Skip to start, or main part of article.

If Plug-In Not Installed, Try Another Browser,
or Right Click Here to Download and Hear Music.

<bgsound src="1812-overture.mp3">

(I know the music you MAY be hearing is historically inappropriate in certiainn respects
as it refers to the Russian situation, I still like it and used it just for that reason, and no other.)

It was England, not the U.S., that seems to have Violated the Previous Treaties of
These Two Nations, Creating the War of 1812.
and a Huge Growth Spurt for the United States.



This war, in international, linked-with-Europe, context was a huge victory for Russia, Britain, & Everyone Else, against
Napoloen, while the U.S. is said to have gained ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the war? Hunh????

I'm so glad that in his wretched emotional state of being
a spurned expansionist, Reagan didn't commit suicide on live TV!

Even years before he became President,

Reagan had always been obsessed with the


(I.E., the geographical apple in his eye, etc.)

Not "Vietnam, Korea, Lebanon, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc...."

In 1979 and 1980, "KEEP THE CANAL ZONE" was actually a Reaganite Political CHANT!

(Duh.....) Reagan: Perpetual Maintenance

Contract for Canal Zone Confused with Statehood.

(NOTE: The Canal Zone, as oppposed to, "the area around the Panama Canal", no longer exists.)

Bonds to be issued for new canal work, More information about this., more such information.
(((From reading this, it is likely that most work will go to Panamanians
but there are probably some jobs available to foreigners. Posted Feb. 1, 2010.)))

While Dreaming of His Beloved Zonia,

Reagan plots with the Mujahideen, 1985. For the demise of the USSR, of course
who are currently occupying Afghanistan. The U.S. covertly, but
publicly covertly, supported the Mujahadeen against the USSR.
This picture is part of that "public" knowledge, though it looks odd after 9-11.

America has not expanded substantially since 1867.
Reagan Was Elected President of the USA
Like Napoleon for France, Ford & Reagan have been the only U.S. PRESIDENTs in modern times

(The country seems to have shrunk instead. It could also be argued that Jimmy Carter
laid the groundwork for true future expansion, diplomatically and legalistically speaking.)

President Ford, also like most Republicans, planned to KEEP THE ZONE!

Usually Ford Fell At Stiff State Functions, but Not Always.

President Ford, also like most Republicans, planned to KEEP THE ZONE!

Attempting Acrobatic Exit from Air Force One...
I recall that Ford fell far more times than just twice. Maybe 4 times?
(((Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Ford fell twice, and Chevy Chase 4 times more...)))

Was Panama Also Only A Place From Which Americans Flee?

In Context, the Idea of Exiting Panama Felt Too Much Like Vietnam for
Most Americans. Remember LBJ!!!!! Remember WWII - when the
Korean & Vietnam involvements really began.

This helicopter represents French colonialism, leaving.
Imagine losers Nicholas Sarkozy and Barack Obama in the cockpit of this fleeing U.S. helicopter.

The Man Who Really Planned to Keep Vietnam FREE!!!
But not marijuana - no way. We would have to reform
the primitive & blood thirsty savages of Vietnam!

In real life, John Wayne was a major Vietnam "hawk", though this
is a picture from the movie, The Green Berets
The US was divided into two groups: "Hawks" - pro war. "Doves" - anti war

Some Say Alzheimer's Disease
afflicted President Reagan
toward the end of his second term.

In U.S. History, which candidate for president spoke these words to his supporters during his campaign?




At least every honest historian will tell succeeding generations of this formerly expanding country, that forgetful ole Ronald Reagan was a genuine, if not extremely confused, expansionist, that emphatically failed to expand the United States of America according to the methods available in the constitution. I'm glad the European Union bureaucrats at least learned enough legal procedures in school to know how to expand their treaty organization of countries. (The European Union is not a new "country", but a new treaty organization of countries.)

Considering the intense throat-slitting emotional atmosphere of this divisive issue during the campaign between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, it's almost unbelievable to me that no one has mentioned it since around 1980, really, that I can recall.

