permanently suppressed their true family history.
I read somewhere that some American just before World War I who knew about the 1776-1783 British prison ships, and the scandalously high death rate, got charged with some sort of U.S. Federal crime for trying to publicize it, and was put into Federal prison for at least 20 years!
Knowing the truth about history and using that to try to hurt an ally during a major war, can be illegal here.
TERRITORY CAPTURED and KEPT by the U.S. during and after the WAR of 1812:
1810: the New U.S. State of the I-10 Corridor: the land claimed by the Republic of West Florida had already been annexed on October 27, 1810 by the U.S. to supplement the Louisiana Purchase (1803). BUT - it was not physically held throughout the area. (None of West Florida lies inside the current state of Florida (#27, 1845). West Florida stretched from the current far-western (NW) Florida border with Alabama, to the border with Louisiana, i.e., part of the infamous and sometimes deadly, "I-10 corridor".)
For example, in 1812, Mobile, (not-Alabama-yet) was still presumed to be held physically by the British, though this was already U.S. territory, though Alabama did not yet exist as an entity. (There were actually a handful of Spanish troops occupying the fort in Mobile until 1813, but England really dominated the entire region.)
Nearby, all of East Florida (same exact boundaries, more or less, as the current state of Florida (#27, 1845)) and the nearby southern part of the continent to the west, were dominated by the British and Spanish. West Florida and the Louisiana Purchase land having been mostly Spanish territory, then later French territory until the Louisiana Purchase (1803), and the annexation of West Florida (1810).
However, the British military and associated Native Americans physically dominated the area until the War of 1812, although this was still Spanish "occupied" territory with Spanish forts or garrisons in San Marcos (St. Marks), Saint Augustine, and Pensacola, Fl., plus Mobile, (Not-Alabama-yet), still in June 1812.
The Republic of West Florida took over the Spanish garrison in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1810 without firing a shot, who were still there since this part of Louisiana was apparently not included in the Louisiana Purchase as accepted by Spain.
Therefore, Fulwar Skipwith and others of the Republic of West Florida helped start the War of 1812; but turned it over shortly afterwards to the "invading" USA.
Note that nearly no shots were ever fired between the Spanish and Americans during this period, however. Spain had been an ally of the USA during the Revolution: click here.
In 1813, General James Wilkinson and troops of the U.S. Army physically captured and barely held the port city of Mobile, (not-Alabama-yet) during the War of 1812, but later lost it for a moment in early 1815. Mobile and area was not an insubstantial piece of land, although this territory had been annexed by the U.S. in 1810 as part of West Florida. Maybe Spain and England disagreed with that annexation. (Where then did the tiny number of Spanish troops in Mobile go? St. Marks, Saint Augustine, and/or Pensacola.)
In early 1815, the British forces who had just lost the Battle of New Orleans were headed east to Mobile to dislodge American troops there. They succeeded in capturing Fort Bowyer, but then pulled out when word was received that the Treaty of Ghent was in effect, and that the War of 1812 was already over.
Spanish (East) Florida, the same more or less as the current State of Florida (#27, 1845), was then invaded by forces sent there in 1817 by either President Monroe, or General Andrew Jackson, in order to fight (allegedly British supplied) Seminole and other Natives allied with many escaped Black and/or mixed-race former slaves there; plus a few others; but this remaining Spanish territory was not officially annexed until the Adams-Onis treaty of 1819, which took effect in 1821.
The Natives are still there, but no longer have to evade General Jackson, the Spanish, pirates, thieves, or their successors.
Therefore, the current State of Florida (#27, 1845) could loosely be said to have been gradually captured from the British after they left after the War of 1812, though Florida was still owned by Spain, technically speaking, and remained a mere U.S. territory for quite some time, languishing economically and politically as Seminoles and "escaped slaves" were gradually influenced to move west by the U.S. Army, sweltering and dying of disease, etc., etc., as well as arrow and gunshot wounds, for over 50 years before statehood. No one went to Florida much, before the War of 1812, either.
But some British-Americans, and later Americans, did attempt to invade Florida before, during, and after the Revolution that ended in 1783. Ultimately, however, force applied against the presumed owners of Florida did not produce any results at all in terms of Florida being owned by the USA.
Imperialism? It is interesting that Florida seems to have been a total and very occasional afterthought of most Americans before, during and after the War of 1812, and even before and after the Revolution mostly that ended in 1783; no one planned or wanted to "take it" except maybe a very small number of citizens from Georgia or South Carolina. No plans on Cuba by them at this early time, either, I don't think.
Otherwise, no one hardly went there for many many years, except many U.S. soldiers headed for an early grave in the swamps. ("Many" means a large percentage of the U.S. Army who were career people between the larger wars, died in the swamps of Florida between 1815 and 1858.
Cuba was safe, I think, at that time from U.S. Imperialism via "puppet" Florida, if not Saint Augustine, but 1845, not 1812ish, was the date to remember.
