War of 1812

[Abby Normal]

Long story short, just been to Canada for a few weeks and this war is a big thing for them. Hardly heard of in England. I mean, I studied history at university so have a reasonable grasp of international relations and the various wars; but knew nothing of this until about 5 years ago.

Turns out that a C-Team British Army with bigger fish to fry on the continent and a small band of native Indians smashed the Yanks to bits (only joking Yanks, I know you take these things seriously, it was the B-Team by the way).

Very interesting actually. Sneaky ****ers those Yanks, only turning up when they had the numbers. But, I really enjoyed visiting Fort York, Indian reservations and the like, because Canadian history is not something we know much about. I didn't even realise that many of the Canadians were originally Americans or that the United States had attempted to invade Canada.

On the whole a really good country to visit for more reasons than can be mentioned on a message board. I went to the United States a few years back and really enjoyed that country too.

What I would say, which didn't conform to the stereotype, is that American drivers are much more sane and reasonable than Canadians, and I couldn't believe the amount of fast food shops in Canada - far, far more than what I saw in the United States. Considering the amount of people walking the streets in Canada it looked to me like a Tim Hortons had been allocated to every person old enough to walk - some sort of birthright - how these places stay in business I've no idea.

Anyway, Canada great place really enjoyed it.

But, what I really came here to post is that: we, the English, won again. I know, it's old news; but it's a slow night here.

won again?

your 0-2 against us. well I'm feeling generous so maybe we call 1812 a draw. your 0-1-1 at best! Ha!

[Damaso Marte]

Background from an American history buff, for those of you who do not know about this war:

The early United States was split into two political parties. The Federalists (George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, among others) believed in a strong federal government and a strong military - their vision of America's future was a great commercial and industrial power. The Democratic-Republicans (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, among others) believed in a weak federal government and a weak military - their vision of America's future was a collection of independent-minded yeoman farmers. Federalists wanted to ally with Great Britain; Democratic-Republicans wanted to ally with revolutionary France.

At the 1800 elections, the Democratic-Republicans took power, and held it for over two decades. One of the first things they did was weaken the navy, and generally neglect the military. A standing army was tyranny, they said.

Well, fast forward to 1812. Britain is embroiled in the Napoleonic wars. Britain begins boarding American ships and seizing sailors from them, then pressing them into service aboard British warships. The British claim that the men they are "impressing" (as this practice comes to be known) are British subjects or deserters. In some cases they are. In other cases they are British-born men who immigrated to the United States a long time ago. In other cases they may be actual Americans. I'm not sure it is clear as the records on sailors are probably spotty, but certainly many Americans believe that Britain is seizing American citizens and forcing them into service on board warships.

A second complication is the issue of forts in the northwestern United States - modern day Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, the Great Lakes region. Under the Treaty of Paris of 1783, Great Britain was supposed to evacuate its forts in this region. It hasn't.

The revolutionary war generation in the United States is aging out of power. A number of new, young politicians is elected to Congress. They are termed the "war hawks", and in time they will become the great elder statesmen of 19th century America: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, etc. But at this stage they are young, ambitious, and rash, and they decide to declare war on Great Britain over the issues of impressment and continued occupation of forts in the Northwest.

Declaring war on the world's foremost naval power, shortly after gutting your own navy, is an incredibly stupid move. Here are some things that happen:

(1) Intent on the liberation of Canada, the United States invades and has some early success, managing to burn Toronto. However, American forces are eventually repulsed, due in large part to the inexperience of US military leadership.

(2) The British invade the American Northwest, and seize the city of Detroit, whose commander surrenders immediately despite having enough men and supplies to probably withstand a siege. However eventually the Americans win a great naval victory on Lake Erie.

(3) The British invade what is now the US state of Maine - and reorganize parts of Maine as a new colony, literally recolonizing parts of the US.

(4) The British organize native american tribes in the northwest against the United States: however, they are routed by US general William Henry Harrison, who becomes a war hero and eventually US President.

(5) A British force comes down the US east coast and burns Washington DC. However, this force is unable to capture the nearby city of Baltimore, which withstands a prolonged naval bombardment. The US national anthem is specifically about this bombardment of Baltimore.

(6) The British eventually seem to tire of the war, and peace negotiations are held in Ghent at Belgium. The UK initially demands major concessions - but eventually drops all of them and the two sides agree to a status quo ante treaty. The British do end up evacuating their forts in the Northwest, and impressment ends.