Luckily, someone other than myself remembered it for the internet. Here is text from that gives these details:

Relinquishing U.S. Control, 1979-1999

... During the 1980s, the Panama Canal remained an issue of concern to the United States. Some (((Ed. Note: (i.e., those who voted for Reagan, etc., etc.)))) thought that the election of Ronald Reagan might mean that the treaty would be overturned as he had been one of its leading critics during the presidential debates. But in fact the movement toward transition continued unabated during his two terms. More Panamanians became integrated into the Canal Zone as policemen and pilots, and American employees there gradually were weaned off their ties to the U.S. government. ...

Reagan was not "one of" the leading critics of the new canal zone treaty (since this treaty would destroy the Canal Zone, I use small letters here); he was actually running for president on a platform to ignore or cancel that treaty. As president, he was not merely "one of" the treaty's critics, he was the most well known critic of it.


As I recall, Ronald Reagan was actually elected by the voters of the U.S. to prevent the loss of the Canal Zone to Panama. That is a historical fact that no one should ever forget regardless of how obscure it seems now in 2010.

Ronald Reagan had memory problems toward the end of his presidency, and maybe at the beginning, also, as the topic wasn't much in the news, if at all, after the election. Nor on his agenda.

Why continue all the anti-expansionist policies that Mark Twain, and others, despised?

Mark Twain, and many others, were mostly right. The Spanish-American War was a mistake that has haunted the U.S. for a long time. It helped propel much of the Carribbean, Central and South America into militarism and paranoia, for the past 110 years, or so. It greatly retarded economic and political progress in the Western Hemisphere and resulted ultimately in nearly zero expansion of the U.S., against a natural Reaganite desire for expansion about 30 years ago.

I'm not implying here that the Canal is a mistake - I'm talking about the expansion of the U.S. pretty much ending around 1867, in terms of LARGE new territory being added, that later becomes new state(s); OR sovereign countries joining the U.S. as new states which had already existed as independent countries, like Hawaii, Texas and Vermont; or provinces or colonies of European countries that were later added through treaty, such as the multitude of states formed from the Louisiana purchase, etc., etc. (Note: Hawaii, a mere sliver geographically, is a substantial acquisition, but it isn't that large...)

The idea that a military conquest must take place before the "acquisition" of a new U.S. state, is so ingrained in American historical myth, that we ignore the significant historical fact of the peaceful joining of many new states. Not all Territorial Governors of future U.S. state "conquests" were lashed down on their backs to stakes driven into the ground, and laid out under the hot sun to die, unless they submitted to Federal Power, etc., etc.

Only President Sanford Dole of the Republic of Hawaii was treated like that!

America - the de-colonizing world power. Regarding the Canal Zone issue, and Spanish-American war "acquisitions". There's also the theory that we liberated the Spanish held lands from colonial tyranny, and for that, they will always want to become part of the U.S., or at least be eternally friendly and grateful, if not obedient, to their American decolonizers. We also seemed to have helped many other colonies break free.

But unfortunately, only a few tiny scraps of territory have been successfully added to the United States, such as Hawaii, since about 1867, when Andrew Johnson acquired huge Alaska. We also "acquired" the Panama Canal zone (making it the "Panama Canal Zone" for a while), the Phillipines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, other islands, and the Virgin Islands, since 1867. But for whatever reasons, most preferred independence.

We ought to apologize for the Spanish-American war's FAILURE to create more unity in the Western Hemisphere, as well as for the trouble caused by the original Canal Zone treaty.

The ridicule of Carter by Reaganites during the 1980 campaign for "losing the Canal Zone", was one political issue that got Reagan elected to PRESIDENT!

My generation had been taught in school that these were "our territories", so I had no idea that they were actually all temporary until the statehood issue was resolved. (Never mind what happened with Cuba and the Phillipines.)

Reagan would have had to have also wanted Cuba and the Philippines to be retained as new U.S. states as well, or he would have been a hypocrite, right?

This is standard Conservative doctrine drilled into every American student's brain, that it is implied that these "U.S. territories" are "ours" with little discussion.