Sam Jones, the Seminole Chief and his band, turned out to have successfully evaded the U.S. and remained free in Florida until natural death, threatening everyone in the state.
Note that the town mentioned as "Port St. Joe", was near another town called St. Joe, or Saint Joseph. St. Joe was near Apalachicola.
St. Joseph was the largest Florida city in 1835. Totally destroyed by 1845, though the State of Florida which was created in 1845 came from this little town that no longer existed any longer.
Although hard to discover, the first U.S. territorial capitals of Florida were St. Augustine and Pensacola (both still there), and possibly St. Marks, which also went out of existence soon, as well, before Tallahassee - which is still there, reportedly.
Alabama (#22) was not admitted to the Union (1819) until after Mobile was actually occupied by U.S. troops. Therefore, the territory that later became the State of Alabama (#22, 1819) was also even more captured during the War of 1812 from the British, but just barely. (Note that the Native tribes remained in the State of Alabama until the 1830's.)
We should also include the State of Louisiana (#18, 1812) and the land which later became the State of Mississippi (#20, 1817) as having been confirmed as permanent parts of the United States due to the War of 1812, mostly.
Likewise, it could be argued that the War of 1812 ended British/Canadian threats from across the Great Lakes, at the mouth of the Mississippi, other rivers, and along the Eastern Seaboard, and in New England, allowing the U.S. to expand into the territories which later became the states of Indiana (#19, 1816), Illinois (#21, 1818), and Maine (#23, 1820) immediately.
Likewise, Missouri (#24, 1821) is the last place to join immediately after the War of 1812 and the Louisiana Purchase, period. Also, Ohio (#17, 1803), though already a state in 1812, along with Louisiana itself (#18, 1812), were also threatened by the British.
The next state after number #24 (1821), Missouri, Arkansas (#25), did not enter the Union until 1836.
Note that Arkansas (#25, 1836) made the U.S. exactly half what it eventually became using one method of staking "half-way", and that Michigan (#26, 1837), was therefore the beginning of the second half of the United States, at this point in time by that ultra-simple method. All the later states of Arkansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan were also along major waterways, lakes, or rivers, which the USA was now beginning to control and dominate due to the War of 1812.
Note that instantly before the War of 1812, Louisiana (#18, 1812), was, as if, an ISLAND STATE (in a sense) surrounded by sometimes very hostile forces, cut off from the main part of the U.S. by either Natives, the sea, the river, or foreign forces. Until Mississippi and Alabama became settled states, and for some time after the War of 1812, New Orleans, Louisiana, like Mobile, (not-Alabama-yet), was reachable most easily by ocean going ship. Or perhaps after Pickney's treaty opened up the Mississippi to Americans in 1795, some came down from the state of Kentucky or Tennessee territory on the Mississippi, or perhaps even earlier, from that part of the early state of Virginia which bordered the Ohio or Mississippi Rivers. But not very many yet.
Or by way of the Federal Road from the areas near what is today Columbus, Georiga, a river port city; the Federal Road which went through the "Indian"/U.S. territories of Alabama and Mississippi before statehood, eventually reaching the new state of Louisiana (after April 1812), but the road was guarded by a few U.S. troops.
And WHAT IF Florida chose NOT to join the USA? They had a long time to think about it.
The War of 1812 was also fought to protect the new State of Louisiana, and to connect to it by land from the rest of the already united States of the U.S.A. without having to deal with primitive frontier conditions.
Again, if the British had won the Battle of New Orleans, what would have happened to Louisiana? Nothing - the war was already over, anyway. The U.S. won against England, and therefore, acquired a huge amount of additional territory that England still wanted, even after the War of 1812. (England of course became our largest trading partner, largest immigrant source, and largest investor for most of U.S. history after the War of 1812, also, I'm sure.)
The rest of this second group of Lousiana Purchase related expansion states were 100% related to the War of 1812, and to direct British threat to U.S. territory and states. (Actually, this is the second wave of expansion states, all related to the War of 1812. The first wave of expansion states consisted of Kentucky(#15, 1792), Tennessee(#16, 1796), and Ohio(#17, 1803) and were counties of Virginia and/or early U.S. territory which had been purchased from the original 13 colonies plus disputed territory when they became the original 13 states plus Vermont, rather than 14 separate countries.
Including Vermont (#14, 1791), which was an independent country since the Revolution until 1791, unlike the other 13 which became one nation, etc, before that.
So, the War of 1812 resulted in no expansion of the United States? That's what nearly all academics state for strange and peculiar reasons, perhaps.
But the war was an illusion except for political ego: another point: it is likely that a majority of the people who were soon to newly occupy all of the above mentioned states created immediately before, during, and after the War of 1812, were from England, Scotland, Ireland, or nearby Europe just like most of those who immigrated after the Revolutionary War. (Europe - many Hessian mercenaries immigrated to the USA after the first two U.S wars with England.)
