War Hawks Span the Centuries of American Foreign PolicyWar Hawks Span the Centuries

Written by Michael Streich

Decoded Past

Henry Clay was a young leader in the war hawks congressional faction who vocally advocated war with Great Britain in 1812. Image courtesy of Library of Congress, artist unknown.

Virginia Congressman John Randolph coined the term war hawk to refer to those in favor of going to war with Britain at the beginning of the 19th century.

In 1812 America was anything but a unity of happy states moving toward becoming a continental power. The Louisiana Purchase had opened new lands to feed the insatiable westward movement of colonists. That movement enticed European immigrants and depopulated America’s northeast. It also displaced Native cultures, some of which were still aligned with British forces in Canada, and the British seized the opportunity to turn the natives against American frontier settlements. Most of the newly acquired lands were agriculturally oriented and the settlers had no love of Britain, unlike the northeast cities like Boston whose survival depended on European trade.

The War of 1812 had many causes but the greatest blame rests with a few vocal members of Congress known as War Hawks, as well as a blundering foreign policy that left no room for negotiation. At issue were a number of grievances affecting American trade, as Great Britain and Napoleonic France attempted to interdict commerce in order to weaken each other.

British ships stopped American vessels illegally, seizing sailors and accusing them of being British navy deserters. This policy of “impressments” was egregious, violating the sovereignty of the new nation. Even as the Napoleonic Wars were slowly ending in Europe, British upper classes supported strong action in America, viewing the United States as an upstart nation, if a “nation” at all.

The War Hawks of 1812

Several influential American politicians, determined to put an end to British strong-arm tactics, advocated expansion into Canada: the very first military ventures would be aimed at “taking Canada.” These vocal war hawks represented the Southeast and the emerging new states carved out of the Louisiana Purchase. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and House Speaker Henry Clay of Kentucky led the faction calling for war with Great Britain.

This painting depicts the HMS Shannon closing on the American frigate Chesapeake. Painting by R. Dodd, 1813, courtesy of U.S. Library of Congress.

Among the primary causes of the war were the British Orders in Council, which placed severe restrictions on American shipping. Ships were seized and their cargoes confiscated. This caused insurance rates for shippers to spiral and resulted in numerous congressional measures designed to force an end to both British and French actions.

By 1812 the Napoleonic wars were ending and the British repealed the Orders in Council, but the repeal came too late. The congressional war hawks pressured President Madison into a war declaration, which was passed before word of the British repeal reached Washington City. The lack of any senior American envoy in London contributed to the failure of diplomacy.

John McCain reflects contemporary war hawk rhetoric, most recently over the Arab Spring in Libya and the escalation of civil war in Syria. Official government photo courtesy of US Library of Congress.

Postmodern War Hawks

The term war hawks is still used today to characterize those advocating war as an appropriate response in conflict situations. The contemporary Arab Spring, for example, continues to elicit American responses in terms of military intervention. This was true in Libya and is true in the current Syrian civil war. Senators like South Carolina Lindsey Graham and Arizona Senator John McCain have been labeled war hawks by colleagues and critics.

Grace Wyler, writing in the May 18, 2013 Business Insider, refers to McCain as “a staunch foreign policy hawk.” A similar observation was made by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul during his recent filibuster concerning drone warfare. Drone warfare, along with cruise missiles, may be the perfect replacement for “boots on the ground.” Hawks have always been used in hunting and, ironically, a new drone under development in Germany by Northrop Grumman is dubbed “Euro Hawk.”

War Hawks Prey on Reality

War with Britain in 1812 was caused, in part, by the words and actions of war hawks like Clay and Calhoun despite lack of national spirit or preparation. The previous Jefferson administration had cut defense spending, leaving Madison to rely on the militia and a few seasoned officers. Historian Page Smith comments, “It is a gross error to fight a new war with the heroes of an older one.”

Ultimately, the war changed no boundaries, left the new nation deep in debt, and exacerbated sectional disunity. The nation’s capital, Washington City, was a smoldering ruins. Clay and Calhoun, however, emerged on a path that would make them among the most celebrated politicians in the pre-Civil War years.

In 1812, war hawks used both political ends and popular opinion to achieve their results. Whether an appeal to nationalism, the so-called “romance” of a war fought for a good cause, or the postmodern impersonal nature of conflicts as characterized by drones, war hawks compromise diplomacy, hardly viewing militarism as a last resort and as the last necessary part of an overall grand strategy. If 1812 is a case study, then how many other wars might have been avoided by means other than military action?

Resources

Hickey, Donald R. The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. (1989). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Smith, Page. The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic. (1980). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Wyler, Grace. IT‘S WAR: John McCain and Lindsey Graham Just Ripped Into Rand Paul On The Senate Floor. (March 7, 2013). Business Insider. Accessed May 18, 2013.

Copyright Michael Streich, Published in Decoded Past

 

Lincoln, American Slavery and the Anniversary of Ft Sumter

Dec 14, 2010 Michael Streich

Lincoln and American Slavery - Earl53/Morguefile Photo

Lincoln accepted the legality of slavery, unlike some of his Republican colleagues, but questioned its morality, setting the stage for Ft Sumter and war.

2011 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the outbreak of the Civil War. On April 12, 1861, Fort Sumter was bombarded by Confederate cannons in Charleston, South Carolina; the fort’s commander, Major Robert Anderson, surrendered the next day.

What caused the disunity between North and South? President Lincoln provided the answer in his March 4, 1865 Second Inaugural Address: “One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves…localized in the [South]…These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.” Slavery, according to Lincoln, was an “American” problem.

Further Clues to Slavery in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address

In his third paragraph, Lincoln links the “bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil” with the blood drawn by the sword. This was his explanation for the Civil War, tied to the judgment of a just God. American slavery was an offense, a stumbling block that “He now wills to remove…”

That slavery was intricately tied to the conflict was always known. In 1858, New York Senator William Henry Seward, in a speech delivered in Rochester, New York, stated that, “…the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slave-holding nation or entirely a free labor nation.” This was Seward’s “irrepressible conflict” speech.

Lincoln himself spoke of a “house divided” in Springfield, Illinois June 16, 1858. Lincoln proclaimed that, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.” When southern states began to leave the Union, Lincoln reread the opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall, determining that “states’ rights” did not abrogate the Constitution or the doctrine of federal supremacy.

Lincoln and the Legality of American Slavery

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson asserted that, “…all men are created equal…” During the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln, in response to Douglas’ interpretation that Jefferson never meant to include non-whites, rebutted that the statement represented a “promise” for future generations.

Although Lincoln rejected Southern justifications based on biblical passages that appeared to condone slavery, he also maintained that as long as slavery was the law of the land, he would not touch it. This was one of the points Lincoln made in his First Inaugural Address.

In a March 6, 1860 speech given in New Haven, Connecticut, Lincoln concurred with Seward’s notion of an “irrepressible conflict” and stated, “Does anything in any way endanger the perpetuity of the Union but that single thing, slavery?” Yet Lincoln also supported efforts to resettle emancipated slaves.

In 1862, slaves in the District of Columbia were finally emancipated by Congress, the final bill signed by Lincoln. Lincoln applauded the fund that had been set up to relocate the former slaves outside of the United States.

Lincoln and the Biblical Foundation of a Civil Theology

Political Science professor Joseph Fornieri identifies several key elements of Lincoln’s biblical opposition to slavery. He includes Lincoln’s “…affirmation of a common humanity created in the image of God…” as well as the “Golden Rule,” and the “Great Commandment.”

In many of his writings, including the 2nd Inaugural, Lincoln refers to Genesis 3.19 in which man was to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, not another man’s. His writings also show displeasure with Southern proslavery arguments as seen in a May 30, 1864 letter to Baptists in which he compared the Christian acceptance of slavery to Satan’s temptation of Christ.

Lincoln’s Views on Slavery as Perceived in the South

When Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, the Charleston Mercury predicted that the Underground Railroad would become the “Over ground Railroad” and that the individual value of slaves would drop dramatically. Referring to the gathering “storm,” historian David Detzer writes that, “…at its core lay the fear white Southerners had about the possibility of slavery’s demise…that Lincoln…might attempt to free the slaves.”

Lincoln’s Republican rival at the national convention in 1860 was New York Senator William Henry Seward. Seward was far blunter in his views on slavery, denying any there was any Constitutional recognition of property in man. On another occasion, Seward stated that, “…there is no Christian nation, thus free to choose as we are, which would establish slavery.” In 1850, as a freshman Senator involved in the Compromise debates, he declared that “there is a higher law than the Constitution…”

All Knew that the Slavery Interest was the Cause of the War

Lincoln managed to portray the “offense” of slavery both as a secular and a theological issue. Slavery violated the “just” nature of God as well as the supposed Enlightenment “republicanism” of Jefferson’s Declaration.