Ronald Reagan was elected by conservatives to prevent the loss of the Canal Zone to Panama. That is a historical fact that no one should ever forget. Otherwise, if we forget these facts, we are pathetic and stupid people that can't remember their own political dreams and obsessions! That's sad.

Without memory, there is no existence, remember? And no new U.S. states, either.

Where are all the conservative Reaganites, "fighting" for the Canal Zone, today? Perhaps they're visiting Panama as tourists. Perhaps. Perhaps someday, Panamanians will want to join the U.S. as a new state. Maybe.

Genuine Expansion. As Reagan never even mentioned Panama as becoming a new U.S. state, and the Panamanians have not yet wished to apply to become a new U.S. state, we must EXPAND ourselves to include not only John McCain's and Ronald Reagan's beloved and tiny little land of "U.S. Zonia", but also the considerably larger, Republic of Panama, as well.

The Panamanians should know that some people who voted for Reagan, would still extend a genuine invitation to them to join the U.S. as U.S. citizens in a new U.S. state, if that's what they VOTE for, and that those living outside the Panama Canal zone (formerly "Zone") are not only included, but now would be given equal consideration as the "Zonians" were given by the Reaganites in the 1980's. (U.S. rules require the pre-establishment of a representative form of government; and that this democratic government must apply to join the U.S. as a new state, and that Congress accepts this application.

It is actually more than 30 times easier for the current U.S. to add new states, than to amend the U.S. constitution. Yet, despite this monumentally easier path, the U.S. would rather amend the constitution lately, rather than add new states.)

In the modern context, the obsession with keeping the seized Canal zone or other seized scraps of land, should be replaced with a general openness to political evolution with interested states. Has our Victorian-era-colonialist-myopia for seizing small slivers of real estate, with little mention of the residents, evolved into a greater understanding of how Vermont and Texas actually joined the United States? Too bad Reagan also believed in the Victorian/colonial era idiocy, and not the tale of how Texas, California, Vermont, Hawaii and many others, actually joined the U.S. as new states.

Would Reagan have expanded to include all of Panama for his new U.S. state (which would then be called "Panama" or whatever the occupants would have wanted to call themselves)? If not, the dual state situation of tiny "U.S. Zonia" with its Panama Canal, co-existing with the Republic of Panama, would have been terminally troublesome, probably. I wonder why Reagan never mentioned that obvious fact to his ardent expansionist supporters?

In terms of the Panama Canal Zone, Reagan could have succeeded with it, and maybe even all of Panama, if he had reached out to the Panamanians as if he were running for office there; and should have kissed babies, etc., etc., like the local politicians do.

But that never happened.

Neither Bush, Sr., nor Reagan succeeded in that way. They both were not successful expanders of the United States, though they both get lots of credit for the demise of the U.S.S.R.

Despite being extremely popular for two full terms, it was predicted by prominent persons that Reagan would not look good in the history books, as he faded away. As time goes on, this prediction seems to be coming true. Which is almost unbelievable.

Although Reagan probably never explicitly stated that the Canal Zone should become a U.S. state, there is no other way for any U.S. held territory to become a permanent part by any other means than becoming a U.S. state. (Other than possibly, to have become a permanent part of the U.S. by becoming a domicile for the U.S. central government apparatus, like Washington, D.C. Is that what Reagan was planning? A warmer winter U.S. Capital in "Zonia" for his last term in semi-retirement? Would that require a constitutional amemdment? Is that legal?)

But what about Santa Barbara? The Reagans had a nice ranch in the hills above that town, which was where they actually retired at first, I believe.

So I don't think Reagan really wanted to move the U.S. Capital to the Panama Canal Zone. Therefore, the only sane explanation of what Reagan was planning for the Panama Canal Zone when he promised the people of the U.S. that the Canal Zone would be kept permanently, is that Reagan wanted the Zone to become a new U.S. state, through the usual new state creation process. I'm pretty sure that continued temporary military style possession of the Zone as a place for a military base, would not have appealed to a guy like Reagan who would only have wanted the zone permanently held. And all of Reagan's supporters also would not have wanted a wimpy temporary U.S. military Zone there, either. (Unfortunately, U.S. military bases in foreign countries, are always more or less temporary. Hence, statehood was the only way to keep it permanently - he had no other choice.)

I'm so glad that in his wretched emotional state of being a spurned expansionist, he didn't commit suicide on live TV!

Or maybe impetuous old Reagan wanted to create a new precedent for U.S. expansion by just declaring it the "new U.S. State of Zonia", by Presidential Decree?

Too bad for old Ronnie that things never turned out the way he had hoped, in the end, for his beloved and sunny land of Zonia.

But at least today in 2010, Reaganites and Carterites can visit the Republic of Panama which now includes the Canal zone as continuous undivided territory, as peaceful tourists. Maybe they can even buy a condo there, learn Spanish, and have conversations with locals about politics.

The Canal Zone situation was actually a third and unique type of situation that Reagan was confused about. The original treaty seems to allow the U.S. to stay there in perpetuity in order to maintain and operate the Canal in a technical manner. However, this treaty was apparently never approved by any Panamanian legislature, and does not refer to any future U.S. statehood plans for the Zone. It seems to guarantee Panamanian sovereignty over the Canal area land rather than U.S. sovereignty. Reagan was obviously confused about this whole scenario, and considered the Zone to be the same as other U.S. territories that had not elected yet to become U.S. states, such as Alaska before 1959.

Strangely, no U.S. territories are assumed to be "held in perpetuity", in the legal, if not military posturing, tradition.

In terms of military posturing, the smaller the sliver of land in contention, the more posturing and emotionalism becomes manifest. Like dogs fighting over scraps of meat, super-powers behave the same way over smaller and smaller slivers of geography to be held temporarily. Like used aircraft carriers.

  • Here's a google book that documents what really happened with the Panama Canal Treaty in the early 1970's until 1978, 2 years before Reagan ran for, and was elected president in 1980.

    Reagan was quite fixed in his views on the canal many years before becoming president.

    It's actually irresponsible of me to imply that Reagan deliberately deceived the American people on this one! I don't think it was deliberate.

    The google book referenced above doesn't actually document anything I say above since it was copyright 1978, but it backs it up in historical context. We also have to remember that most other Americans, also, didn't know very much about the original treaty. (I bet Carter's closest supporters knew everything about it.) This book chronicles that Republican supporter John Wayne, the actor, and Pres. Ford, knew the details of the treaty unlike Reagan and most Reaganites. What the media said about it in finer detail would be interesting to know.

  • Here's something about Panama for the elderly, but it could apply to anyone actually, regardless of age: click here.

  • Panama Canal Society - I would like to find out what the Zonians found out it they ever investigated statehood for the Zone.

  • There is a mention of "Statehood" in this posting called, "Teddy Roosevelt Revisits the Panama Canal". There is a mention here of Teddy Roosevelt smoking "funny cigars" in Cuba, and also in Panama. This is fiction of course, but it's pretty good.

  • "Panama Red" was one type of pot a long time ago that must have made its way into the U.S. from "the Zone", or from Panama, quite often. However, it was not that common as other types if I recall correctly. That's too bad. Not enough vijaya for it to have lasted - the Zone that is.

  • There's a massive construction project about to begin for the Canal. I'm sure American workers will be there to some extent.

  • As Reagan was very popular and in tune with the U.S. population's aspirations, maybe someday his desire for U.S. expansion will also correspond to the same aspirations of some independent republics or U.S. territories, yielding new U.S. states.

  • American students, in general, were always taught that the PCZ was just like any other U.S. territory, such as Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, etc., essentially. Reagan was twice confused when you consider that he thought the Panama Canal Zone had the same precise legal status as Alaska. But Alaska became a state in 1959, Mr. President. Duuuuuuuhhhhhhhh!!!!

Although he promimsed everyone in the U.S., especially his supporters, than he would absolutely KEEP THE CANAL ZONE, he failed to do that. Was this his greatest blunder that the world will remember? The shrinkage of the U.S. as Reagan (JImmy Carter actually "lost" it, though. Reagan got elected to undo that losing, in some way.) left office?

