![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, on Friday, I mentioned that I would have some profound thoughts on the War of 1812. Well, here's the thought:
The War of 1812 was a Tea Party war. Much like the modern Tea Party, the party that took America to war persisted in seeing the world as they wanted it to be, not as it was. Now, this general failing is common among ideologues left and right, from Communists to absolute monarchists.
The particular set of ideas that led to the War of 1812 are very similar to those espoused by the current Tea Party. The party in power at the time (ironically called Republicans, but the descendants of the modern Democrats), was in favor of small government, low taxes and decentralization. None of these factors correlate well with success in launching an aggressive war.
Because the Republicans wanted low taxes, they decided not to pursue their naval grievances (impressment) via building an (expensive) navy, but rather by cheaply and quickly invading Canada. Alas, militias are cheap, but lousy on offense. And a quick look at a map would suggest that a lake navy was going to be needed. (It was, and built at great cost.)
The decentralized nature of the party led to the US splitting its efforts into three invasions - starting from Detroit, Niagara and Lake Champlain. This meant the already undersized US Army was split into three.
Lastly, the US logistical system, trying to operate on the cheap, didn't work so well. The army rarely built barracks, something that was vitally needed in the cold winters. Supplies didn't flow, leading to looting. This looting ruined any hope of the Canadians, many of them recent immigrants from America, supporting the invasion. (Telling somebody "I'm here to liberate you" takes on a whole 'nother meaning when you're stealing his chickens.)
The War of 1812 was a singular example of wishful thinking triumphing over reason. The only reason it wasn't more of a disaster for America was that Great Britain had bigger fish to fry.
The War of 1812 was a Tea Party war. Much like the modern Tea Party, the party that took America to war persisted in seeing the world as they wanted it to be, not as it was. Now, this general failing is common among ideologues left and right, from Communists to absolute monarchists.
The particular set of ideas that led to the War of 1812 are very similar to those espoused by the current Tea Party. The party in power at the time (ironically called Republicans, but the descendants of the modern Democrats), was in favor of small government, low taxes and decentralization. None of these factors correlate well with success in launching an aggressive war.
Because the Republicans wanted low taxes, they decided not to pursue their naval grievances (impressment) via building an (expensive) navy, but rather by cheaply and quickly invading Canada. Alas, militias are cheap, but lousy on offense. And a quick look at a map would suggest that a lake navy was going to be needed. (It was, and built at great cost.)
The decentralized nature of the party led to the US splitting its efforts into three invasions - starting from Detroit, Niagara and Lake Champlain. This meant the already undersized US Army was split into three.
Lastly, the US logistical system, trying to operate on the cheap, didn't work so well. The army rarely built barracks, something that was vitally needed in the cold winters. Supplies didn't flow, leading to looting. This looting ruined any hope of the Canadians, many of them recent immigrants from America, supporting the invasion. (Telling somebody "I'm here to liberate you" takes on a whole 'nother meaning when you're stealing his chickens.)
The War of 1812 was a singular example of wishful thinking triumphing over reason. The only reason it wasn't more of a disaster for America was that Great Britain had bigger fish to fry.