The 150th anniversary of Ft. Sumter will produce many writings on Lincoln, slavery, Republicans, Southern Democrats, and reignite a fierce debate as to the role of the “peculiar” institution in the coming of war. Despite these debate differences, the discussions will be worthwhile, forcing Americans to reread Lincoln, Seward, and other leaders for clues and explanations.

Sources:

• Gabor S. Boritt, editor, Why The Civil War Came (Oxford University Press, 1996)
• David Detzer, Dissonance: The Turbulent Days Between Fort Sumter and Bull Run (Harcourt, Inc., 2006)
• The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Joseph R. Fornieri, editor (Regenery, 2003)
• Ray Raphael, Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past (The New Press, 2004)
• Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Lincoln and the Slaves in the District of Columbia

Dec 17, 2010 Michael Streich

Slaves in DC are Finally Free - Library of Congress Image

In January 1849 Congressman Abraham Lincoln offered a Resolution to end slavery in the nation's capital that offered compromises to the South and the North.

Abraham Lincoln served in the National Legislature, the U.S. Congress, from March 4, 1847 until March 3, 1849 as a Whig from Illinois. His one congressional term came at one of the most turbulent times in American history. Representative Lincoln witnessed the outbreak of the Mexican War, Polk’s determination to fulfill his promise of hyper-expansionism, and the aftermath of the war that made the expansion of American slavery the most heated topics of congressional debate. On January 10, 1849, Lincoln offered his own Resolution addressing slavery in the District of Columbia.

The Constitutional Protection of Slavery and the Institution in the District

Although Northern political leaders like Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery into the new territories obtained from Mexico, they accepted the constitutional legality of the institution where it already existed. Lincoln said as much in his First Inaugural Address. But slavery in the District of Columbia presented a unique argument: the District had been created after the Constitution and was not part of any state.

Slavery in the nation’s capital, particularly the slave auctions and the sight of manacled slaves led through the DC streets, was offensive to many in the North and seemed inimical to a democratic society. On December 16, 1835, the question of abolishing slavery in Washington was firmly addressed by Southern congressmen rankled by the increasing petitions to Congress submitted by Northern representatives.

After Maine Representative John Fairfield presented a petition signed by 172 ladies proposing the abolition of slavery in DC, the House Speaker entertained a Southern motion to table the petition. This became procedure until Southern representatives took their actions further by refusing to even accept petitions that addressed abolition, ultimately leading to a "gag order."

Lincoln’s Resolution to Abolish DC Slavery by Referendum

A December 1848 Resolution, sponsored by the Northern “Conscience Whigs” to abolish slavery in the District, failed. Lincoln’s January 10, 1849 Resolution, a compromise effort, left the decision to the voters within the District, all white males 21-years old or older that had resided in the District for one year. Lincoln believed that the question of Washington slavery should be decided by the people.

Significantly, Lincoln’s Resolution also called for the education of all children born of slave mothers as of January 1, 1850, the date the Resolution would take effect if approved by the voters. According to his Resolution, these children would be, “…supported and educated, by the respective owners of their mothers…” These children would go through an apprenticeship program which, when completed, would lead to full emancipation.

Slave owners would be compensated by the federal government for the value of their slaves, that valuation determined by a board comprised of the President, the Secretary of State, and the Treasury Secretary. Those exempted from the Resolution included Southern officials working in Washington, DC that brought their slaves as “servants.”

Other Caveats in Lincoln’s Abolition Resolution

Section 5 of Lincoln’s Resolution addresses fugitive slaves. The District bordered slave states and the abolition of slavery in Washington would serve as an added inducement for slaves to flee from their bondage. In the years before the Civil War, Border States were losing slaves in increasing numbers. This prompted Maryland Senator Pratt, during the Compromise of 1850 Senate debates, to offer the Pratt Amendment that called for federal compensation for all fugitive slaves.

Section 5 is very short – only one sentence, reiterating former Fugitive Slave laws and not enough to mollify Southern political leaders or planters. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was far more comprehensive, making it the most odious part of the 1850 Compromise in the eyes of many Northerners.

Lincoln also exempted involuntary servitude in conjunction with “punishment for a crime” after a legal conviction. This same language later appeared in the 13th Amendment that gave Constitutional legality to slave emancipation.

Failure of Lincoln’s Resolution to Abolish Slavery in Washington, DC

Lincoln’s Resolution may have failed, but his ideas were a template for future discussion, debate, and legislation. The Resolution also highlights Lincoln’s views that slave emancipation must involve education. It is also noteworthy that Lincoln had confidence in the decision-making capacity of voters. In his November 19, 1863 Gettysburg Address, Lincoln defined American government as, “…of the people, by the people, for the people…”

Henry Clay’s 1850 Compromise, ultimately passed through the efforts of Stephen A. Douglas, ended slave auctions in the District, although permitting slavery to exist in the shadow of the Capitol and the White House. It took a bloody Civil War to end that. Lincoln’s January 1849 Resolution was a harbinger of those future events.

