Hmmm. What could have being going through their minds? Ally with Napoleon or Crazy King George III? ...Napoleon or insane George III?
;-)
No, really, I thought the U.S. was neutral with respect to the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon probably liked seeing the U.S. get into it with Britain, and likewise on the part of the U.S. But I don’t recall any alliance or real assistance between the two. The U.S. wanted to stay out of European affairs.
You have to consider the fact that Monroe, having been tasked with negotiating with Napoleon to obtain New Orleans so as to open up American trade via the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, ended up with the Louisiana Purchase agreement. The proceeds of which Napoleon used to fund a fleet (which the British succeeded in sinking). There was no reason the British would have liked that.After burning Washington but finding that taking Baltimore would be “too hard,” the British fleet sailed to New Orleans to steal (not the word they would have used) the cotton and other supplies they expected to find there. What they found instead, of course, was Andrew Jackson, who soundly thrashed the veteran British army in a battle after the treaty ending the war had been negotiated (but not yet known of on this side of the Atlantic).
We have a different definition of Neutral then.
Your definition seems to involve both countries fighting against the third country.
Can you say ‘Coordinated Attack’? I knew you could.
“On June 18, 1812, President James Madison, after receiving heavy pressure from the War Hawks in Congress, signed the American declaration of war into law.”
“The French invasion of Russia ... began on 24 June 1812 when Napoleon’s Grande Armée crossed the Neman River in an attempt to engage and defeat the Russian army”
Hmmm.
As Hillary would say, “Coordinated, as in matching uniforms?”