(7) However, there is still a British force heading to capture the city of New Orleans. This force does not know the war has ended. The Americans defending New Orleans also do not know that the war has ended. News doesn't cross the Atlantic that fast.

(8) With the war technically over, there is a battle over control of New Orleans. It is an overwhelming American victory, with very loopsided casualties. The British commander is killed and his body returns to the UK preserved in a barrel of alcohol. The American commander - a young colonel named Andrew Jackson - becomes a national hero.

I personally believe that if the British had captured New Orleans, they would have demanded a renegotiation of the treaty and harsher terms.

The other complication is that the war is incredibly unpopular in the far northern United States - the region of New England. The entire economy of New England in the 1810's is based on trade and shipbuilding, and the trade is mostly with the British. They make their money either trading with the British, or building ships for people who trade with the British. New England is the last remaining Federalist stronghold in the United States, and they hate this Democratic-Republican war that threatens their livelihoods. So there are a number of outright acts of treason in New England during the war.

Martin Chittenden, the governor of the US state of Vermont (which borders Canada), outright refuses to let militia from his state participate in the war.

Many New Englanders light lamps at night on their oceanfront property (called "blue lights"), for the purpose of guiding British warships through the treacherous coastal waters.

Finally, there is a convention held in Hartford, Connecticut, at which delegates from the New England states openly discuss secession from the United States. This is the first time that open rebellion against the US government by states is discussed or mentioned as a possibility.

Anger at the Federalist Party (which most of these New Englanders belonged to) leads to that party's complete collapse - by the 1820 election, the Democratic-Republican Party is the only party in the country, leading to a very brief period of complete one-party control of US politics, known as the "Era of Good Feelings". The 1820 election is contested by only one candidate, who wins every single electoral vote. This breaks down quickly though: in 1824, the election is viciously contested by four different candidates, and although all claim to be Democratic-Republicans, it is considered one of the nastiest elections in American history. By 1828 a new party (initially called "National Republicans", later "Whigs") has emerged to contest the Democratic-Republicans, who are now led by Andrew Jackson and called just the "Democrats". As late as the 1840's, the biggest slur a politician can levy against his opponent in US politics is "Federalist", and accusations that one's opponent was a Federalist during the War of 1812 are common. "Blue light" and "black cockade" are common slurs related to this. (Blue Light is explained above; black cockade refers to the fact that Federalists originally wore black cockades in their hats to identify themselves).

The United States certainly lost more battles than it won: but of the three objectives (ending impressment, getting the British out of their forts in the northwest, liberating Canada), the first two are accomplished. Also, the war leads to the rise of at least three military leaders who will become very important in 19th century American politics: Andrew Jackson (elected President in 1828), William Henry Harrison (elected President in 1840), and Winfield Scott (goes on to a brilliant military career, captures Mexico City in the Mexican-American War, loses the Presidential election of 1852, remains as the senior-most officer in the US Army until the 1860's).

The war is not well-remembered in the USA other than the defense of Baltimore (because that is where the national anthem comes from), but I understand it is a huge deal in Canada, because Canada was directly invaded, and many of the British troops that burned Washington were actually Canadians.

[Abby Normal]

Background from an American history buff, for those of you who do not know about this war:

The early United States was split into two political parties. The Federalists (George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, among others) believed in a strong federal government and a strong military - their vision of America's future was a great commercial and industrial power. The Democratic-Republicans (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, among others) believed in a weak federal government and a weak military - their vision of America's future was a collection of independent-minded yeoman farmers. Federalists wanted to ally with Great Britain; Democratic-Republicans wanted to ally with revolutionary France.

At the 1800 elections, the Democratic-Republicans took power, and held it for over two decades. One of the first things they did was weaken the navy, and generally neglect the military. A standing army was tyranny, they said.

Well, fast forward to 1812. Britain is embroiled in the Napoleonic wars. Britain begins boarding American ships and seizing sailors from them, then pressing them into service aboard British warships. The British claim that the men they are "impressing" (as this practice comes to be known) are British subjects or deserters. In some cases they are. In other cases they are British-born men who immigrated to the United States a long time ago. In other cases they may be actual Americans. I'm not sure it is clear as the records on sailors are probably spotty, but certainly many Americans believe that Britain is seizing American citizens and forcing them into service on board warships.

