Mad King George and the War of 1812

[Sommerswerd]

Cuba and Mexico they never really tried to annex

Well...

What about this (Cuba)?

and This (Mexico)?

 

[Traitorfish]

It was the age of empires... It was only only natural that the americans would make a grab for Canada. That was their sole land grab to fail. Cuba and Mexico they never really tried to annex, there were too many cubans and mexicans there to be absorbed or killed.

I wonder if history would have been different had the americans set up a monarchy instead of a republic. Acquiring subjects was less of a problem for monarchies.

The trick there is that Americans had a very peculiar sense of monarchy. On the one hand, they didn't draw a strong distinction between "subject" and "citizenship": monarchy for them was not simply a source of authority, but a set of mutual obligations. They believed in the ideal of the "free-born Englishman" with a fanaticism that was never really appreciated until they stopped being Englishmen. On the other, their pre-revolutionary monarchism was aggressively Hanoverian and Protestant, excepting the quiet Jacobite sympathies of certain Southern gentlemen, and regarded any Papist within the borders of the realm as inherently menacing- one of the less-romanticised grievances raised by the patriots was British toleration of French Catholic in Quebec- and there's little indication that, for all the secular ideals of the leading Patriots, the greater mass of Americans had really abandoned those assumptions.

 

[Flying Pig]

It was the age of empires... It was only only natural that the americans would make a grab for Canada. That was their sole land grab to fail. Cuba and Mexico they never really tried to annex, there were too many cubans and mexicans there to be absorbed or killed.

I wonder if history would have been different had the americans set up a monarchy instead of a republic. Acquiring subjects was less of a problem for monarchies.

Hang on - as has been pointed out, they definitely did make grabs for Cuba and Mexico. The problem was that most of the previous American expansions - Texas and Louisiana being the textbook examples - meant expanding American sovereignty over people who wanted it (at least if we ignore those of them who weren't white or, well, not Mormons), or could at least comfortably be imagined becoming part of a (white, basically Protestant) American nation. Actual imperialism (again, you have to put yourself in that nineteenth-century mindset where natives count about as much as bison in this equation) and imposing government over vaguely 'civilised', Christian people didn't sit well with the idea of what Manifest Destiny was supposed to mean. There was also the other side of it - that it was the Manifest Destiny of the (white, vaguely Protestant) American people to expand across the continent, and making brown, Catholic people into Americans had uncomfortable implications for what that word meant.

I'm not sure what you're saying about monarchies. Are you saying that they were less prone to land-grabs? If so, the British might want a word, given that the Oregon dispute (in which the US came close to demanding most of the populated bit of Canada) concluded just about a decade before Britain formally annexed India, and acquired two and a half million new subjects. If you're saying that they were more successful about it, the British might again complain about their ongoing frustrations in Central Asia or in Africa, where they were hardly able to expand unchecked.

Also, as TF has pointed out, the early American Republic was considered essentially a monarchy - certainly not a democracy. The executive powers of the President are essentially identical to those of the British crown, and there was a colossal fuss over what to call him. John Adams pressed for 'Your Highness' or 'Your Majesty': the alternative was 'your Excellency', but Washington eventually plumped for 'Mr President' not because those were too grand, but because a good number of people thought 'Your Excellency' wasn't grand enough!

 

[Cutlass]

The US did take Cuba. But made it a vassal state rather than a territory. Same with the Philippians. The only time Americans seriously considered making Cuba or Mexico states was to add slave states to the mix in Congress. Otherwise adding that many brown Catholics to the citizens was just not acceptable.

 

[Flying Pig]

The Philippines became a US Territory in 1898. As part of the same action (the end of the Spanish-American War), Cuba was set up with a constitution that could indeed be described as a 'vassal state' (or 'self-governing colony', as was the phrase used at the time). Making either a state was never in question, but the contrast between annexation as a territory and hands-off control was not one of brownness, Catholicism or population.

 

[Cutlass]

No, it really was. But what you seem to be missing is that that issue of not annexing them because of browness and Catholicism was settled more than half a century before the Spanish American War. If they didn't discuss that issue at that time, it's because the "question" really wasn't a question at all. It was settled, and settled to the point where it no longer had to be said.