Well, the U.S. lost the Panama Canal Zone, but the USSR lost itself! Well, the U.S.S.R. also shrank, a bit a few years after he left office, and due to his machinations, don't you think? If losing beloved Zonia is the price we have to pay for the USSR shrinking away completely, maybe Ronnie will implore the Supreme Being to forgive him for his transgressions of forgetfulness to his supporters, for forgetting to remember to keep the Panama Canal Zone!


I am fully aware that the Panama Canal Zone acquisition was never associated with the Spanish American War specifically. However, generally, the two are grouped together roughly as part of America's colonial period.

"Colonial" means more temporary than permanent "acquisitions".

Just why Colonialists are so temporary really ought to be discussed.

Well, here are the names of the last three "expansionist" presidents - Abraham Lincoln's transitional government to Andrew Johnson, Mckinley, and Eisenhower. Andrew Johnson as an extension of Lincoln's administration, acquired Alaska territory through his Sec. of State, Seward; McKinley acquired the Republic of Hawaii, but the Republic of Hawaii committed Hari Kari voluntarily, and demoted itself to mere territory before being annexed by the U.S., and Eisenhower was president when both of those territories chose to become states.

Note that Hawaii went through at least 2 periods after the overthrow of the Queen when there was no democracy on the islands. Between 1897 and 1900, and then during much of WWII, there was no territorial legislature, even.

The Republic of Hawaii committed Hari Kari in 1897 or so, but Hawaii was not annexed until 1898. This process of republic suicide, followed by territorial annexation, is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution that I know of.

Number 50 was a republic suicide! This creates a stigma, I think. We have to get over this for future expansion to occur again, probably.

If you doubt that the Republic of Hawaii ever existed, note that most countries in the world immediately recognized it officially after it was formed. 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.

In other words, the territorial legislatures were all continuously operative until Statehood, without any gaps, unlike in Hawaii, which had numerous gaps on democracy.

Only in Hawaii have there been gaps, so far.

I never noticed, "constitutionally", until late April 2011 that Hawaii entered the U.S. in such a strange way.

Normally, when a Republic joins the U.S., it immediately becomes a full U.S. state, with no gap in legislative power, as Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachussetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Texas still are; none were ever non legislatively governed territories of the U.S. (Also, Kentucky and West Virginia, made from parts of Virginia, were also never territory of the United States.)

Since the Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781, the period 1775-1781 was a time of 14 quite separate but closely associated republics, fighting King George III, who lost. To state that they were closely unified in some manner at this early point is so absurd, it is a ridiculous theory. However, they were associated closely enough to persuade England and most other countries to recognize their legitimacy as a unified group, if not as individual countries. But their individuality is what led them to join more closely with the new constitution later in 1787.

Even today in 2011, these 14 original states, (13 plus Vermont) are so extremely different from each other, it's sometimes hard to imagine them being unified now.

One other place that didn't exist, as an organized government, for a short time, was Iceland before or during part of WWII. But Iceland didn't commit suicide. It became "orphaned" by departure of the King of Denmark who felt there was something fishy going on there, probably. There still is.

Actually, the Korean and Vietnam wars were both final parts of WWII, if you study both of them, and why we were there. We lost 1/2 of the Korean part of WWII, and all of the Vietnam part of WWII, in a sense. N. Vietnam used former Imperial Japanese military advisors. Did N. Korea also?

The Republic of Panama, today, also has no military, just like Costa Rica.

End of article about Ronald Reagan's campaign promise and personal obsession with expanding the USA permanently by acquiring the Panama Canal Zone as a new state of the United States.

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 to Canadians to join the Revolt against the King of England, and for Canada to become part of the U.S.

    Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated to each other in correspondence that they both 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. This indicates that the invitation to Canada to join the U.S., must've still been in effect when Jefferson and Madison were president. That would indicate it's still in effect today.

    I'm glad that during the War of 1812, U.S. forces 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. If Canada is ever to join the U.S., this peaceful protest by our own Army could turn out to have been very fortunate toward promoting a true joining of the two nations, perferably as new U.S. states.