The War of 1812 was actually started partly over the British maritime labor shortage created by the exodus of so many former sailors to the "New American States" after the previous Revolutionary War. For that reason, the British were kidnapping sailors from U.S. ships (and probably other nationalities as well) before the War of 1812. Also, the British were still occupying forts on U.S. territory, and supposedly arming the Natives to attack Americans, etc. After, the War of 1812, there were still some border issues with the British in Michigan, Oregon Territory, and at other points along the Canadian-American frontier, not to mention the financing of the Confederates, etc., etc. (Divide and CONQUER!!)
The War of 1812 for the New World, could also be seen as having been a huge American real estate sales promotion tool for all the soldiers, sailors, and others from recent European wars, such as the Napoleonic wars, who were soon to move here as citizens, etc., and who were to spend their hard-earned wages on land purchases in the brand new states about to be created and newly occupied by mostly recent European immigrants. But, there were plenty of non-Europeans already here, either natives or otherwise.
But you STILL can't vote, nearly everyone! Until the "Age of (Andrew) Jackson", most new immigrants to the USA, that is, most people other than "the rich", during the period immediately after the War of 1812, found out that the right to vote in most U.S. states was reserved for those who already owned a set-minimum amount of land, other than natives. Therefore, owning a certain amount of land was the first step, traditionally, to becoming a full citizen of the USA, until the Jacksonian era, except for "Indians". (Who still owned land, and even paid property taxes within the states where they resided and owned land. Note that Free Blacks also paid property taxes before and after the civil war, and also were not considered full citizens in all areas, yet.
But they were considered full citizens in other areas. On reservations, natives no longer paid property taxes to county or state government, since there aren't any counties or states there.)
POW of Revolutionary War - Kidnap Victim.
Hero of the War of 1812, etc.
Note that the land he acquired became the collateral
for much of our currency. Hence, his face appears on much of it.
Number 14 is in the upper right hand corner.
The music - 1812 Overture - has nothing to do with the American War of 1812 - but it's from the exact same war, internationally speaking.
General Waves of Expansion States of the USA added after the Original 13 (sic):
- First Wave: state numbers 1 - 17. 13 states Plus Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. 13 original states of the USA plus Vermont, plus States made from original extra U.S. territory.
First part of expansion beyond number 13, Vermont (#14, early 1791). CURRENT ANTI-SLAVERY GOVERNMENT OF THE USA IS BORN. Vermont enters in early 1791 under the rules from the new Constitution, as an extreme anti-slavery state. Vermont was required to ratify the new constitution before joining the USA, which it did on Jan. 10, 1791, as an independent republic before becoming part of the USA. Vermont then became the 14th state on March 4, 1791. Later that same year, the brand new U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which created the current USA as we know it, come fully into force and effect, December 15, 1791. The new Whiskey Tax also went into effect during 1791, as well as the Haitian Revolution starting up.
The new congress apparently began some operations on March 4, 1789, and Washington took office in Philadelphia the first time on April 30, 1789 under the new constitution of 1787. However, the Bill of Rights which cajoled many of the 14 states to ratify the new system, went into effect on Dec. 15, 1791, essentially beginning the USA as we know it today.
1788. But the new constitution had to have started operating when the then 13 states of the USA elected their first members of the new Senate and House of Representatives which was very likely in early to late 1788. When did Vermont send their Rep.'s and Senators to Washington? 1791.
Home of Ethan Allen, Revolutionary War hero. One of the original, but more anti-slavery than the other 13, of the 14 American Republics fighting for independence from Great Britain. Vermont joining upon the new constitution becoming fully operational, is a clear signal that slavery is DOOMED.
This original #14 Vermont anti-slavery expansion stab by our Founding Fathers, amplified by a 1787 constitutional rule enabling the banning of slave importation after 1808 ("such persons"), and Washington's and others' freeing of all of their own slaves, could all be seen as the triggers for the new free-state/slave-state political conflict lasting until the Civil War.
That should never have happened if the United States of Greater Vermont had been noted and recognized (A huge lost political opportunity which was then forgotten in history!). But Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Van Buren and "Richard M. Johnson, and so forth, were too weak or too flawed. They ought to have ended slavery sooner. (The revolution in Haiti against the French began in 1791, also. This later helped persuade Napoleon to sell Louisiana to the USA by 1803.)
The Monroe Re-Africanization effort in Liberia was a failed early effort to end slavery altogether at a much earlier time than the 1860's, but this effort ignored reality. It seems more like an expensive deception than anything else considering how polyglot America was at that moment. Monroe would've had to have persuaded Spaniards or Mexicans to move to Monrovia, also, eventually.