 

[innonimatu]

Hang on - as has been pointed out, they definitely did make grabs for Cuba and Mexico. The problem was that most of the previous American expansions - Texas and Louisiana being the textbook examples - meant expanding American sovereignty over people who wanted it (at least if we ignore those of them who weren't white or, well, not Mormons), or could at least comfortably be imagined becoming part of a (white, basically Protestant) American nation.

That was my point: the US could have moved to annex Mexico and Cuba after its war victories. They refused to do so because they didn't want the mexicans and cubans that would come with it. Even when those wars were launched the intention was to create satellite states. In the case of Mexico also consolidate territorial grabs of what was at the time marginal lands. Seriously they only tried (and succeeded) to annex the west (they managed that), and Canada (failed, the British Empire at the time was strong enough to give them pause).

I'm not sure what you're saying about monarchies. Are you saying that they were less prone to land-grabs? If so, the British might want a word, given that the Oregon dispute (in which the US came close to demanding most of the populated bit of Canada) concluded just about a decade before Britain formally annexed India, and acquired two and a half million new subjects. If you're saying that they were more successful about it, the British might again complain about their ongoing frustrations in Central Asia or in Africa, where they were hardly able to expand unchecked.

No, I meant that monarchies were more prone to land grabs. Even the obviously dangerous ones: the Hapsburgs annexing into Bosnia, or the russian tsars grabbing all of central Asia. The idea was that "national loyalties" did not matter, sovereigns just grabbed or swapped around territories and populations, whether by war or marriage. And that had been the case. Until "nationalism", we may say, changed that. But it was not really nationalism but one of its components, arguably the most important one: "popular sovereignty". The population were no longer passive subjects of a monarch. They were now the main actors of the political unit. And the political institution for these states was the republic.

The US, being a republic, had to recognize popular sovereignty: sooner or later its territories would be organized into states and the representatives of its populations would gain seats at the high table. Problem was, those already sitting at the table were horrified at the idea of having mexicans sitting on it! Filthy catholics, peasants, layabouts, and whatnot... worse, they'd not be just a few, but rather a lot, enough to become a major power block. Thus mexico could not be annexed, the ruling elites would rather refuse to take that territory.

This has happened in several other instances, even in the breakup of the european empires. Only the french kept a few possessions giving the local population the vote, but only because those were small enough that they'd not sway politics in Paris. Keeping Algerians as french citizens and letting them vote parliamentarians was equally horrifying to any frenchman, which is why De Gaulle terminated most of the french empire. Ruling elites don't want to share their power with unpredictable newcomers from assimilated territories. So, only territories with sparse populations (and few representatives to appoint) get annexed. The others may be kept occupied as long as feasible (diplomatically, militarily) but are not formally annexed. The obvious present example of this is Israel.

Also, as TF has pointed out, the early American Republic was considered essentially a monarchy - certainly not a democracy. The executive powers of the President are essentially identical to those of the British crown, and there was a colossal fuss over what to call him. John Adams pressed for 'Your Highness' or 'Your Majesty': the alternative was 'your Excellency', but Washington eventually plumped for 'Mr President' not because those were too grand, but because a good number of people thought 'Your Excellency' wasn't grand enough!

It was different from a monarchy in the very important aspect that the population of its territories got to elect representatives to sit at the table where power was wielded: it was part of american political ideology and could not easily be put aside. Monarchies like the British Empire (and other european states at the time) did not allow that to its imperial provinces. I think the British Empire only ever tried it with Ireland, and failed. Other bits it would rather cut off (turning developed colonies into Domains, quitting colonies) rather that grant them proportional representation in London.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's a slightly rosy view of how things are for US Territories - they have a representative in Congress, but that representative isn't allowed to vote. They also don't get a vote on the Presidency. Americans had no problem riding roughshod over the principle that the governed should have a say in the government (particularly the Presidency), so it seems odd to make the ritual of voting for somebody into the ideological hill that they chose to die on. Ireland, by the way, had and has (the bits still attached, anyway) full representation in Parliament - Irish MPs could vote on all legislation, while Puerto Rico's delegate still cannot vote on anything except procedural matters or as part of a committee.

