Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The influence of the war of independence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The influence of the war of independence
Was the War of 1812 Pointless?
The War of 1812 proved to be the most serious challenge to face the United States since the country's birth. This 'Second war of Independence' perhaps changed American history as we know it though. This essay will discuss the causes for this war assessing whether there actually were valid reasons for the United States and Britain going to war or whether the whole 1812 war was just born out of "pointless aggression"
The war of 1812 was a very unnecessary war. It broke out just as one of its chief causes (The Orders in Council) was removed and its greatest battle (New Orleans) was fought just after peace was signed. The war was unnecessary from a British point of view but for the Americans it was inescapable. The Royal Navy had kidnapped 3,800 American sailors and pressed them into service. The Orders In Council had deprived the United States of a profitable trade with France and can be seen as having ruthlessly subordinated American economic interests to the political interests of the British Empire. American farmers also blamed the orders, perhaps unfairly, for a fall in agricultural prices that produced a depression in the West in the years immediately before the war. On the frontier it was universally believed that Indian restlessness war stirred up by British agents although really American oppression has to be seen as a big cause of this too.
America's war with Britain seemed inevitable although the Americans did everything they decently could to avoid it, although there seemed to be endless provocation by Britain, for example in 1807 when a British frigate, the leopard opened fire on an American frigate the Chesapeake. The choice before America, Jefferson the former president and his successor Madison agreed was war or submission - to fight or to undo one of the main achievements of the revolution and accept total defeat in international affairs to England. As John Quincy Adams put it "It was not a matter of dollars and cents, no alternative was left but war or the abandonment of our right as an independent nation" The offences committed against the United States were the major provocation's for the war, reasons other then vindication can be regarded as rationalisation. There was an obvious anger for what British had done to America and many Americans merely wanted revenge but the war was fought for much more then that.
The primary grievances of the United States that led to war with Britain was Britain interfering with trade on the high seas. According to the primary source handout on the war of 1812, “On 7 january 1807, a British Order in Council had prohibited ships from participating in the coastal trade of France and her allies” (34). The embargoes hurt the U.S far more than they did britain. Britain also were inciting Indian attacks on the frontier. But the number one grievance that lead Madison to declare the war was that british ships continually violated the American flag on the great highway of nation.
The British were the culprits that started this war. The fact that Britain and France were at war highly affected the start of the battle. “…the British were impressing American seaman to help fight the war against Napoleon”. They had been helping the Indians by giving them weapons and helping them “attack the frontier”, they hadn’t left our property and fort...
The colonists were in every right, aspect and mind, not only justified but also it was about time that they stood of and actually take action against the British. The choice of going to war with them, was the only choice that they had. All diplimatical options that they had ceased to stand a chance against the tyrant Britain. From the very beginning when the colonists felt upset against their mother country and the way that they went about the law making, up until the beginning of the war, they tried all diplimatical options that they had, by sending letters, you name it. When they didn’t work then they had no other means but to declare war.
In fact, many Americans did not want war, but instead just wanted to have the same rights as a British man. They felt like their rights were being abused and the only way left to fix that problem was war. The division between the British Empire and her colonies was brewing. Things started to look up when the Stamp Act was repealed.
During this entire period the British were starting to make attempts to intimidate the colonists in hopes to end the rebellions. It seemed that the more and more England tried to scare the people, the angrier they got. The tactics obviously didn't work, but instead pushed the colonists even further into standing up against Britain. The British soldiers in America were told not to entice violence, and especially not to kill anybody.
The French and Indian War and its aftermath ruined the political relationship between Britain and the colonies. After dominating most of North America (Doc. A), Britain decided to tax the colonies even more to help pay for the war. This took a major toll on the relationship between Britain and the American colonies because this lead to the Proclamation of 1763. The Native Americans (Doc. B) believed “they have no Right to settle” which means they didn’t want anyone settling on their land. In (Doc. C) George Washington is asking Robert Orme to have more power and rank higher in the military. Another political change was Britain’s relinquishment of the salutary neglect policy. They put stricter rules on trade and forced taxes on frequently used items. These changes (Doc. F) angered the colonists.
The war of 1812 was not worth fighting for because the cause of the war is that the War Hawks were confident the United States would achieve a quick victory over the British, so they went to war.Another reason why the war of 1812 was not worth fighting for is the cost of this war was too high priced.Also why the war of 1812 was not worth fighting for is the treaty of ghent the treaty of ghent is a treaty that offers a peace agreement and it didn't change any existing borders.In the war of 1812 I think that it hurt people they
After the French Indian War ended, the Britain was in debt, and they also wanted to have more control of the colonies, and the colonists. They passed different acts and procedures in order to collect money, and hold the control of the colonists, and the colonies. Yet the colonists were not given any representation, and they were losing their freedoms one by one; these caused a serious tension between Britain and the colonies, which eventually lead to the American revolution, followed by the Declaration of Independence. The colonies were justified for declaring independence from England, because the king of England caused “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the states”("The
Although America did not win The War of 1812, due to the Battle of Lake Erie, they did not lose it. The war was caused by the impressment of American soldiers, blockades on American trade, and Indian slaughters on the American frontier. James Madison launched The War of 1812 so that the United States would not be taken advantage of, but by doing so, he took on an army fifty times bigger than his own. When it looked like America would lose the war, Oliver Hazard Perry turned the tables and won the deciding battle that allowed James Monroe to sign the Treaty of Ghent and bring peace to the two countries. Although the original conflicts were not solved, they dissipated over time. The War of 1812 may not have solved many problems, but it proved to American’s that they could stand together and prevail over injustice.
The American Revolution was sparked by a myriad of causes. These causes in themselves could not have sparked such a massive rebellion in the nation, but as the problems of the colonies cumulated, their collective impact spilt over and the American Revolution ensued. Many say that this war could have been easily avoided and was poorly handled by both sides, British and American; but as one will see, the frame of thought of the colonists was poorly suited to accept British measures which sought to “overstep” it’s power in the Americas. Because of this mindset, colonists developed a deep resentment of British rule and policies; and as events culminated, there was no means to avoid revolution and no way to turn back.
We live in a world where being medicated has become a societal norm. Modern health care practices have set the stage for the proliferation of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Some of these practices include the emergence of managed care organizations (MCOs), the legalization of DTCA of prescription drugs, the emergence of the Internet as an alternative promotional channel, the increased desire by patients to become more involved in their own health care decisions, the disillusionment with traditional medicine, and the rise of ‘alternative’ medicine, to name a few. There is an ongoing debate as to the ultimate harm or benefit of this relatively recent practice of pharmaceutical manufacturers to direct their promotional efforts away from the physician and towards the consumer.
A work of literature often subtlety alludes to a situation in society that the author finds particularly significant. Susan Glaspell incorporates social commentary into her play Trifles. By doing so, she highlights the gender stratification that exists even in the most basic interactions and presents a way to use this social barrier to an acceptable end. Despite being written almost a century before present day, Glaspell’s findings and resulting solution are still valid in a modern context. Trifles demonstrates the roles of men and women in their everyday behaviour and interaction. The women use their ascribed positions to accomplish what the men cannot and have the ability to deliberately choose not to help the men with their newfound knowledge.
Naidu, Prasant. "Are Social Networks Exploiting Our Security?" Lighthouse Insights. Lighthouse Insights, 7 June 2012. Web. 3 Nov. 2015.
Probably more than any of the early philosophers, Aristotle promoted happiness as a central component of human life. The Greeks used a term, eudaimonia, which is often used as the Greek word for happiness. However, most scholars translate it as “human flourishing” or “well-being of the spirit.” Along with eudaimonia, terms like arete, “virtue”, and phronesis, “practical or moral wisdom”, are at the core of Greek philosophy. So if you could have asked Aristotle “What components or values must a person have in order to live a fulfilling life?” He probably would have answered, “Virtue, wisdom, and spiritual well-being.” Would Aristotle have been pleased with the futuristic world of Fahrenheit 451? Probably not. Certainly, the lack of virtue, learning, and the false sense of happiness would have astonished any of the early philosophers.
Torbet, Patricia, et. al. State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996.