A second complication is the issue of forts in the northwestern United States - modern day Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, the Great Lakes region. Under the Treaty of Paris of 1783, Great Britain was supposed to evacuate its forts in this region. It hasn't.

The revolutionary war generation in the United States is aging out of power. A number of new, young politicians is elected to Congress. They are termed the "war hawks", and in time they will become the great elder statesmen of 19th century America: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, etc. But at this stage they are young, ambitious, and rash, and they decide to declare war on Great Britain over the issues of impressment and continued occupation of forts in the Northwest.

Declaring war on the world's foremost naval power, shortly after gutting your own navy, is an incredibly stupid move. Here are some things that happen:

(1) Intent on the liberation of Canada, the United States invades and has some early success, managing to burn Toronto. However, American forces are eventually repulsed, due in large part to the inexperience of US military leadership.

(2) The British invade the American Northwest, and seize the city of Detroit, whose commander surrenders immediately despite having enough men and supplies to probably withstand a siege. However eventually the Americans win a great naval victory on Lake Erie.

(3) The British invade what is now the US state of Maine - and reorganize parts of Maine as a new colony, literally recolonizing parts of the US.

(4) The British organize native american tribes in the northwest against the United States: however, they are routed by US general William Henry Harrison, who becomes a war hero and eventually US President.

(5) A British force comes down the US east coast and burns Washington DC. However, this force is unable to capture the nearby city of Baltimore, which withstands a prolonged naval bombardment. The US national anthem is specifically about this bombardment of Baltimore.

(6) The British eventually seem to tire of the war, and peace negotiations are held in Ghent at Belgium. The UK initially demands major concessions - but eventually drops all of them and the two sides agree to a status quo ante treaty. The British do end up evacuating their forts in the Northwest, and impressment ends.

(7) However, there is still a British force heading to capture the city of New Orleans. This force does not know the war has ended. The Americans defending New Orleans also do not know that the war has ended. News doesn't cross the Atlantic that fast.

(8) With the war technically over, there is a battle over control of New Orleans. It is an overwhelming American victory, with very loopsided casualties. The British commander is killed and his body returns to the UK preserved in a barrel of alcohol. The American commander - a young colonel named Andrew Jackson - becomes a national hero.

I personally believe that if the British had captured New Orleans, they would have demanded a renegotiation of the treaty and harsher terms.

The other complication is that the war is incredibly unpopular in the far northern United States - the region of New England. The entire economy of New England in the 1810's is based on trade and shipbuilding, and the trade is mostly with the British. They make their money either trading with the British, or building ships for people who trade with the British. New England is the last remaining Federalist stronghold in the United States, and they hate this Democratic-Republican war that threatens their livelihoods. So there are a number of outright acts of treason in New England during the war.

Martin Chittenden, the governor of the US state of Vermont (which borders Canada), outright refuses to let militia from his state participate in the war.

Many New Englanders light lamps at night on their oceanfront property (called "blue lights"), for the purpose of guiding British warships through the treacherous coastal waters.

Finally, there is a convention held in Hartford, Connecticut, at which delegates from the New England states openly discuss secession from the United States. This is the first time that open rebellion against the US government by states is discussed or mentioned as a possibility.

Anger at the Federalist Party (which most of these New Englanders belonged to) leads to that party's complete collapse - by the 1820 election, the Democratic-Republican Party is the only party in the country, leading to a very brief period of complete one-party control of US politics, known as the "Era of Good Feelings". The 1820 election is contested by only one candidate, who wins every single electoral vote. This breaks down quickly though: in 1824, the election is viciously contested by four different candidates, and although all claim to be Democratic-Republicans, it is considered one of the nastiest elections in American history. By 1828 a new party (initially called "National Republicans", later "Whigs") has emerged to contest the Democratic-Republicans, who are now led by Andrew Jackson and called just the "Democrats". As late as the 1840's, the biggest slur a politician can levy against his opponent in US politics is "Federalist", and accusations that one's opponent was a Federalist during the War of 1812 are common. "Blue light" and "black cockade" are common slurs related to this. (Blue Light is explained above; black cockade refers to the fact that Federalists originally wore black cockades in their hats to identify themselves).