NOTE: the Vermont amalgamaters and new constitution writers, won the war against slavery and confederation by 1865. Confederation vs. federation. Vermont represents the new USA that began summer of 1787-March 4, 1789-Dec. 1791, and we should maybe have honored Vermont a bit more in order to no longer associate with the Articles of Confederation, and John C. Calhoun, etc., etc.
U. S. Vice President/Governor of South Carolina
John C. Calhoun Probably Caused the Civil War about
25 years before the war actually broke out.
Note that former President Andrew Jackson (may have) stated that his biggest error was his failure to defeat John C. Calhoun politically before the Civil War which would have established Federal over State power in terms of preventing secession, or other improper nullifications. Calhoun was the primary advocate of unlimited states' rights.
If Jackson had decisively defeated Calhoun politically in the first Southern revolt: the South Carolina revolt against high tariffs, control of tariffs being a Federal prerogative, then Calhoun's disciples in the palmetto state and in other Southern States might have never done his bidding with secession in 1861.
Jackson hated the idea of splitting up or destroying the United States. These two, Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun, had a major conflict called the Nullification Crisis involving newly raised import tariffs, that nearly erupted into civil war about 25 years before the actual Civil War began. Calhoun advocated then the essential core belief that enabled attempted secession 25 years later: the alleged ability of U. S. states to nullify any Federal laws if they wanted to.
Compromise, not General Jackson, won the tariff conflict when Congress agreed to enact a lower tariff, but how and why was Calhoun able to continue preaching State's rights to ignore any Federal constitutional power????
Calhoun and a very strong confederation had died already by 1861. Calhoun's ideas about state nullification rights has to be the main cause of the U. S. Civil War in terms of Calhoun himself being a genuine "rebel" against the U. S. Government, not just in terms of tariffs, but anything else any state wanted to do in violation of the U. S. Constitution, and Federal law was OK with him!
That's what "nullification" means: to ignore any higher Federal power over the states.
South Carolina was one of the original 14 states.
The U. S. Constitution spells out which rights are states' rights, which rights are central government rights, and which rights are individual citizens' rights. So not all state contradictions to Federal law are illegal nullifications.
The dependence of the North and South both on black slaves, prevented slavery from being the main object of the Civil War at first. Slavery in the U. S. really ended in Dec. 1865, over six months after the Civil War ended in April 1865. The slaves owned by Confederate Southerners were freed much earlier by acts such as the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, and other earlier acts, such as those of General Fremont in Missouri, which was reversed by President Lincoln for a while. (I admit that stating that the Civil War did not end slavery at first, is like stating that the War of 1812 did not augment expansion of the U. S. A.)
- Next Part of First Wave - 1792-1803 - extra territory of original 14 states: Kentucky (15), Tennessee (16), Ohio (17) (Territories of original 14 U.S. states sold to the U.S., or counties of Virginia.) There was definitely a wave of diversity into the new states, and an acceptance of multi-racial marriage, etc., etc., to some extent.
- Second Wave - 1803-1812-1907 - Louisiana-Purchase, and War of 1812 States. (Until the Civil War, the phrase, "Go West Young Man", could also have beem aimed at some people of color, as well. The frontier was more accepting of racial diversity that the East Coast, in my opinion.)
- War of 1812 related states - 1812-1821-1907- Louisiana (18), Indiana (19), Mississippi (20), Illinois (21), Alabama (22), Maine (23), Missouri (24, 1821) - states added immediately before and immediately after the War of 1812, and obviously related to it.
Note that the conclusion of the so-called "Indian Removal" from most of the eastern states of the USA, was about 15 to 25 years after Missouri became a full U.S. state in 1821.
By 1821, a HUGE number of Native Americans were now living on U.S. owned and controlled territory or IN U.S. STATES. Those in U.S. states had to have their lands registered with county tax departments, and presumably paid property taxes, etc. Native Americans still living tribally or not, took deeded title to land under the county land system, just like white and free black citizens of these states did, at that time in the expansion states before the Civil War.
If the British had WON the War of 1812, what would the USA look like today?
If the British had won the Battles of Baltimore, Lake Erie, and New Orleans, they would've proably decisively won the War of 1812, and the USA would've SHRUNK.
More likely, the USA would've ENDED completely!
The British would've probably established Boston, Baltimore or New Orleans as their new colonial capital of British-America, formerly the USA. This entire idiotic republican outbreak would've been shut down all over the world. Hundreds of thousands of "rebels" and their slaves, would've been re-subjugated to the Crown. Washington, D.C. would remain ashes, forever.
They would not have rebuilt the burned down, brand-new and nearly empty subdivision called, Washington, D.C. It would still be vacant, even today.
Short guy Madison would've been jailed with short-guy Napoleon, another anti-British conspirator; and Monroe also would've been hung by his neck; if not hung, all would've been probably shipped off with fellow dis-loyal and defeated commoner Napoleon to some remote island. If being hung, it would have occurred probably somewhere in the vicinity of D.C., and all the remaining U.S. patriots rounded up and hung with them. Then masses of Loyalists would resail across the ocean to retake all of their seized territory from 1776-1783.