    I know I didn't read that, but it makes sense that those incidents were not accidents, and not due to cowardance, or ineptitude. It was the Jeffersonnian/Madison attempt to get Canada to change sides at the beginning of the War of 1812. But it didn't work. In each case, I'm sure there were Canadian forces, small or large, camped nearby on the other side.

    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.

  • President William McKinley's wars, etc. In addition to probably participating in the suicide of the Republic of Hawaii, and then seizing it 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 leader, we must face the facts as a nation, eventually: he was totally delusional mostly in terms of his own expansion policies, 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.

    No real expansion occurred during his terms in office, or even shortly after someone shot him. It's a miracle that Hawaii joined the U.S. nearly 60 years later. R.I.P. Mr. Bill!!! INSTANT KARMA!!!!

  • 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.

  • President Ford and Reagan. They promised the U.S. that the Canal Zone would be kept by the U.S. if they would only be elected President. It didn't work. We lost the Zone.

    President Carter may have lain the groundwork for possible future expansion by not being so pushy, and giving Panamanians choice in the matter.

Cut off Sound at Top of Page.

Amazingly, it's the 200th Anniversary of this war coming up. Jeez.

LIES about, "Mr. Madison's War."

Wresting Control of the Mississippi River Valley from Britain
Results in Sea-to-Shining-Sea Expansion of the USA.

War of 1812 was Strategically, America's MOST IMPORTANT WAR!

I fail to find any reason to capitulate on something obviously simple to prove.

LIST OF LIES: Many internet websites such as wikipedia, this website, this website, this website, AND this website, to name quite a few, are ALL denying that a vast amount of territory and new States were captured by the Americans during and immediately after the War of 1812.

TERRITORY CAPTURED and KEPT by the U.S. during and after the WAR of 1812:

President Madison stated that the Louisiana Purchase was intended to procure West Florida and the rest of Louisiana.

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 Alabama-Florida border to the border with Louisiana, i.e., part of the infamous and sometimes deadly, "I-10 corridor".)

For example, in 1812, Mobile, Alabama was still presumed to be held physically by the British, though this was already U.S. territory. (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. West Florida and the Louisiana Purchase land having been 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 forts in Saint Augustine, Pensacola, and Mobile, still.

The Repuplic of West Florida took over the Spanish garrison in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1810, who were still there since this part of Louisiana was apparrently NOT included in the Louisiana Purchase. This was when the U.S. government was "organizing" the French colonial and Spanish law systems of U.S. Lousiana Territory, into a U.S. style legal system during this Territorial Period of Louisiana Territory. But the borders of modern Louisiana were changed from 1803.

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.

In 1813, General James Wilkinson and troops of the U.S. Army physically captured and barely held the port city of Mobile, Alabama during the War of 1812, which 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? 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 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 1816 by General Andrew Jackson in order to fight (allegedly British supplied) Seminole Natives allied with many escaped Black and/or mixed-race former slaves there; but this remaining Spanish territory was not officially annexed until the Adams-Onis treaty of 1819, which took effect in 1821. (This also could imply that many blacks in the U.S. and especially, the south, were free at one time until re-captured and re-enslaved until around 1864.)

The Natives are still there, but no longer have to evade General Jackson, the Spanish, or their successors.

Therefore, the current State of Florida (#27, 1845) could loosely be said to have been captured from the British after they left after the War of 1812, though Florida was still owned by Spain then, technically speaking, and remained a mere U.S. territory for quite some time.

Sam Jones, the Seminole Chief and his band, evaded the U.S. and remained free in Florida until natural death. Supposedly he was in the rice business, also.

And Alabama (#22) was not admitted to the Union (1819) until after Mobile was actually occupied by U.S. troops. Therefore, 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 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, along the Mississippi, other rivers, and along the Eastern Seaboard, and in New England, allowing the U.S. to expand into 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 (#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, and that Michigan (#26, 1837), was the beginning of the second half of the United States, at this point in time. All the later states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, 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. 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.

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.

Also, the War of 1812 began immediately after the territory of Louisiana became a new U.S. state (1812), so the Louisiana Purchase expansion states were also a challenge to British power in the region.

The rest of this second group of 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 mostly the extra territory, or counties of Virginia, owned by the original 13 states, plus Vermont (#14, 1791).

