Wilson Unravels One of the Most Notoriously Bloody and Complex Conflicts in European History to Answer the Question. "The Rhetoric of Death and Destruction in the Thirty Years War." Journal of Social History 27, no. "From Leadership to Partnership: a New American Security Strategy for Europe." Naval War College Review 50, no. Scotland and the Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648. ![]() ![]() "An Appeal for a Historiographical Renaissance: Lost Lives and the Thirty Years War." The Historian 67, no. Ultimately, the war ended in 1814, but much of American did not support or condone the war. They were angry about the economy, but they were also angry because they felt they had been mislead by the government, and the war was really being fought to gain territory in Canada, which they did not agree with. They would not offer funds for the war, and they would not allow their militia to fight in the war. There was another group of Americans who felt that all of America, including British Canada, should have been conquered during the Revolutionary War and then ceded to the Americans, so they felt the War of 1812, which began with Americans attempting to conquer Canada, should not have had to take place at all.įinally, New England residents openly opposed the war, and did not support anything connected with it. So, when the British blockaded American ports, there was nowhere else to trade, and trade fell even more than it had before the war. Thus, the majority of Great Britain's trade was with the United States before the war, and there were few other avenues open to the U.S., with European ports blockaded. In addition, before the war, British naval power was the superior naval power in the world, and the French, after a defeat at British hands, stopped trading with Britain, and asked most other European countries to stop, as well.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |