Javascript must be enabled to continue!
"Mr. Madison's War" or the Dynamic of Early American Nationalism?
View through CrossRef
This article explores who was ultimately responsible for the War of 1812. By applying the three-phase model of the emergence of nationalism (from an elite to a mass phenomenon) to the political situation in the United States from 1809 to 1812, it seeks to reconcile the historiographical debate between those who consider President Madison the driving force behind the movement toward war and those who argue that the war movement was anchored in the legislature. Though Madison and Jefferson had since 1803 taken an uncompromising stance toward the former mother country in order to promote an Anglophobic American nationalism, thereby escalating Anglo-American tensions, they wished to avoid outright war, as they feared that the requirements of war could overwhelm the young and fragile American republic. By 1811, however, public opinion, incited by the Republicans' persistent anti-British foreign policies, clamored for armed confrontation. A majority of Americans consequently elected Republicans to Congress who were willing to vote for a declaration of war. Yet Congress was reticent to declare war until Madison officially recommended this step, believing that a war waged without the administration's support would not succeed. Against his personal inclination, Madison opted to seek war to remain in control of American nationalism and to ensure, as a wartime president, that the waging of war would not undermine America's republican form of government. American nationalism had become a mass movement, assuming a dynamic of its own that became increasingly difficult to control. The onset of the War of 1812 was thus partly due to the pressure exerted by a rising populist nationalism that brought the so called war hawks into Congress, and partly due to the Madison administration's bid to remain in control of the political process.
Title: "Mr. Madison's War" or the Dynamic of Early American Nationalism?
Description:
This article explores who was ultimately responsible for the War of 1812.
By applying the three-phase model of the emergence of nationalism (from an elite to a mass phenomenon) to the political situation in the United States from 1809 to 1812, it seeks to reconcile the historiographical debate between those who consider President Madison the driving force behind the movement toward war and those who argue that the war movement was anchored in the legislature.
Though Madison and Jefferson had since 1803 taken an uncompromising stance toward the former mother country in order to promote an Anglophobic American nationalism, thereby escalating Anglo-American tensions, they wished to avoid outright war, as they feared that the requirements of war could overwhelm the young and fragile American republic.
By 1811, however, public opinion, incited by the Republicans' persistent anti-British foreign policies, clamored for armed confrontation.
A majority of Americans consequently elected Republicans to Congress who were willing to vote for a declaration of war.
Yet Congress was reticent to declare war until Madison officially recommended this step, believing that a war waged without the administration's support would not succeed.
Against his personal inclination, Madison opted to seek war to remain in control of American nationalism and to ensure, as a wartime president, that the waging of war would not undermine America's republican form of government.
American nationalism had become a mass movement, assuming a dynamic of its own that became increasingly difficult to control.
The onset of the War of 1812 was thus partly due to the pressure exerted by a rising populist nationalism that brought the so called war hawks into Congress, and partly due to the Madison administration's bid to remain in control of the political process.
Related Results
The Cosmopolitanism of Y.B. Mangunwijaya
The Cosmopolitanism of Y.B. Mangunwijaya
This paper aims to explain and analyze the idea of post-nationalism/post-Indonesia (pasca-nasionalisme/pasca-Indonesia) provided by Indonesian architect, clergy, social activist, a...
Chinese Nationalism
Chinese Nationalism
The rise of nationalism in China in recent decades, following the reform-era decline of Maoism as a source of legitimization for the Party-state, is a commonly cited narrative in b...
MEMUPUK JIWA NASIONALISME MELALUI PENGUATAN PENDIDIKAN KARAKTER DALAM PEMBELAJARAN PPKN
MEMUPUK JIWA NASIONALISME MELALUI PENGUATAN PENDIDIKAN KARAKTER DALAM PEMBELAJARAN PPKN
Students are the younger generation as the nation's successors, should have a good spirit of nationalism, who can uphold the dignity of the Indonesian nation. The development of gl...
Nationalism and Politics in Zimbabwe
Nationalism and Politics in Zimbabwe
Abstract
This chapter focuses on nationalism in past and present Zimbabwean politics. It first traces the history and nature of anti-colonial nationalism in Zimbabwe...
Religious Nationalism
Religious Nationalism
For scholars of both religion and nationalism, the term “religious nationalism” can be a problematic one in the sense that nationalism cannot be “religious” per se, since the aim o...
6. Nationalism
6. Nationalism
This chapter examines the key ideas and concepts of nationalism as ideology. It first defines nationalism and considers how the nation is socially constructed as an imagined commun...
Contextualising nationalism
Contextualising nationalism
This paper seeks to relate the scholarly analysis of nationalism – and of the ways in which nation-states relate to minorities and migrants – with the actual socio-political contex...
Engineered Identity: Albanian Nationalism and the Limits of Established Nationalism Theories
Engineered Identity: Albanian Nationalism and the Limits of Established Nationalism Theories
ABSTRACT
This article analyses the development of Albanian nationalism as a test case for assessing the explanatory reach of three major approaches to the study o...