But MASSES OF OTHER EUROPEANS were already headed for the USA with their LOOT just to buy land and settle down after the huge wars that had just taken place in Europe. If the British had "won" the War of 1812 initially, probably all sorts of mini-revolts all over the newly occupied British-USA would begin occurring as the British-government protected "Indians" began to clash with the hordes of newly arriving European squatters.
It doesn't make sense that the British government could force a treaty against European encroachment on Native lands, using European armies to do that.
Back to the USA...
But later states added and made from territory confirmed as US controlled due to the War of 1812 stretch all the way until 1907 with Oklahoma (#46), and would have to include Arkansas (#25, 1836), Michigan (#26, 1837), Iowa (#29, 1846), Wisconsin (#30, 1848), Minnesota (#32, 1858), Kansas (#34, 1861), Nebraska (#37, 1867), as well as the Dakotas (#39 and #40, around 1890), and Oklahoma (1907).
Notice that the War of 1812 also eventually led to opening up the Missouri River basin to settlers and traders as never before.
War of 1812 Opened up Missouri River basin.
(Since the British had been there continuously threatening or actually occupying various U.S. territory, but not U.S. states, and kidnapping U.S. citizen-sailors from U.S. ships on the high seas, and anchoring war ships off U.S. ports, the war was already underway against the U.S.A. by the British well before 1812. Therefore, I say that the War of 1812 started before the Louisiana Puchase was even a possibility.
British supporters will say that Britain was "protecting" the USA after peace was re-established from other aggressive world powers by anchoring those ships in U.S. ports until the fledgling USA could protect itself. Note that the USA had no Navy for many years after the Revolution ended.)
- Louisiana Purchase Territory which later became states or parts of states - 1803-1907 - Louisiana (18)(parts not obtained from Lousiana Purchase, obtained later, and boundaries changed before and after statehood), Arkansas (25), Missouri (24), Iowa (29), Kansas (34), Nebraska (37), Oklahoma (46), plus parts and/or most of other states such as Texas, South Dakota (39 or 40), Colorado (38), Wyoming (44), Montana (41), North Dakota (39 or 40), New Mexico (47), & Minnesota (32).
- Florida (1821-1845) finally joins the USA as the 27th state, when number 28, Texas, is actually far more in the news, and in people's minds, and actually attracts many new settlers. But not Florida, yet.
History of U.S. Navy in Florida: click here.
Florida: not part of the War of 1812 immediate expansion states in terms of large numbers of settlers; not part of La. Purchase or Texas expansion, nor original USA. Not given to USA by Britain or Spain at anytime. Not war-booty. Florida is different - an after-thought state. A much later state than most think that was nearly ignored until the late 1800's. Even upon statehood in 1845, Texas was actually more in the media and attracted more settlers.
Not many people even today know about Apalachicola, largest U.S. sea port in Florida until around 1880. (A book about river travel mostly before 1900 on the Apalachicola, Flint, Chipola, and Chattahoochee Rivers, written by a former Secr. of State of the State of Florida, was the source of this tidbit. In fact, that book gave 1900 as the end of Apalachicola's reign as Florida's greatest seaport by revenue. That seems incredible.)
To get to Tallahassee, the capital of Florida, from Apalachicola by water travel was easy in early Florida. The traveler would travel by coastal ship to the hidden slightly inland sea port village of St. Marks, where a small railway would be used to get to Tallahassee, 20 miles north. In that case, the luxury traveler could easily travel from Milledgeville, or even, Columbus, Georgia, to Tallahassee, Florida without getting their boots muddy, etc., etc.
In 1855, nearly all major towns and U.S. state capitals were on rivers reachable by riverboats. For example, the capitals of Florida, Alabama, and Georgia, could be reached by river travel, and with each other by sea in 1855. The capital of Georgia, Milledgeville, connected to the port of Darien, Georiga (near Brunswick, also a seaport). All the early capitals of Alabama were also on river ports.
1991: Antebellum U.S. Riverboat Paradise Dream Ends. The failed cross-Florida barge canal. The difficulty in getting from the capital of Georgia at that time, to Tallahassee, by smooth (but very dangerous) water, was a factor that would've supported a canal.
Note that Wikipedia originally had a photo showing a dead-end at the end of this canal, where work ceased. Shortly afterwards, they switched the photo to show the canal as if it were in normal use. I tried to find such a "dead-end" photo using google image search, but I couldn't find one. This was a photo featured by Wikipedia at the head of their article about the cross-florida barge canal only a few weeks earlier!
The canal does not exist for navigation purposes, and only 1/3 of it was ever built. They are psychologically trying to pretend that work can be restarted at any moment, and the underground aquifiers are all safe.
