Fresh Air and Common Sense

It was my privilege recently to address the Little Fort Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution again.  The text below is the speech I delivered.

GIVE WAR A CHANCE

by Jim Smith

Madam Regent, members of the Daughters of the American Revolution, it is a pleasure to once again be here to address you, in this meaningful year, the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812.

There is an old saying which is sometimes attributed to George Washington which says “I am a man of peace, but I adore a riot.”  While our first President may or may not have uttered those words, we know this: in his fifth annual report to Congress, he said “If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure the peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”

This year is the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812.  If we look to this conflict early in our nation’s history, and we compare it to the modern world, we find that politics and war … indeed the politics OF war … haven’t changed very much.   Every war has ORIGINS, OPINIONS, OPTIONS, and OUTCOMES.  It was true 200 years ago, it is true now.  Therefore, I have titled today’s presentation “GIVE WAR A CHANCE”.  My sincere apologies to any John Lennon fans in the group.

 Lets start with the historical, and see if it can shed light on the contemporary.  The origins of the War of 1812 are mired in conspiracy theories, and with good reason.  The War of 1812 is often referred to as “the second American revolution.”  It is often said, and for that matter, taught in textbooks, that the young United States, for the second generation in a row, was forced to fight to be free of British domination.

Now, this might be viewed as true through a certain prism, like the liberation prism used by progressives when they speak of the third world freeing itself from western, specifically American, domination.  in 1812, England was one of the world’s superpowers of the day, if you will permit the use of the term in a historical setting about one hundred and fifty years too early.  England was used to getting their way around the world and backed it up with the most powerful navy to ply the seven seas.  The Royal Navy was often referred to as the crown jewel of the British Empire.  With holdings in every corner of the globe, protected by the worlds most powerful navy, truly, as the saying went, the sun never set on the British Empire.

Then, suddenly, challenging the supremacy of the British Empire, the colonies revolt.  After a protracted war, the British surrender at Yorktown.  The Treaty of Paris is signed, and the American Colonies are free.  The treaty was seen by many to be very generous to the colonies, and at the same time, England simply gave Florida to Spain.  Oh, how it must have stung the British to lose fully half of their holdings in the new world with the stroke of a pen.

In-between the signing of the Treaty of Paris and the War of 1812, two other treaties were negotiated between the U.S. and England.  The first was the Jay Treaty, which solved the issue of British troops still occupying forts on American soil.  it did not, however, address the issues of British impressment of American Sailors into duty aboard British warships.  Also missing were resolutions of the issue of free and open trade between the two nations.

Besides those direct issues with Great Britain, there was one more insult perpetrated by the British.  As Americans expanded westward, there was inevitable conflict with native peoples.  The British government was giving material support to natives for their raids against American frontier settlements.  They did this in the hopes that independent native tribes would serve as a buffer between American and British holdings in the new world.

A later attempt to deal with these issues was the Monroe-Pinkney treaty.  However, the treaty was such a failure in dealing with the pressing issues, that President Thomas Jefferson refused to submit it to the Senate to be ratified.

Eventually, with all of these issues simmering, James Madison ascends to the Presidency.  On June 1, 1812, madison recounts all of these issues in a  report to Congress, and Congress declares war of Great Britain.

So we have the origins of the war, minus one which we will deal with later, and now lets take a brief look at the opinions of war.  Interestingly, the opinions of war are pretty static.  They don’t change much through the years.  There are those who see the necessity of war, and those who are vehemently opposed to war.

During the runup to the War of 1812, the two sides came to be known as the “warhawks” and the “doves”.  The warhawks supported the idea of war with England almost to the point of being positively enthusiastic about it.  For them, this would be a war of honor fought against their previous colonial overlords to avenge all of the wrongs they had suffered in the past.  Meanwhile, the doves were against the war, but their opposition was more pragmatic than ideological.  they simply didn’t think it would be wise for the United States to involve itself in another war so quickly after the last one.

The warhawks were also in favor of other actions which lead to the conspiracy theories about the war.  These conspiracy theories are part of the discussion of the options of war.  Everything in life has options, including war.  One option is the option of an offensive war, versus a defensive war.  Immediately  after declaring war, the warhawks in the northern states launched three attacks into British North America, which we now know as Canada.  Warhawks i the northern states had long cast their eyes over the boarder as a way to increase their territory and power.  Another option of war is limited versus total war, strategic strikes versus carpet-bombing, and, as just mentioned, a defensive posture versus an offensive action.  The War of 1812 was one in which the United States participated in both offensive and defensive actions pretty much equally from the start.  There were offenses into the sovereign territory in Canada, but there were battles that were purely defensive.  As a matter of fact, it was one of those defensive struggles at Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the poem which became our national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner”.

