Sold – Henry Clay Concedes American Aims in the War of 1812 Proved Irrelevant

As Speaker of the House, Henry Clay helped push the United States into the War of 1812, citing as two of the principle reasons the intolerable impressment of American seamen on the high seas and sanctions against American trade. In 1814 Clay was one of the American negotiators that concluded the Treaty of Ghent that ended the war.

The eleven articles of that treaty stated that the U.S. and Britain would return to the status quo ante bellum, or the exact same state of affairs as before the war, except that Britain agreed to give up claims to the Northwest Territory. There was no mention of impressment or the trade restrictions that had spurred the U.S. into declaring war in the first place. On paper, it was almost as if the war had never been fought. The treaty was quite unpopular and the American negotiators came under criticism at home for concluding such a peace. Here Clay explains the reasons the U.S. delegation chose to bring the war to a close short of their aims.

Autograph Letter Signed, Washington, December 14, 1839 to Robert S. Chilton, soon to become one of the earliest Daguerreians (photographers) in New York City, defending the Treaty of Ghent. “In reply to your letter inquiring why a clause was not inserted in the Treaty of Ghent guarding against the future British impressment of American seamen, I have to say, that you will recollect that the peace of Europe was then established, and the U. States alone were at War with G. Britain. We were not in a condition to dictate the terms of peace. Impressment formed one of the topics of negotiation, but G. Britain was not prepared to renounce the practice of impressing, as she said, her own subjects. We did not think it necessary to continue the War to compel her to renounce it, if we could compel her, for various reasons. 1st. If there were a general peace, there would be no impressment, which only takes place in War or in preparations for War. 2nd. It was not necessary to have any Treaty stipulation to exempt us from the practice, our right to exemption depending upon higher ground than any treaty. And 3rd. If GB should renew the practice of impressment against our Citizens, we could renew the War; and we thought that we could prosecute a new War with more vigor and more ample means than we could continue the existing War, exhausted as we then were. In point of fact she has not renewed the practice of impressment of us, and I think never will.”

This honesty in this letter is extraordinary. Clay admits that the war exhausted the nation, and that in the end, the chief war aims (which he had so fervently advocated) were irrelevant. After all, impressment would have ended just as surely after the war in Europe was over, regardless of whether the War of 1812 had been fought. On the other hand, there is no arguing with his contention that it would have been unnecessary to continue the conflict when the practices complained of had ended, and he proved right that they never resumed.