Vermont (#14, 1791) falls into its own category, having been one of the more independent of the original 14 participating republics in the Revolutionary War.)

So, the War of 1812 resulted in no expansion of the United States?

America as polyglot nation in reality.

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 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 sailors to the New Worlds 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.

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 Europe 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.

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 meeney. Hence, his face appears on much of it.

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:

  • Vermont (#14, 1791). 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 is a signal that slavery is doomed.

    This original #14 Vermont anti-slavery expansion stab by our Founding Fathers, soon to be amplified by an 1808 constitutional enablement of banning slave importation, and Washington's freeing of all of his own slaves, could also 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. But Washington and Monroe and Van Buren and Richard M. Johnson were too weak or too flawed. They ought to have ended slavery sooner. The Monroe Re-Africanization effort was a failed early effort to end slavery altogether at a much earlier time than the 1860's, but it ignored reality and synthesis.

    It seems more like an expensive deception than anything else considering how polyglot America was at that moment. Monroe would've had to have deported Spaniards or Mexicans to Monrovia, also, eventually.

  • First Wave - 1792-1803 - Kentucky (15), Tennessee (16), Ohio (17) (Territories of original 13 U.S. states sold to the U.S., or counties of Virginia.)

  • Second Wave - 1812-1907 - Louisiana Purchase and War of 1812 States.

    • War of 1812 states - 1812-1858 - Louisiana (18), Indiana (19), Mississippi (20), Illinois (21), Alabama (22), Maine (23), Missouri (24) - states added immediately due to and after the War of 1812.

      Note that the so-called "Indian Removal" from most of the STATES of the USA, was about 10 to 15 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.

      Later states added and made from territory confirmed as US controlled due originally to the War of 1812, were Arkansas (25), Michigan (26), Florida (27), Iowa (29), Wisconsin (30), Minnesota (32), Kansas (34), and Nebraska (37). These later "War of 1812 states" were initially "Indian lands" controlled by the USA.

      (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.)

    • Louisiana Purchase States - 1812-1907 - Louisiana (18)(parts not obtained from Lousiana Purchase, obtained later, and boundaries changed before and after statehood), Arkansas (25), Missouri (24), Iowa (29), Oklahoma (46), Kansas (34), Nebraska (37), plus parts and/or most of other states such as South Dakota (39 or 40), Colorado (38), Wyoming (44), Montana (41), Wisconsin (30), North Dakota (39 or 40), New Mexico (47), & Minnesota (32).

      (There's overlap in these categories, also. Except for Oklahoma (#46, 1907), one of the last states, this wave ended much sooner - when Nebraska (#37, 1867) became a state.)

  • Third Wave - (1845-1912) All of Texas, plus all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. Parts of other states such as Colorado. (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, 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.)

  • West Virginia (1861) breaks away from Viginia to join the USA during the Civil War. As "contraband enemy territory", Lincoln and the U.S. constitutionally recognize it as legitimate even though the "rebel" Virigina legislature never approved of this.

  • Fifth Wave - (1959-) Alaska, Hawaii. (Alaska, plus U.S. colonial era state(s) added. Only Hawaii joined the U.S. from that group, so far, but unfortunately is associated with its independent Republic of Hawaii which ultimately committed Hari-Kari apparently before annexation, entering the U.S. as mere real estate a few month later. (1893-1897)) History of Hawaii.

I tried to exclude states that don't fall exclusively in one of these waves, but that isn't possible.

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.

NOTE: A Motley Crew of Americans were already winning all of our wars. Both the Revolutionary War (Read the list of names and ethnic transliterated spellings for the British Prison Ships Martyrs kept at the website of the American Merchant Marine, during the Revolutionary War, the prison ships anchored in Wallabout Bay, New York City or in Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Georgia, and ALL OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD in British Ships....), and the War of 1812 were resoundingly won with a very multi-ethnic group of sailors and fighters from Spain, Europe and its colonies, the Orient, and Everywhere Else. (Andrew Jackson's forces in New Orleans, for example.)

