War of 1812

[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

[Joshua Rogan]

William Tecumseh Sherman was named after the great chief.

And so was my lawnmower.

Thanks Damaso, very informative and educational.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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!

[barnflatwyngarde]

There is probably no other country in the world populated by people who save up all the year for their big day out with the express purpose of making a nuisance of themselves.

In the interests of parity, my Grandma and Granddad on my Dad's side are/were Scottish - but I prefer to remember them as more than mere attention seekers!

I hope that no one took my posting entirely seriously.

The author William McIlvanney once said that the greatest thing about Glasgow was the fact that you didn't know where your next invasion of privacy was coming from.

[Wickerman]

I hope Trump doesn't get elected. He may try to sell off some of our states to Canada-- by way of decreasing our international debt! Lol...

I think we'd take it, we might need the extra land given the number of Americans who are planning to seek asylum up here if he does get elected.

[Pcdunn]

I hope Trump doesn't get elected. He may try to sell off some of our states to Canada-- by way of decreasing our international debt! Lol...

[c.d.]

As an American, I say let bygones be bygones. Buy us all a beer and we'll call it even (and we drink our beer ice cold like real men). And... well, you should probably repaint the White House as well. Seems only fair.

c.d.

[Fleetwood Mac]

"we, the English, won again."

23 April 1986 Wembley Stadium, London 1–2 Rous Cup

"They got one,
We got two,
We got the pitch and the goalposts too".

There is probably no other country in the world populated by people who save up all the year for their big day out with the express purpose of making a nuisance of themselves.

In the interests of parity, my Grandma and Granddad on my Dad's side are/were Scottish - but I prefer to remember them as more than mere attention seekers!

[Fleetwood Mac]

The next time you see Chris George pass through this forum you might want to give him a nudge. Chris knows all there is to know about the War of 1812, he's a Liverpudlian now resident in Baltimore and has written much on the War of 1812.
You can also reach him on JTRForums, Chris is the Editor of Ripperologist.

Thanks Wickerman.

I came away feeling I'd learned a decent amount relating to a subject of which I had very little idea, open to bias of course, yet testament to the quality of the museums they have over there.

Same with the United States. Feel both countries have first class museums.

[barnflatwyngarde]

"we, the English, won again."

23 April 1986 Wembley Stadium, London 1–2 Rous Cup

"They got one,
We got two,
We got the pitch and the goalposts too".