The United States certainly lost more battles than it won: but of the three objectives (ending impressment, getting the British out of their forts in the northwest, liberating Canada), the first two are accomplished. Also, the war leads to the rise of at least three military leaders who will become very important in 19th century American politics: Andrew Jackson (elected President in 1828), William Henry Harrison (elected President in 1840), and Winfield Scott (goes on to a brilliant military career, captures Mexico City in the Mexican-American War, loses the Presidential election of 1852, remains as the senior-most officer in the US Army until the 1860's).

The war is not well-remembered in the USA other than the defense of Baltimore (because that is where the national anthem comes from), but I understand it is a huge deal in Canada, because Canada was directly invaded, and many of the British troops that burned Washington were actually Canadians.

awesome DM-thanks for posting!
It rather does seem like a win though for the US, although technically a tie. Especially the overwhelming battle of New Orleans.

[Damaso Marte]

But to show how important the war once was (and to continue blathering on about 19th century American politics, a topic I love dearly), I will discuss the political career of Richard Mentor Johnson.

Richard Mentor Johnson was serving in the US army during the War of 1812. He certainly fought at the Battle of the Thames, a battle in Ontario during which General William Henry Harrison defeated a joint British/Native American force, ending the British threat to the American northwest.

Also certainly, this was the battle where the great Indian leader Tecumseh was killed.

Many friends of Richard Mentor Johnson claimed afterwards that Richard Mentor Johnson was the one who killed Tecumseh, shooting him in the chest at point blank range during the battle. Indeed, there is actually an epic poem written about Richard Mentor Johnson. I have read the poem and it is terrible, it uses the phrase "rumpsey-dumpsy, rumpsey-dumpsy" between every line as filler.

I don't think the truth about who killed Tecumseh at this battle will ever be known, but for the rest of the 19th century it is a topic of controversy, with Democratic-Republicans claiming it was Richard Mentor Johnson and members of other parties saying it was not.

What happened to Richard Mentor Johnson? He was immediately elected to Congress. He later became a Senator. Finally, he served as Vice President from 1837 - 1841.

What is remarkable is that Richard Mentor Johnson is not the kind of person who you would think would have a successful political career in 19th century America, and in the 19th century American south no less (he was from Kentucky). You see, Richard Mentor Johnson was an outspoken advocate of raising salaries for members of Congress, while serving in Congress. He is widely suspected of being an atheist. He lives in an open relationship with a former slave, and has several mixed-race children by her, which he openly acknowledges and raises as his own children. I don't believe they ever marry. Even openly living in such an unmarried arrangement with a white woman would have generally been a scandal back then.

However, the glory of killing Tecumseh overcomes all of these things, and he continues to advance in politics over the 1820's and 1830's. The campaign slogan is always "Rumpsey-Dumpsey, Rumpsey-Dumpsey, Colonel Johnson killed Tecumseh".

[Abby Normal]

But to show how important the war once was (and to continue blathering on about 19th century American politics, a topic I love dearly), I will discuss the political career of Richard Mentor Johnson.

Richard Mentor Johnson was serving in the US army during the War of 1812. He certainly fought at the Battle of the Thames, a battle in Ontario during which General William Henry Harrison defeated a joint British/Native American force, ending the British threat to the American northwest.

Also certainly, this was the battle where the great Indian leader Tecumseh was killed.

Many friends of Richard Mentor Johnson claimed afterwards that Richard Mentor Johnson was the one who killed Tecumseh, shooting him in the chest at point blank range during the battle. Indeed, there is actually an epic poem written about Richard Mentor Johnson. I have read the poem and it is terrible, it uses the phrase "rumpsey-dumpsy, rumpsey-dumpsy" between every line as filler.

I don't think the truth about who killed Tecumseh at this battle will ever be known, but for the rest of the 19th century it is a topic of controversy, with Democratic-Republicans claiming it was Richard Mentor Johnson and members of other parties saying it was not.

What happened to Richard Mentor Johnson? He was immediately elected to Congress. He later became a Senator. Finally, he served as Vice President from 1837 - 1841.

What is remarkable is that Richard Mentor Johnson is not the kind of person who you would think would have a successful political career in 19th century America, and in the 19th century American south no less (he was from Kentucky). You see, Richard Mentor Johnson was an outspoken advocate of raising salaries for members of Congress, while serving in Congress. He is widely suspected of being an atheist. He lives in an open relationship with a former slave, and has several mixed-race children by her, which he openly acknowledges and raises as his own children. I don't believe they ever marry. Even openly living in such an unmarried arrangement with a white woman would have generally been a scandal back then.