Well before the Civil War, the U.S.A. was very multi-ethnic, and quite mixed, especially outside the original 14 states. From Kentucky, our Vice President under Martin Van Buren, Richard M. Johnson, had three mixed-race slave-wives. In Kentucky, what did it matter?

Go west, young man. But in Virginia, it was scandalous. Those types of "questionable" origin people might be sent West. There was room for everyone in Kentucky and Tennessee and Ohio. Or even in the Indian lands before the Civil War.

Alexander McGillivray and William Augustus Bowles were two Native allied educated leaders who might have brought in Alabama and/or Florida as Native dominated U.S. states:

(1787) Georgia now saw an opportunity to appoint a group of commissioners to try to negotiate a cession of the disputed lands along the Oconee. The seven commissioners, through their chairman, John Habersham, invited the Creeks to a conference at Shoulderbone Creek on the Oconee. But the nation refused to capitulate on the terms offered by Georgia. In the spring another United States commissioner appeared, James White, who arrived as the Creeks were convening at Coweta to decide what measures should be taken against Georgia. He left without having brought peace any nearer, but he came to realize that it was a matter of vital importance to the Indians to keep their hunting grounds. "Our lands are our life and breath", sad the Hollowing King, "if we part with them, we part with our blood. We must fight for them."

At the time of this meeting at Coweta in 1787, McGillivray was in control of the nation. But in the ensuing years, the problems became more and more complicated. Spanish support was diminishing. A contention raged over whether Congress has any right to interfere in its (Spain's?) conduct toward the Indians. He (McGillivray) is known to have expressed the wish that the Creek towns might be organized as a state, and admitted to the Union. But Spain ceased to supply ammunition, his intrique with William Augustus Bowles, the adventurer, had incensed the district, and by 1789 there was a strong government in the United States, and President Washington gave his attention to the Creeks. McGillivray and the American commissioners, in the meantime, were carrying on a brisk correspondence.

from History of Russell County

The Proposed State of Muskogee. McGillvery died shortly afterwards, and nothing became of that idea about Alabama Native poltical power, but many in Alabama claim to be part-Native, even today. There's no stigma for that in Alabama in 2011 or in 1850 or at any other time, really. Nor in Tennessee, Kentucky, or Ohio to a great extent.

But in Georgia or New Hampshire, that sort of thing, being "part-Native", is less accepted among the "white-people" there, even today in rural traditional Georgia or Rhode Island than in more "Western" expansion areas, like Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Maine, or Nevada. (Pre-Reconstruction, post-Vermont, expansion states.)

As OPPOSED TO the original 14 states. (Original 13 plus Vermont, #14.)

I really think that multi-ethnic society was totally or partially accepted all or some of the time, in all or most of the U.S. expansion states 1791-1865, especially in the frontier areas.

He, as former and
abdicated President of the Republic of Hawaii,
bowed down, and lay prostrate before
the Conquering Imperial Army and Navy and Marines
of the United States of America
as Conqueror Ueber Alles!!!!

No other President or Governor of a joining State of the United
States has ever acted like that.

Or perhaps, he (former President Sanford Dole) bowed down and said,

"Mahsah!!!!! AHHH NEEDS A JOB!!!!!


NO MAHH!!!!!!!!

NO MAHH!!!!!!!!



Mr. Peach-Fuzz-Face, is that pineapple juice
dripping off of your beard?



President, Territorial Governor, and Federal Judge,
who Benefitted GRANDLY by the end
of, the Republic of Hawaii in 1897.


The two cadavers were dissolved in a vat of strong pineapple juice,
a dijestive enzyme!

CUT OFF SOUND at top of page. Note that this page was written for entertainment purposes only. The actual political history of Hawaii as a new U.S. state is a very proud thing for Hawaiians and the USA both.

This page began when I inquired concerning which state was number 14. That inquiry had nothing to do with the War of 1812. However, learning the sequence of the states after the first 13 planted a seed. When I inquired about which states entered around 1812, I began to inquire about which states entered due to that war. It was astounding to see the differences between the accounts of that from mainstream reference sources, versus more accurate sources. Upon closer examination, I think now that our country would not have survived if not for this war.