1812 and Indian Wars : Sovereignty during the Eastern Treaty Period | US History Lecture 

The real name of the Red Stick Creek leader was William Weatherford; a mixed race warrior, with a Creek mother & Scottish father.

Red sticks you say? Like a "baton rouge" in French!

The war of 1812 did do several things. It got the British to stop supporting the natives and it solidified(kinda) that the US is not a push over. And with no napoleonic war there would be no war of 1812.

@@iattacku2773 See, the "pushover" thing I see as very much debatable, because had Wellington instead of sending his boys home decided that such an insult against His Majesty was not to be tolerated and brought his veterans to the US en masse, supported by a much larger part of the British Navy, things might have looked quite differently. In any case, from the Louisiana Purchase to the War of 1812, without Napoleon, US history would likely have looked quite differently...

Secord.

Interesting read, thanks for sharing

Thanks. Yeah i finished it for Spring of 2023. Made a video about my dissertation and everything

That's true, but I think that the British also recognized everyone born in the British Empire as still British, even if they were born in US colonies that were now US states and the British citizens had since gained US citizenship. Though the term didn't exist yet, I get the impression that the British treated them as dual citizens, British and American. It was only people born in tye USA after the Treaty of Paris of 1783 that the British recognized as American but not British. 1812 was only 29 years after that treaty.

And thank you too

"A conquering spirit" By Gregory A. Waselkov is a book I would highly recommend on the specific subject of the Red stick war, and the raid at fort Mims.

“A guy sleeps through a well attended symposium, and you think that of me? No. I am the one who enjoys academic lectures.”

Its not that complicated actually. I'll just use my tribe (Comanche) as the example of for the native side. Not that we represent all tribes but more so that we have historically been considered the most hostile and least likely to achieve peace with. So, sometime in the first half of the 1800's, there was a group of german immigrants who moved into Texas. They were moving into land which they thought would be relatively peaceful but found out it was actually in Comanche territory and could not enter because it was essentially an active war zone. Their response to this was unique for settlers. Instead of relying on the Texas government for their protection, the leader of the immigrants would meet with different bands of Comanches. Essentially explaining the situation and what their intentions were in moving to the area. What came from this was the Meusebach-Comanche Treaty. Some of the obligations in the treaty were Comanches were required to protect the immigrants when possible, both sides were to assist each other whenever possible, Comanches had to allow the immigrants to survey areas of land and may increase the amount of land to be surveyed if they think its a good thing, and each side had to faithfully execute the treaty. So, we have my tribe which was considered the most powerful and hostile tribe in the plains at the time and a small and powerless group of german immigrants joining in an agreement. However, despite the disparity of power, this is considered one of the only treaties between a tribe and settler organizations (including governments) to remain unbroken. Obviously, complication came up and there were times where the treaty was tested but, each time, there was a mutual agreement that was able to support the continued peaceful relationship. There were other tribes all over the current U.S. that were far more peaceful than we were and some that were more open to diplomacy. Now lets look at the U.S. side (looking at the British side is irrelevant since the British's peace with tribes was actually a major cause of the American revolution so its hard to say if they would have held up their end of the peace agreements). Besides the aforementioned broken treaties, one of the ideas that sticks out to me is what is called preemption which is the idea that a settler could move into land without regard for who owned the land and, by process of osmosis I guess, claim legal title to it. Usually, they had to make some type of improvement to it (build a house, provide water, produce agriculture, etc.). Essentially, its a squatter being granted a title to lands they squatted on. Originally, this was illegal and those squatters were usually removed. However, do to westward expansion, this was used as a tool to remove tribes and for the government to claim land that was outside their legal titles. Effectively, this is how it worked. The government would sign a treaty with a tribe and establish borders that U.S. citizens could either not enter or not settle. Of course, this would not actually stop U.S. citizens from doing so just place an obligation of the U.S. to prevent it when possible and punish it when recognized. However, it was not prevented and, rather than being punishable, was made profitable by the U.S. government. Of course, there were other ways the U.S. broke treaties and acquired land from tribes (some were very fair and aligned with international norms of treaty making while others were consistent with genocide) but preemption and the laws that instituted it show the general movement of tribal-government relations. So, could there have been peace? On the tribal side, surely. In fact, had the tribes been as adverse to peace as it is claimed, the relatively small population of early settlers would have never survived the likes of the Powhatan Confederacy, the Haudenosaunee confederacy, and other tribes with large and powerful militaries.It is safe to assume that peace did, at one time, exist between the two different groups in general. On the European side, I would argue yes due to the fact that various tribes usually sided with whatever colonial nation they protected in international wars as in the video we are commenting on. Peace with Americans, however, was probably never going to be feasible once expansion became a national policy. Most of the lands purchased by the U.S. in the Louisiana Purchase or ceded in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was never actually a title to land but the right to acquire the land from the tribes that occupied them (this is called the Doctrine of Discovery). Since politicians are elected based on what they promise to accomplish regardless of already establish laws, people elected those who would benefit them the most which gives rise to slogans like "Vote Yourself a Farm" and the like. When you promise everyone who supported you, even those who didn't, the right to own 160 acres of land for the lowest prices possible and the only thing preventing that goal is the people who already live there, could you prevent war? If you did, they would just elect someone who would not prevent war in the next election cycle so you might as well send the military in now while you hold the power.

i believe it is Laura Secord and she walked not rode the 20 miles to warn the canadians about the invasion

Laura Secord

Bay. Can you give me a timestamp where I made that mistake?

23:31 I think this is what you’re asking for

precisely. thank you

@@CynicalHistorianThat’s it! One last thing: Bladensburg. The first syllable is pronounced like the word “Blade” (like a knife or the vampire killer).

They can keep deluding themselves. That's what mythology is for

Historian Alan Taylor has cited that the United States voted against annexation of the Canadas in July of 1812. The Canadian government ignored that fact when handling the bicentennial. It's as stupid as telling people Louisiana won the War of 1812, which to be fair, the United States had January 8th" as a holiday for that reason. 🙄 No one likes a draw . . .

Thats not nearly as clever as you want it to be. Its actually completely redundnat lol

This is the cliff notes version

You do realize that you are likely mispronouncing it. The tribe is in Kansas now

@CynicalHistorian yea. Sorry, I was implying that it was me that was in the wrong. I'm from Northern Indiana where they originally were from. We also pronounce Wabash different. We end it with "bash" like a party

@@usm05065 ah. Also, I think I said Wabash like that in the video