However, the glory of killing Tecumseh overcomes all of these things, and he continues to advance in politics over the 1820's and 1830's. The campaign slogan is always "Rumpsey-Dumpsey, Rumpsey-Dumpsey, Colonel Johnson killed Tecumseh".

fascinating!!! thanks again!
and to note-William Tecumseh Sherman was named after the great chief.

[Robert]

I should point out that we were playing away from home, and those sorts of games are always difficult. The Americans had the home crowd cheering them on, and they were fortified with burgers and coca cola. All we had was a packed lunch and an apple. Furthermore, the Americans handled the ball, while we were used to kicking it. The Americans cunningly made the ball non-spherical, which led to a great deal of unpredictability for us.

I think I'm right in saying that after the American and Napoleonic games, we had no further fixtures until the match in the Crimea.

[Joshua Rogan]

William Tecumseh Sherman was named after the great chief.

And so was my lawnmower.

Thanks Damaso, very informative and educational.

[Pcdunn]

Herman Melville (who would later write the novel known as "Moby Dick" about the battle of Captain Ahab and the Great White Whale) wrote a novel about the impressing of Americans into the British Navy, titled "Billy Budd, Sailor".

Set in 1797, the young American sailor of the book's title is taken from his ship, the "Rights of Man" and made to serve on a British naval ship, the "HMS Bellipotent."

Alas, things go badly for Billy after that.

I think it is one of the best American novels of the 19th century, and even if you failed to make it through the whaling epic (who hasn't?). you must read this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Budd

[Abby Normal]

Herman Melville (who would later write the novel known as "Moby Dick" about the battle of Captain Ahab and the Great White Whale) wrote a novel about the impressing of Americans into the British Navy, titled "Billy Budd, Sailor".

Set in 1797, the young American sailor of the book's title is taken from his ship, the "Rights of Man" and made to serve on a British naval ship, the "HMS Bellipotent."

Alas, things go badly for Billy after that.

I think it is one of the best American novels of the 19th century, and even if you failed to make it through the whaling epic (who hasn't?). you must read this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Budd

HI PC
I just finished In the Heart of the Sea, a true account of the whale ship Essex, upon what Millville based Moby Dick on.

No problem getting through that one-its an amazing true tale. Truth is stanger than fiction indeed.

[c.d.]

HI PC
I just finished In the Heart of the Sea, a true account of the whale ship Essex, upon what Millville based Moby Dick on.

No problem getting through that one-its an amazing true tale. Truth is stanger than fiction indeed.

Hello Abby,

I read that as well and you are right it is an amazing tale. I enjoy true adventure books and just finished "In the Kingdom of Ice" a true story about an 1879 polar expedition that shall we say didn't end too well. National Geographic has a list of the top 100 true adventure stories and Outside Magazine has a list as well. A google search should bring them up.

c.d.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Background from an American history buff, for those of you who do not know about this war:

The early United States was split into two political parties. The Federalists (George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, among others) believed in a strong federal government and a strong military - their vision of America's future was a great commercial and industrial power. The Democratic-Republicans (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, among others) believed in a weak federal government and a weak military - their vision of America's future was a collection of independent-minded yeoman farmers. Federalists wanted to ally with Great Britain; Democratic-Republicans wanted to ally with revolutionary France.

At the 1800 elections, the Democratic-Republicans took power, and held it for over two decades. One of the first things they did was weaken the navy, and generally neglect the military. A standing army was tyranny, they said.

Well, fast forward to 1812. Britain is embroiled in the Napoleonic wars. Britain begins boarding American ships and seizing sailors from them, then pressing them into service aboard British warships. The British claim that the men they are "impressing" (as this practice comes to be known) are British subjects or deserters. In some cases they are. In other cases they are British-born men who immigrated to the United States a long time ago. In other cases they may be actual Americans. I'm not sure it is clear as the records on sailors are probably spotty, but certainly many Americans believe that Britain is seizing American citizens and forcing them into service on board warships.

A second complication is the issue of forts in the northwestern United States - modern day Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, the Great Lakes region. Under the Treaty of Paris of 1783, Great Britain was supposed to evacuate its forts in this region. It hasn't.

