Should the United States Have Gone to War in 1812?

 An image from History Channel shows the Battle of New Orleans, one of the last battles in the War of 1812.

In HOA, we have recently addressed thoroughly the War of 1812 and the events leading up to this.  This corresponds to the question, "Should the United States have gone to war in 1812?"

I believe the United States should not have gone to war in 1812 against Britain because in the end none of the original problems were resolved, the economy was already struggling, and the war was bound to cause unnecessary American deaths due to the experience and numbers in the British army.  

In 1812, the economy of the United States was suffering and plummeting due to issues within the Articles of the Confederation, the main issue being that the government was not allowed to directly tax.  The lack of money in the government led to soldiers not being payed, which further caused protests and riots all over the United States.  An example of this is Shay's Rebellion, where ex-soldiers in Massachusetts were not paid at all or in full for their service.  The rebellion involved violent attacks on courthouses and government buildings, demanding money.  Also, America has just implemented the Embargo Act, stopping all exports from US ports.  This caused all foreign income to halt while merchants and their families were suffering without money and were angry at the United States for practically taking away their jobs and only source of income.   Due to an economy in downfall caused by the Embargo Act and lack of direct taxation, the United States was not prepared economically for the price of war.

The US should not have gone to war against Britain in 1812 also because the great numbers and experience of the British military heavily outweighed the weak US militia.  This weakness would inevitably lead to many unnecessary deaths of American servicemen because they were purely outnumbered and many had never fought in a battle before.  The British were ending their war against Napoleon, so it is fair to say that mostly all of their soldiers had experience against one of the largest military powers in the world, France.  The US militia consisted of farmers, merchants, and other inexperienced men who fought either because they needed a job or their patriotism.  At the beginning of the war, the British had a whopping 245,000 men while the United States had a depressing 7,000.  Throughout the war the US gained men but still did not come close to the number the British had, so declaring war with only a tiny fraction of the men the opposing army had was going to inevitably lead to slaughtering of Americans on the battlefields by the British.  

Lastly, looking back on the War of 1812 proves the United States should have never declared war on Britain because in the end, none of the original issues changed.  A main cause of the war was impressment of US military.  This was when the British would capture American men on ships and force them to serve for the British military.  They would often say that the American sailor was British originally and turned to the American side, so they must come back and serve for Britain.  This angered Americans and caused the US military to lose even more men, narrowing down their minuscule starting numbers.  At the Treaty of Ghent, the treaty that ended the war, the act of impressment was not addressed and the British continued to do it, even after the war was over.  Another cause of the war was that the United States wanted Canada, which the British currently owned.  The British defended Canada greatly because it housed most of their forts on North American soil, so they would not give up this land easily because it meant they would have mostly no grip on North America.  The United States could barely defend their own land from the British and angered Native Americans, so the thought of expanding into Canada was not possible from the start.  Once again, at the Treaty of Ghent, the issue of Canadian territory in US hands was not addressed and the British continued to dominate Canada.  Therefore, the as reflection on history occurs, it is evident the United States should not have declared war on Britain in 1812 because none of the main issues causing the war would be solved or addressed at the end of the war.  

Overall, the United States should not have gone into the War of 1812 because the economy was not ready for war, the British greatly outnumbered the Americans, and in the end none of the main causes of the war would be solved.  The war was not an American or British victory because nothing changed, so going to was was pointless. Thousands of lives would have been saved without it and the diplomatic results would have been the same.  

Behind the Facade of John F. Kennedy

John F. Kennedy was born into a wealthy, politically connected Boston family.  His childhood was lived in prestigious private schools alongside his eight siblings.  He attended Harvard University and shined in his service during World War II.  Before his presidential term, Kennedy served in the US House of Representatives from 1947 ti 1953 and the US Senate from 1953 to 1961.  He began his presidency at forty-three as the youngest serving president yet.  He brought hope and new ideas as the United States recovered from World War II.  However, his service in the White House was cut short on November 22, 1963 when he was assassinated in Texas.  In 1971, Aaron Shikler revealed John F. Kennedy's presidential portrait, which his widow, Jackie Kennedy, assisted in.

The first thing that stood out to me in the portrait was the posture of John F. Kennedy.  He is standing with his arms crossed, head down, and eyes closed,  I interpreted that as being a display of critical thinking during stress.  During his presidency, John F. Kennedy was faced with leading a powerful country within a time of diplomatic unrest.  A key point in his term was how he handled the Cold War and communism, which were crucial and stressful topics.  Thus, in the portrait, John F. Kennedy could be contemplating a serious decision since these were abundant during his years as president.

I also noticed how the artist chose very somber colors.  The background of the portrait is a lighter shade of brown and Kennedy's suit is a dark brown-grey.  The color brown signifies a serious tone towards duties and responsibilities.  John F. Kennedy was known for his dedicated to the United States, from serving in World War II, being in the House of Representatives and Senate, to a presidential term.  Therefore, Shikler was attempting to portray how serious Kennedy took these services and that he had a desire to fulfill hos duties to his country.

However, the hazy tone added to the background and his skin depicts the drawbacks of these desires, as it symbolizes tiredness.  Since Mrs. Kennedy assisted in the portrait, she most likely gave a very real and honest account of how his presidency was outside of what the public could see.  John F. Kennedy was the first president to be watched on screen, so he put up a front for the whole nation as an inspiring, hopeful man with promise.  However, a presidency is one of the most stressful positions in government and the thought of now being watched by a whole nation did not ease this stress and led to tiring days trying to be a symbol of hope for the people of the United States.  Through color, the artist is trying to argue that while John F. Kennedy was a man who was dedicated to the people and his duties, the job of being a president can tire those who are most committed.

Aaron Shikler was given the job of interpreting the life cut short of a president who was loved by the people.  To do this, he incorporated colors, facial expressions, and stance to convey how John F. Kennedy was a man devoted to serving his country, even when that caused a toll on his mental well-being.  In the bigger picture, it is demonstrated that a presidency can wreck havoc on the lives of those most devoted to the job and loved by the people.