Sources:

• William W. Freehling, The Road To Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854 (Oxford University Press, 1990)
• Michael F. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s (W.W. Norton & Company, 1978)
• The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Joseph R. Fornieri, editor (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003)
• William Lee Miller, Arguing About Slavery: The Great Battle in the United States Congress (Alfred A. Knopf, 1996)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Supreme Court Protects Big Business in the Gilded Age

Dec 22, 2010 Michael Streich

Gilded Age Court Protected Big Business - kconner photo image

The post-Reconstruction Supreme Court supported corporations by linking the 14th Amendment's due process clause to the doctrine of vested rights.

With the start of the Hayes administration and the ending of Reconstruction in 1877, profound changes were transforming America from a predominantly rural society to one that was urban. By 1900, fifty percent of all Americans lived in cities, a significant rise from the sixteen percent recorded in 1860. Much of this was due to Industrialization, a process enhanced by the Civil War years, creating a strong relationship between corporations and politics. The final piece of the puzzle confirming the laissez faire policies of American business came, however, with the transformation of the federal courts and their interpretation of the Fourteen Amendment’s due process clause.

State Legislatures Pass Statutes Regulating Private Businesses

One result of the growth of American manufacturing and business enterprises was the attempt by various state legislatures, notably in the mid-west where farmers suffered economically, to pass statutes regulating business practices. In Munn v Illinois (1877), for example, the Supreme Court upheld the legislature’s right to regulate under the notion of state policing powers.

In the earlier 1873 Slaughterhouse cases, arising out of Louisiana, the same court revived the idea of dual citizenship, enunciated by earlier courts as in Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. In both the Munn and the Slaughterhouse cases, the appellants sought relief under the due process clause as found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The high court, however, seeking to determine the intent of the writers of the amendment, concluded that the due process clause as well as the equal protection clause was written to benefit Southern blacks in their struggle to realize political equality. Within a few years, however, the Supreme Court reversed itself, linking the due process clause to the doctrine of vested rights.

Response to State Regulation of Private Industry

Business leaders in the Gilded Age reacted swiftly to the regulations passed by state legislatures, often because special interest groups like the farmer’s Grange movement had elected their own to state assemblies. With the exception of Grover Cleveland, post-Reconstruction presidents were Republicans. The Republican Party was deeply tied to the interests of big business.

Republican presidents began to appoint pro-business judges, many with backgrounds as corporate attorneys. But even Cleveland was not immune from the practice of appointing men with pro-business leanings. These new judges realigned the Court's position on state regulation of businesses.

Under Cleveland, the Interstate Commerce Commission was created in order to control railroad rates, partially in response to the Grange movement. But the commission board members were tied to the railroad industry while the ICC itself had no enforcement power.

Business also increased lobbying efforts on the state level, in some cases resorting to bribery as in Pennsylvania. Pro-business newspapers like the New York Times portrayed movements like the Grange and later Populism as socialism with the intent of wealth redistribution. Such propaganda confirmed what many Americans already feared: a paternalistic government intent on interfering in the lives of its citizens.

The Supreme Court Reverses Itself on State Regulation of Business

By the 1880s, a new Supreme Court with different faces that were decidedly pro-business and defenders of laissez faire, reversed former court opinions, asserting that state legislatures were limited in regulating business practices. States that deprived enterprises through regulations violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court applied the due process clause to vested rights. This transition to “substantive due process” ultimately freed business from onerous statutes that could, to some degree, interfere with the most basic rights of an industry to reap profits. In effect, corporations were treated as people, a significant deviation from the intent of the writers crafting the amendment.

Response of the American People to the Court’s Support of Big Business

Most Americans supported the politics of the Gilded Age as well as the implementation of pro-business policies. Thus, many Americans supported the Supreme Court’s decisions. There were several reasons for this. Middle class Americans accepted the propaganda that populists were a danger to the democracy and the prosperity of the nation.

By 1900, the United States was producing more iron and steel annually than Great Britain and Germany combined. The Industrial Revolution, while creating a class of “new money” millionaires, also benefited the rising middle class. This included greater varieties of fresh meats and produce, clothing, household labor-saving devices, and leisure time recreation. The problems of the western farmers or the Southern sharecroppers were simply not substantial or effective enough to warrant changes.

Substantive Due Process and the Gilded Age Supreme Court

Substantive due process prevented unreasonable state interference with private property. This included corporations, namely railroads and other utility businesses. On one level, the judiciary was responding to the lightening changes in American society, interpreting the Constitution through the prism of an industrialized society.

On another level, the courts gave the “green light” to business, freeing industry from unreasonable oversight and regulatory measures. It would not be until the Progressive Era that government attempted to seek a balance.

Sources:

• Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development, Fifth Edition (W.W. Norton & Company, 1976)
• Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)
• Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post-Reconstruction Era (Penguin Books, 1990)
• Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (Harper Perennial, 2010)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Tippecanoe and the Great Sign of 1811

Tecumseh's Unification of Native American Tribes at Prophet's Town

Share Article|

Jan 13, 2010 Michael Streich

The attack at Tippecanoe by William Henry Harrison occurred while Tecumseh was gathering tribes in the South and left the Indian coalition shattered.

Shawnee Chief Tecumseh spent over ten years preparing a plan to unify native tribes in order to drive white settlers from the American frontier. In the absence of Tecumseh, however, the plan failed in the early hours of November 7, 1811 when William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory, marched a 900 man army against Prophet’s Town on the Tippecanoe River. Although only 38 warriors died in the battle, the ensuing panic dispersed the various tribes, ending Tecumseh’s dream of a united Indian front against ever expanding white settlements.

Tecumseh and the Prophet

At Tecumseh’s birth, a sign in the heavens foretold his greatness as a leader. His name in Shawnee meant “Panther Passing Across,” given to him by his father Pucksinwah after witnessing a meteor passing in the night sky at the time of the birth. Even as a teenager, Tecumseh’s intelligence and power of oratory were noted by the chiefs. Tecumseh also possessed a singular ability: he could foretell future events.

It was Tecumseh’s younger brother, Tenskwatawa, who would be associated with prophecy, only because he was told what to say by his brother. He became known as the Prophet, taking his role more seriously as he got older. It was Tenskwatawa who stirred the gathered warriors at Tippecanoe into war frenzy, promising them that the bullets of the white army would not harm them.

The Battle at Tippecanoe River

Governor Harrison, alarmed at reports that thousands of warriors at Prophet’s Town were preparing an attack, took the offense in September 1811, marching his army toward the Indian encampment. Increased attacks on white settlements confirmed for Harrison that the Indian coalition was poised to strike.

Tecumseh, however, was in the South, visiting other tribes and pressing them to join his league. The Cherokees, Seminoles, and Lower Creeks responded to his call, as did many lesser tribes. Throughout his travels, Tecumseh promised a sign in the immediate future that would signal the moment of attack. It would be a sign like none other and confirm beyond any doubt his role as messenger of the Great Spirit.

By November 5th, Harrison’s army was within ten miles of Prophet’s Town. As Harrison advanced, the Prophet told the warriors that he had been assured, through messages from the Great Spirit, that half of Harrison’s army was already dead while the other half was insane. In their attack, they would be magically protected; no bullets would strike them. In the early hours of November 7th, they attacked, rushing forward unexposed – atypical for warriors trained to fight from cover.

Destruction of the Prophet’s Town and the Great Sign

As the demoralized warriors fled, Harrison’s army plundered the town, finding unopened cases containing British rifles. The British had been supplying the Indians with weapons and ammunition, often at no cost. The carefully constructed coalition of Shawnee, Wyandots, Senecas, Ottowas, Winnebagos, and dozens more was shattered.

The Prophet was disgraced and held in contempt by Tecumseh who returned after the disaster. The only option left was to ally with the British and Tecumseh began a new campaign to unite the tribes under the English who were more than willing to arm the tribes and pay for scalps.

The harbinger of the great sign was another fantastic streak of light, much like that at Tecumseh’s birth, on November 16th. But the sign itself began one month later, December 16th, when the first of several earthquakes and aftershocks rocked the land from the Great Lakes down to Tennessee and Kentucky. The final tremor, on February 13th, 1812, left a sea of destruction. Land disappeared, creating new lakes. According to reports of witnesses, the mighty Mississippi flowed backward for a time. The great sign convinced many tribes to join the British, just as the War of 1812 was about to start.

Sources:

• Allan W. Eckert, The Frontiersmen (Jesse Stuart Foundation, 2001)
• Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (University of Illinois Press, 1989)
• Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)
• Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic (McGraw-Hill Book Co.)