The revolutionary war generation in the United States is aging out of power. A number of new, young politicians is elected to Congress. They are termed the "war hawks", and in time they will become the great elder statesmen of 19th century America: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, etc. But at this stage they are young, ambitious, and rash, and they decide to declare war on Great Britain over the issues of impressment and continued occupation of forts in the Northwest.

Declaring war on the world's foremost naval power, shortly after gutting your own navy, is an incredibly stupid move. Here are some things that happen:

(1) Intent on the liberation of Canada, the United States invades and has some early success, managing to burn Toronto. However, American forces are eventually repulsed, due in large part to the inexperience of US military leadership.

(2) The British invade the American Northwest, and seize the city of Detroit, whose commander surrenders immediately despite having enough men and supplies to probably withstand a siege. However eventually the Americans win a great naval victory on Lake Erie.

(3) The British invade what is now the US state of Maine - and reorganize parts of Maine as a new colony, literally recolonizing parts of the US.

(4) The British organize native american tribes in the northwest against the United States: however, they are routed by US general William Henry Harrison, who becomes a war hero and eventually US President.

(5) A British force comes down the US east coast and burns Washington DC. However, this force is unable to capture the nearby city of Baltimore, which withstands a prolonged naval bombardment. The US national anthem is specifically about this bombardment of Baltimore.

(6) The British eventually seem to tire of the war, and peace negotiations are held in Ghent at Belgium. The UK initially demands major concessions - but eventually drops all of them and the two sides agree to a status quo ante treaty. The British do end up evacuating their forts in the Northwest, and impressment ends.

(7) However, there is still a British force heading to capture the city of New Orleans. This force does not know the war has ended. The Americans defending New Orleans also do not know that the war has ended. News doesn't cross the Atlantic that fast.

(8) With the war technically over, there is a battle over control of New Orleans. It is an overwhelming American victory, with very loopsided casualties. The British commander is killed and his body returns to the UK preserved in a barrel of alcohol. The American commander - a young colonel named Andrew Jackson - becomes a national hero.

I personally believe that if the British had captured New Orleans, they would have demanded a renegotiation of the treaty and harsher terms.

The other complication is that the war is incredibly unpopular in the far northern United States - the region of New England. The entire economy of New England in the 1810's is based on trade and shipbuilding, and the trade is mostly with the British. They make their money either trading with the British, or building ships for people who trade with the British. New England is the last remaining Federalist stronghold in the United States, and they hate this Democratic-Republican war that threatens their livelihoods. So there are a number of outright acts of treason in New England during the war.

Martin Chittenden, the governor of the US state of Vermont (which borders Canada), outright refuses to let militia from his state participate in the war.

Many New Englanders light lamps at night on their oceanfront property (called "blue lights"), for the purpose of guiding British warships through the treacherous coastal waters.

Finally, there is a convention held in Hartford, Connecticut, at which delegates from the New England states openly discuss secession from the United States. This is the first time that open rebellion against the US government by states is discussed or mentioned as a possibility.

Anger at the Federalist Party (which most of these New Englanders belonged to) leads to that party's complete collapse - by the 1820 election, the Democratic-Republican Party is the only party in the country, leading to a very brief period of complete one-party control of US politics, known as the "Era of Good Feelings". The 1820 election is contested by only one candidate, who wins every single electoral vote. This breaks down quickly though: in 1824, the election is viciously contested by four different candidates, and although all claim to be Democratic-Republicans, it is considered one of the nastiest elections in American history. By 1828 a new party (initially called "National Republicans", later "Whigs") has emerged to contest the Democratic-Republicans, who are now led by Andrew Jackson and called just the "Democrats". As late as the 1840's, the biggest slur a politician can levy against his opponent in US politics is "Federalist", and accusations that one's opponent was a Federalist during the War of 1812 are common. "Blue light" and "black cockade" are common slurs related to this. (Blue Light is explained above; black cockade refers to the fact that Federalists originally wore black cockades in their hats to identify themselves).

The United States certainly lost more battles than it won: but of the three objectives (ending impressment, getting the British out of their forts in the northwest, liberating Canada), the first two are accomplished. Also, the war leads to the rise of at least three military leaders who will become very important in 19th century American politics: Andrew Jackson (elected President in 1828), William Henry Harrison (elected President in 1840), and Winfield Scott (goes on to a brilliant military career, captures Mexico City in the Mexican-American War, loses the Presidential election of 1852, remains as the senior-most officer in the US Army until the 1860's).