The average life-span of the typical wooden hulled river steamboat was about 3 years at that time. Steel hulled boats lasted much longer, but mostly came about when such things were no longer much in demand.
For information about reaching the former capital of Georgia; Milledgeville, by water from the port of Brunswick or Darien, Georiga, one would travel up the Altamaha River, which connects upstream to the Oconee. Note that Athens, Georgia, the site of the University of Georgia, is upstream from Milledgeville, though one cannot use the river to travel between them.
- Third Wave - (?1836?-1845-1912) Texas Lands: most or Parts of Texas, Colorado & New Mexico, plus all of California, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. (Republic of Texas lands as modified by the Mexican War, plus Gadsden Purchase lands.)
Obviously, these Texas lands were also affected by the War of 1812.
- Fourth Wave - (1859-1890) Oregon Country: Oregon, Washington state, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota. (Oregon Country states, plus those to the East of that land added as states around 1890.)
- Most people of West Virginia (1861) organize to break away from Virginia to remain in the USA during the Civil War. Lincoln and the U.S. constitutionally recognize it as legitimate even though the "rebel" Virigina legislature and central government of the Confederacy never approved of this loss.
Indian Removal: many tribes crossed the border into Canada, never to return to the USA. Although some writers have already counted hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dead Natives; before doing that, make sure first that members of the nation did not relocate, and whose tribe still exists north of the U.S. border with Canada.
(The longest unguarded border in the world is called, "the Canadian/U.S. border", and is commemorated at The Peace Arch in Blaine, Washington/Surrey, B.C. The longest unguarded border in the world, is also commemorated in North Dakota.)
- Fifth Wave - Alaska - 1867 - 1959 - Alaska territory, Alaska state. Large enough to be called a "wave of expansion". Non controversial except at the beginning - "Seward's Icebox" - President Johnson was Presiding during Territorial acquisition - President Eisenhower when it (they) decided to join the USA. Sorry for mixing it up with colonial expansion. Who were the colonists? Well, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But that makes Louisiana a "colony" also.
- Sixth Wave - (?1893? - ?1897? - ?1898? - 1959 - ) U.S. "Colonial" Era States - Hawaii. Plus remaining U.S. territorial possessions, League of Nation/U.N. Trusteeship territories, and other such islands or states. Only Hawaii joined the U.S. completely from that group, so far, but unfortunately is associated with its independent Republic of Hawaii which ultimately committed Hari-Kari apparently before annexation. (1893-1897) History of Hawaii.
If you doubt that the Republic of Hawaii ever existed, note that most countries in the world immediately recognized it as a new country officially after it was formed, and set up embassies, send ambassadors, etc., etc. They had to cancel that recognition after the Republic of Hawaii killed itself. Later, it was absorbed as mere real estate by U.S., not as a normal Republic such as virtually all the other 49 who never had any interruption in Republican (legislative power) activities if any had ever existed there.
Note: 1897 is not 1898. When a legislature turns over its "legislative power and territorial jurisdiction" to another government power far, far, away, that legislature is no longer functioning.
Hawaii as the Republic of Hawaii died when they gave consent for the USA to take over legislative functions, and never met again as the Republic or State of Hawaii until after a long-dormant period of control from Washington, D.C., rather than from the Capital of Hawaii, the Republic.
Only through bankruptcy should such things happen as just happened to Detroit, Michigan.
I don't know what happened to all the ambassadors from all the nations of the world, who had been in Honolulu. Did they drown or get eaten by sharks?
Early Rhode Island, the plantation state, was just as autocratic and "patrician" as early Hawaii, a plantation state also, but it was a full U.S. State from the beginning. There was no moral or legal reason to delay statehood in Hawaii! It is perverse and sloppy to routinely violate obvious rules.
Should have been U.S. State of Hawaii in 1897 that morphed from the Republic, if all this was totally constitutionally normal. I hope it was.
I tried to exclude states that don't fall exclusively in one of these waves, but that isn't possible.
Apparently, the transition to French rule in Louisiana had never fully occurred, so when the USA purchased it in 1803, U.S. forces only occupied areas initially that the French had just given up. Future acreage yieldings were terminated or slowed down as the Napoleonic wars in Europe changed the status of everything in North America, back and forth. When Madison heard that Napoleon had been defeated at some point, he became alarmed that the Louisiana Purchase would be challenged by its previous owners who had just defeated Napoleon.
Until the "Age of (Andrew) Jackson", most new immigrants to the USA during the period immediately after the War of 1812, found out that the right to vote in most U.S. states was reserved for those who already owned land, except "Indians". Therefore, owning land was the first step, traditionally, to becoming a full citizen of the USA, until the Jacksonian era.