Lastly, we can turn our attention to the outcomes of war.  The outcomes of war are not the same as the goals of war.  Goals of war are either achieved or not, but the outcomes are those things that a war causes in a society or culture as a direct consequence of war.  Noone ever declares war saying that their goal is for 2,260 to die (which was the number of U.S. casualties in the War of 1812).  No, the goals are not the outcomes.  The outcomes are a measure of if a nation comes out of a war with a measure of peace, position and prosperity that is grater than when they entered the war.  In other words, once peace is achieved, is a nation in a position to increase its prosperity?

The Treaty of Ghent, signed on Christmas Eve, 1814 provided for a return to the status quo before the war.  Neither side lost territory during the war.  The war did, however, set the table for events that would affect the peace, position and prosperity of the different groups involved in the war.

A series of follow-up treaties set the borders between the United States and Canada, and provided for the demilitarization of the great lakes region, making our border to the north one of the most peaceful in the world.  As a matter of fact, that border was so peaceful that until after the terror attacks of 9/11/01, you didn’t need a passport to cross the US/Canadian border.

There were a few big winners in the War of 1812.  Aside from the forays into Canada, the war was largely a naval war.  In the surge of nationalism that followed the ending of the war, the Navy gained prestige among the US armed forces, receiving a good size increase in it’s budget.  The names of the great naval commanders of the War of 1812, Decatur, Bainbridge and Perry became institutional names in the Navy.

The Democratic-Republican Party, which had developed out of the old Anti-Federalist movement was a huge winner politically.  Most of the Doves were from the Federalist Party, and the Federalist party never recovered from the loss of prestige that resulted in opposing such a “splendid little war.”  Thus, in the aftermath of the War of 1812, the party of George Washington, John Adams and James Madison collapsed, leading to a protracted period of single-party rule in American politics.

Another big winner was the people of British North America.  They viewed themselves as victorious in this war of American aggression, causing a new sense of Canadian national pride.  This new Canadian nationalism became the fertile soil for a quasi-independence movement to spring up, which led to England ceding control of Canada to a local government which was still part of, yet distinct from the rest of the British Empire, when the Dominion of Canada some fifty years after the war.

Three individuals were also big winners.  Three of the most successful commanders of the War of 1812, gained political position, Richard Mintor Johnson was elected Vice-President, and two of them, Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison became President.  And in an interesting twist, it is the wife of President Harrison who was the first president of your own organization, the Daughters of the American Revolution. 

About the only losers in the aftermath of the War of 1812 were the native tribal nations.  They were used as Pawns by the British and discarded when they were no longer useful, and they were treated as defeated enemies by the United States.

Now that we have looked at the origins, opinions, options and outcomes of the War of 1812, what can we take away from this as citizens of the United States in the year 2012?  I am not opposed to war, but I am a pragmatist.  Like George Washington, I believe thatthe best way to avoid war, is to always be ready to fight one, and to have the will to do so.  In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas said that “in order for a war to be just, three things are necessary.  First the Authority of the sovereign.  Secondly, a just cause.  Thirdly a rightful intention.”  

Notice, that Aquinas says nothing about popular support.  Why? Because public opinion can change dramatically over time.  At the start of the War in Iraq, popular support was as high as 67% in January 2003.  By December 2008, that support had dwindled to 34%  While entire volumes could be written examining why the support for the war diminished, that doesn’t take away from the fact that it did.  

Is there such a thing as a just war?  I would argue that yes, sometimes wars are both necessary and just.  Two thousand years ago, a Roman citizen could walk the breadth of the known world secure in the fact that he could do so unmolested, because he was protected by pax Romana, the peace of Rome.  The peace of Rome was a tangible thing, because Rome would send in military forces to punish any nation or province that treated its citizens with dishonor.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  President Carter had a negotiator in Iran trying vainly to secure the release of the American hostages.  As Inauguration Day approached, the negotiator from the Carter Administration was asked by the Iranians when they could expect a negotiator from the new administration.  The Carter negotiator told him the Reagan was unlikely to send a negotiator, as one of the promises he had made during the campaign was that we would use the military to get our citizens back.  As most everyone is aware, the hostages were released on Inauguration Day, at 12:01 after Reagan took the oath of office.

The United States needs to return to some of the principles that that first generation of Americans espoused.  Have a strong military, and have a credible threat to use it in the just cause of protecting our citizens.