The war is not well-remembered in the USA other than the defense of Baltimore (because that is where the national anthem comes from), but I understand it is a huge deal in Canada, because Canada was directly invaded, and many of the British troops that burned Washington were actually Canadians.

A few points I gleaned from Canada recently, whether or not it is close to the mark is open to debate:

Firstly, the Canadian militia had very little impact on the war as they were poorly trained and equipped. The brunt of the fighting was undertaken by the British Army, 99% of whom were not Canadians, and the native Indians.

Secondly, contrary to your post, the Americans actually suffered a series of defeats at the outset of the war, and chose Fort York (part of Toronto) because it was an easy target where they heavily outnumbered the British Army - the Americans needed a victory due to a series of defeats. I think Fort York was 1813 which was their first victory in a war that had been going on for some time.

Thirdly, the Americans also got tired of the war seeing as the US government was pretty much bankrupt. They were happy to attain peace.

Fourthly, and most importantly, the Americans didn't achieve any of their war aims. The treaty entailed no mention of stopping impressment - which was a huge problem for the Americans and a huge part of the reason for declaring war, nor did the Americans gain any more land.

Put simply, you ran 'round in circles for a few years and achieved nothing, Looks to me like the British and Canadians won the war.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Long story short, just been to Canada for a few weeks and this war is a big thing for them.

Sorry to disappoint you, but no. Not even close. The fact that the precedent conservative govt spent millions to commemorate this war created an uproar that involved more people than the commemoration themselves.

It was a big thing for Stephen Harper and friends, period.

[Billiou]

Johnny Horton - The Battle of New Orleans

I first became aware of the War of 1812 (probably sometime back in the 1970s) when I heard the Johnny Horton song "The Battle of New Orleans":

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississippi
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans

We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

We looked down the river and we seed the British come
And there must have been a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drum
They stepped so high and they made their bugles ring
We stood behind our cotton bales and didn't say a thing

We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'till we looked 'em in the eyes
We held our fire 'till we seed their faces well
Then we opened up our squirrel guns and gave 'em
Well, we

Fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

Yeah they ran through the briers and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

We fired our cannon 'till the barrel melted down
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round
We filled his head with cannonballs 'n' powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind
(I love these two stanzas)

We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

Yeah they ran through the briers and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

Hut, hut, three, four
Sound off, three, four
Hut, hut, three, four
Sound off, three, four
Hut, hut, three, four

The battle, of course, happened after the Treaty of Ghent had already been negotiated to end the war. Wouldn't happen in today's world!

Cheers
Bill

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sorry to disappoint you, but no. Not even close. The fact that the precedent conservative govt spent millions to commemorate this war created an uproar that involved more people than the commemoration themselves.

It was a big thing for Stephen Harper and friends, period.

Fair enough, don't pretend to be an expert on the matter.

What I would say is that Canadians and Americans seemed pretty much the same people to me, to the untutored eye. I would even go as far as to say that the stereotypical American applied much more to Canada than it did the United States, but that wouldn't be very kind considering I was a guest in Canada for a few weeks.

I'm not disappointed, John, it ain't the 18th century anymore and I was never a fan of shouting the odds in someone else's country anyway.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I first became aware of the War of 1812 (probably sometime back in the 1970s) when I heard the Johnny Horton song "The Battle of New Orleans":

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississippi
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans

We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

We looked down the river and we seed the British come
And there must have been a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drum
They stepped so high and they made their bugles ring
We stood behind our cotton bales and didn't say a thing

We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'till we looked 'em in the eyes
We held our fire 'till we seed their faces well
Then we opened up our squirrel guns and gave 'em
Well, we

Fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

Yeah they ran through the briers and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

We fired our cannon 'till the barrel melted down
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round
We filled his head with cannonballs 'n' powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind
(I love these two stanzas)

We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

Yeah they ran through the briers and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico

Hut, hut, three, four
Sound off, three, four
Hut, hut, three, four
Sound off, three, four
Hut, hut, three, four

The battle, of course, happened after the Treaty of Ghent had already been negotiated to end the war. Wouldn't happen in today's world!

Cheers
Bill

That sounds like someone's national anthem.