The next phase of the USA involved this inevitable complex economic-class-warfare between the landed entrenched and wealthy political groups, (i.e., the "spoiled brat group"), and the wretched Jacksonian rabble-rousers. This would've begun around 1828-1832-1836-1840, etc. This was the era when President Tyler, for example, became a Jacksonian after taking office and was then ejected from the Whig Party - from which he had already exited. He renamed his house and home into Robin Hood's namesake, Sherwood Forest. ((Note that Wikipedia controllers don't even note that Tyler had essentially joined the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson's followers, mostly, which included the industrial NorthEast and North-Central at that time, and America's first organized and unorganized industrial working class, and their politicians.
Jackson clearly falls into a more left-wing political environment, and had an enormously powerful kitchen cabinet consisting of very powerful and influential media and political leaders of that era. His actual cabinet seemed to be unrelated to his "kitchen cabinet", some of whom joined government service later).
NOTE: This list is incomplete, overlapping, and not guaranteed to be totally accurate. There are probably some states not included in these "waves of expansion" since they were made out of different territory cobbled together and acquired at different times and in different manners. The groupings are somewhat loosely defined. For example, Colorado is made from numerous territorial parts, such as Texas lands, and Louisiana Purchase lands, plus others.
Both Hawaii and the former CSA have been involved in efforts to not join, or to break away from the USA, and then have consequentally chosen constitutionally to organize democratically to become new states of the United States, again.
I should have Puerto Rico here, I suppose, as a prospective new state. Note that Nevada only had 10,000 people in it when it joined the USA. I don't know much about Puerto Rico, but I think that would not be a bad idea for them to join; however, they should first add some more "mass" to their proposal by adding some islands nearby whose people may otherwise be cutoff from opportunity in the USA.
Radio Beijing and many other news sources used to state that America was an imperialistic country, especially during the Vietnam War. But is there any evidence that America wanted the South and North Vietnamese to join the USA during the war? Or the S. Koreans during that war before 1953? Or the N. Koreans or N. Vietnamese with Ho Chi Minh?
As far as the period 1941-1953 or so, I'm not sure what is going on in terms of expansion. Most Americans never considered WWII an expansionary war. I've never heard of Germany, Italy, Korea, England, or Japan as wanting or planning to join the USA, nor have I ever heard a single American claim that we wanted to join or merge these places into a larger USA through WWII, and the Korean War.
But some conspiracists and communists think the USA was "expanding" through WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Were FDR and Truman really planning on "expansion" of the USA through some sort of merger with the U.N.? In other words, was the occupation of Europe and places in the Far East now connected to some sort of actual territorial expansion of the USA, as planned or accepted by F.D.R. before his death in 1945, and later Truman? Or planned by them before WWII started?
Instead of that, normal U.S. expansion was going to occur under our existing constitution, and may do so again and again.
Although the U.S.A. Lost Canada in the War of 1812; At least the Peace Arch Portal Remains!
- EXTEMELY EMOTIONAL SUBJECT FROM CAMPAIGN 1976:
But this page was initially only about Ronald Reagan's campaign promises concerning the Panama Canal Zone. I moved that text into a new page now.
- (Sometime before Nov. 6, 2011, (Go to end of this file to see my mention of Vermont as number 14 - this file was last altered on Nov. 6th, 2011 at 6:38AM.) I inquired at Wikipedia and using google.com to find out which U.S. state was number 14 - Wikipedia did not yet have that information readily available at all of their "u.s. state" pages then. Here and there the sequential number was in some of them, but not all, and it wasn't then in the info. box at the right-top of each U.S. state page. First, I thought Kentucky was number 14, as that fact was not there for Kentucky yet. Later, I noticed it was Vermont that was 14.
After finding out about number 14, and after having accepted the idea that the War of 1812 was an error, or fumbled effort on Madison's part, later I noticed the order of the states entering the U.S. mysteriously before and after that war, appearing to indicate growth of the country at that time. Could it actually be that? Was I seeing things?
- The unchanging nature of the Hawaiian flag from Kingdom to U.S. state, seems to indicate a continuous stability, rather than instability. That is more the reputation of the place, in reality.
- The Virgin Islands may be stuck in limbo forever, unless they quickly merge with Puerto Rico, or Florida.
Does the USA Still Have to Apologize Everyday
to the U.K. For Our Own Existence and Actual History???
It was only after noticing a forgotten cluster of states entering the Union just before, and just after the War of 1812, that I began to investigate for myself just what this war accomplished. Most historians today state that nothing good came from the War of 1812, which means that they feel that the USA is mostly nothing good.
I also find it odd that very few see the reality of these absurdly short periods of war, such as during the tiny three years of the War of 1812, being buffered by decades and decades of mostly peaceful growth of the USA. The significance of the growth of the USA during long periods of peace, seems to be lost on those who only see force as a way of life.
The Peaceful City. I admit it: Washington, D.C. has always been the most militarily vulnerable area of the USA. From the burning of the infant District of Columbia by the British during the War of 1812 without much of any opposition from U.S. forces, to the routing of the Union armies by the CSA at both Battles of Bull Run, to the 9-11 Attack on the Pentagon in September 2001 which was a surprise to U.S. military forces near Washington, D.C., the District of Columbia is the seat of democracy far more than being a place where physical struggle is enshrined.