 

[innonimatu]

True, but Puerto Rico declined efforts to become a state. And they never made much noise about demanding independence either. Other annexed territories such as Hawaii have long ago become states. And those with too high and too different a population (Philippines) were cut off.

I'm not really knowledgeable about how representation for the Irish worked out during the 19th century. They were few and I assumed that the voting system favored the election of candidates put forth by the landed anglican lords established in Ireland. Making Ireland a territory that sometimes raised problems but was easy enough to carry without disturbing politics in London, until they started demanding Home Rule. In an irish parliament the catholics who resented the crown would be numerous enough to seriously make a grab for power. Is this at all correct?

 

[Cutlass]

Puerto Rican independence or statehood is an odd situation. There's a lot of the elite of PR who gain a lot of benefit from commonwealth/territory status, and so they act to block either of the other options. And there have always been factions in the US Congress which have acted to block it as well. And by the tactic of making the the ballots for Independence/statehood/commonwealth always a 3 way choice it makes it certain that no one of the 3 choices will get a clear majority. And because none of the choices have a clear majority, the status quo wins by default.

The people of PR have never been offered a clear and fair choice between independence and statehood.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

That was my point: the US could have moved to annex Mexico and Cuba after its war victories. They refused to do so because they didn't want the mexicans and cubans that would come with it. Even when those wars were launched the intention was to create satellite states. In the case of Mexico also consolidate territorial grabs of what was at the time marginal lands. Seriously they only tried (and succeeded) to annex the west (they managed that), and Canada (failed, the British Empire at the time was strong enough to give them pause).

The U.S. didnt annex Mexico and Cuba for different reasons.

Mexico wasn't fully annexed for 3 main reasons:

1. Size- The occupation of such a large swath of territory, which was very populated compared to the territory which the U.S. actually took, was probably beyond the ability of the U.S. military of the day. Not only did the U.S. not have a regular army big enough to, the concept of enlarging that regular army was a very contentious issue at the time.
2. Population- Many U.S. politicians were very concerned by the idea of incorporating a huge number of Spanish-speaking Catholics to the WASP 19th century America.
   
3. Politics- The location of all of Mexico proper would have de facto made them slave states, which was a non-starter for the "balance" between the slave and free states of the day.

As for Cuba, the U.S. went to war in defense of the Cuban independence movement. Both at home and abroad, the idea of the U.S. just replacing the Spanish flag with an American one was not gonna fly. The U.S. did do a decent job of making Cuba an economic dependent of the U.S., which lasted until Castro.

 

[trev1972]

Canada was actually a side issue. The cause of the War of 1812 was (more or less) that British ships would stop American ships and impress American seamen into Royal Navy service. And in other ways British didn't treat the US as an actual independent country.

But, to be fair, had Madison waited another month or two before beginning the war, he would have found that a diplomatic resolution of most issues was already reached by the diplomats. Just the transportation delay meant that Madison hadn't yet learned of it.

I actually think that wasnt the main issue to be honest, i think canada was the primary goal, and the restriction of trade with france was the secondary cause- it was the time of 'manifest destiny'. Impressment wasnt even mentioned in the peace treaty.

It was a strange war, not remembered in the UK. I think it is lucky for the americans that the british decided not to continue the blockade they imposed from 1814 when the navy could be spared. The country was brought close to bankruptcy, but to be honest as a 'nation of shopkeepers' we were eager to resume trade and hadnt really made any gains on land at all.

 

[innonimatu]

Sure. But in practice the Royal Navy wasn't actually making that distinction. They could claim anyone was British. And the proof wasn't really available.

Not only that, they didn't have a right to seize people from another nation's ships.

 

[Zkribbler]

Canada was actually a side issue. The cause of the War of 1812 was (more or less) that British ships would stop American ships and impress American seamen into Royal Navy service..

There's a strong argument fot this point, in that this was the focus of the President's message to Congress. However, the anti-war votes came from the Federalist Party, which was concentrated in the northeastern states, where shipping was located. The pro-war votes came from the Republicans, concentrated in the West and South. There, the British had violated their treaty obligation to pull out of forts in US territory, such as Detroit.

 

[plarq]

Maybe this was the case when the US was small and the ratio of people to congress seat is lower. Today the elites are not afraid of importing Hispanic people much to the dismay of white lower middle class.