Washington is the country's political sandbox, where the country still plays democratically and peacefully with itself, oblivious to horrifying things like guns and war taking place there locally. History shows us that Washington, D.C. has never been ready for any war in their own back yard, or front yard.
But those battles and wars are subordinate to the functioning of democracy. U.S. states numbered 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, and many others as well, were absolutely gained due to the greater establishment of U.S. democracy just before, during, and just after the War of 1812.
FACT: the War of 1812 was fought over the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, primarily, which purchasing of territory from Napoleon was not recognized by the U.K. in practice. After all, if he who sold it to the USA was being defeated (Napoleon), then it would soon be owned by London (or Madrid?) again? Not quite. The U.K. still had warships anchored in U.S. ports in May 1812, and Spain still had functioning and manned forts on U.S. soil at that moment. Most historians ignore these simple facts. (Spain, however, had never been belligerent toward the USA, however, so the USA did not declare war on Spain in terms of the War of 1812.)
America's Five Christmas Greetings to King George sent during Decembers upon the adding of new states beginning immediately before, and after the War of 1812, and states added later not in December.
(List of U.S. states added just before, and just after the War of 1812:)
- Louisiana - April 1812.
Added peacefully to the USA as state number 18 only two months before the war broke out. England considers this an April Fool's Joke. British troops and allies still refused to recognize the validity of the USA in some areas of the Louisiana Purchase, and in areas east of the Louisiana Purchase, and other areas, so in June 1812 America declared war on Great Britain who still dominated the area soon to be gained by the U.S. called the Louisiana Purchase, and other areas.
Technically speaking, these areas presumably owned or in some cases, claimed by the U.S., these areas were often still occupied by Spanish troops and forts, as well as British Army troops, and British Navy ships before the War of 1812.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, King George! War ends three years later with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in December 1814; two weeks later also with final U.S. victory at the Battle of New Orleans, LA in January 1815. (Due to delay in getting message across the ocean, hostilities continue until early 1815.) (There were two Battles of New Orleans at the end of the War of 1812: one in Dec. 1814 (Merry Christmas), the other in Jan. 1815 (Happy New Year)).
What about Spain? Note that contested holdings of Spain seized by Napolean through European wars, sold to the U.S. in 1803, but not yet occupied by French forces, were fought over in the New World by the U.S. and Britain during the War of 1812. Note that the U.S. in 1803 had mostly immediately taken control of New Orleans itself, but not Baton Rouge, and not the areas south of New Orleans. It would be nice to see a map of how "U.S. controlled territory" in that area changed from 1803 up until Jan. 1815.
What about Spain? I don't think the U.S. attacked Spanish forts or troops directly during the War of 1812, or visa versa. During the War of 1812, the remaining manned Spanish forts, such as the one in Mobile, Alabama, were simply ignored. And the Spanish personnel manning those forts probably did not fire on the American "invaders". Note that in 1810, the U.S. had seized former Spanish lands then claimed by France, but also just seized (claimed) in 1810 by the short-lived Republic of West Florida near and around Baton Rouge, LA. That short lived republic also claimed lands extending from French Louisiana all the way east to the border with Spanish Florida. The French had already turned over fragments of their holdings in "Louisiana" directly to the U.S. back in 1803, but many areas sold were not yet occupied by France when the U.S. paid for the Louisiana Purchase.
What about Spain? The Americans actually fought the British who were defending Spanish territory (?) still claimed by France here and there, such as what occurred concerning Mobile, Alabama, and surrounding area. Note that the British who lost the second Battle of New Orleans in Jan. 1815 immediately sailed to the Mobile area and attempted to retake it (for Spain?) when word of the Treaty of Ghent arrived by ship. So those British assets then probably sailed back to the U.K. at that point. The area of south Alabama, South Mississippi, and parts of Louisiana still held by the Spanish became part of the USA. (I assume that Spain allowed the U.S. to own this territory, or sold it at the Ghent treaty meeting that ended the U.S./British/(Spanish, French) War of 1812.)
- Indiana - December 1816 - "Land of the Indians", becomes U.S. state number 19 fairly soon after the War of 1812 ends. Merry Christmas King George!
- Mississippi - December 1817. Merry Christmas King George! State number 20.
- Illinois - December 1818. Merry Christmas King George! State number 21.
- Alabama - December 1819. Merry Christmas King George! State number 22.
- Maine - March 1820. Happy Spring King George! State number state 23.
- Missouri - August 1821. Happy 2/3 of Summer King George! State number 24.
Let us Forgive!
I watched some of the funeral of QE live on the internet, and I was amazed that someone is still using the King James Bible version of the Lord's prayer.
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever, amen.
Top of Page.