War of 1812

[Ginger]

We had to keep Detroit. We lost.

[Mayerling]

I was surprised (maybe even worried) when you hadn't chimed in on this one mate.

Thank you, my friend, for worrying. But it was only a mechanical problem.

Jeff

[GUT]

I was surprised (maybe even worried) when you hadn't chimed in on this one mate.

[Mayerling]

Been away for awhile friends, but my computer is fixed now.

"1812" is one of the wars that most citizens of the U.S. just don't know much about except we did poorly in most of the land battles, did better in most of the ship to ship encounters and in two naval battles on the Great Lake (Erie) and on the large inland lake (briefly a "Great Lake" a few years ago, before it was universally sent packing) "Champlain" in New York and Vermont, and produced two Presidents (William Henry Harrison, who won the battle of the Thames River, and Andrew Jackson, who initially destroyed the Shawnee Indian threat (his view) in the battle of "Horshoe Bend"*), and then (at Ghent in Belgium) Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams, and Albert Gallatin managed to get a peace treaty together to end the war without changing anything that existed in 1811 to May 1812. Oh yes, Jackson wins the war's most famous battle at New Orleans, with the assistance of the "Barataria pirates" under Jean Lafitte after the treaty is signed, but before it is announced in Washington. Added to this is the burning of Washington, D.C. (and Toronto - or York as it was), the attack on Baltimore, and the death of General Ross, and Francis Scott Key composing the poem that is now the words of our national anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner". Few are taught about the fall of Detroit, the massacre at Fort Mims, or the acts of violence against the Canadians, or of Sir Isaac Brock, the young Jacob Brown and Winfield Scott, or Thomas MacDonald (who won the naval battle of Lake Champlain, but is not recalled as much as Oliver Hazard Perry, victor on Lake Erie, nor even Captain James Lawrence, of the " USS Chesapeake", because Perry and Lawrence made memorable statements in their battles that became naval tradition fodder, unlike MacDonald**,

[*Jackson was popular for his attacking and defeating the Indian menace - as his neighbors who were Caucasians would have called it) at the time, though now it is his victory in Louisiana that pushes his name to people's minds. The treatment of the Indians is now rather deplored quite a bit.]

[**In Perry's case he gave one of those statements which is reduced to a pithy comment, "We have met the enemy, and they are ours!". Ironically the circumstances of the fight where Lawrence said his memorable, "Don't give up the ship!" were of his commanding a hard luck vessel ( the "Chesapeake was involved in a violent incident in 1807 when the British on "HMS Leopard" fired into it during peacetime when it was refused permission to board the "Chesapeake", killing several Americans and causing it's commander, Captain Barron, to surrender), that now was outgunned by "HMS Shannon", and again forced to surrender. Lawrence was mortally wounded, and subsequently died. His body is now in Trinity Churchyard in lower Manhattan, New York City. The "Chesapeake" was retained by the British as a prize after the war. Hopefully it was now as much bad luck for them as it had been for us.

That Lawrence died with such an outstanding statement of national pride on his lips amazes me as it was out of a disaster. The closest I can think like it is the probably mythical statement that as the water began pouring over the main deck of the "RMS Titanic", Captain Edward J. Smith (who died in the disaster) raised his megaphone and yelled, "Be British my men!!". Like to believe "E.J." said that, but he probably did not.]

We don't learn much about the War of 1812 in U.S. schools. In high school we spent weeks about the coming of the American Revolution and it's fighting. Also weeks about the American Civil War, and the anti-bellum South and Slavery, as well as Reconstruction. Later we learn about the events concerning the rise of Fascism and Communism, the rise of Hitler and Japan's militarists, the start of World War II, Pearl Harbor, and the battles leading to V. E. and V.J. day (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the "Shoah" in Europe, war crimes in Asia, and the trials at Nuremburg and Tokyo). This leads to in-depth teaching. So too the events of World War I, although few really learn about Belleau Wood or the Argonne Forrest. Korea is important due to the Cold War history lessons, and Vietnam is the nightmare we should have learned from. I can't guess what the post-"9/11" war is going to be looked at, but suspect it will be somewhat mooted in comparison to Vietnam.

But 1812 is taught in one class, as is the Mexican - American War of 1846-47, the Indian Wars (usually reduced to a comment on the great Indian victory at "Greasy Grass"/"Little Big Horn" and the final massacre at "Wounded Knee", and the "Cuban-Spanish-American "splendid little war" of 1898! The latter does give us a moment to glow because we won territory, but few learn of the "Filipino" Insurrection (1899 - 1902) which cost more lives and led to some American sponsored war crimes against the Philippine Island's people, nor that we kept the Islands as our leading colony until 1946. Although we did not take over Cuba (it had been a goal of some Americans as early as the 1830s) we made sure it was closely controlled, until Castro's revolution stopped that in 1959. We still have Puerto Rico and Guam. At the time of the 1899 peace treaty many felt McKinley slipped up because we failed to get the Canaries as well, but there were limits.

History is taught by each country to present their victories in the best light, but let us face the ugly fact that great pain and harm is done by one country against it's foes. 1812 (if it has had a good effect) did teach the U.S. not to underestimate our half-brother neighbor to the north, who on occasion showed us where to get off. It probably led to the U.S. and Canada to maintain an increasingly tolerant mood towards each other regarding being good neighbors, and having the longest boarder with out military installations in the world. However this has not prevented Canadians to resent a type of condescension by the U.S. government towards it at times (note the comments of Tory Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, and Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau). I can say that with power that bad habit of condescension reappears, and it is unfortunate. But all countries have it.

Our relations with Britain never (despite bad occurrences in 1832, 1861 - 1863, and 1895***) led to such extremes again, and in the 20th Century led to our assisting our former mother country to survive two World Wars, both of which ruined her own empire. Oddly the bad occurrences in 1833 and 1861 were tied to 1812.

In 1833 Jackson, now President of the U.S., forced the British and French to pay heavy indemnities for losses to American ship owners due to the depredations on our merchant fleet from 1798 (Adams' "Undeclared Naval War" with France) to the days of our idiotic "Embargo Act (Jefferson's bright idea - 1807 to 1809), to the British and French seizures of 1809 to 1815. The England of William IV and France of Louis Philippe paid the fines.

In 1861, with the American Civil War only three months old, Commodore Charles Wilkins (explorer of Antarctica in the 1840s) took a leaf from the British in the 1800s, and stopped the British steamer "Trent" to remove Confederate diplomats Mason and Slidell from going to Europe. Now impressment was reversed, and Britain did not find it as acceptable. We only avoided war due to the diplomacy of President Lincoln (who returned Mason and Slidell to the British), and the diplomatic efforts of Lord John Russell the Foreign Secretary, his Minister to the U.S., Lord Lyons, and the Prince Consort Albert (his last public service). We still had problems with the U.K. about certain Confederate ships (the "CSS Alabama" and "CSS Florida") built in Britain and sold to the South, which destroyed U.S. commerce, but that matter was finally stopped and in 1871 a huge claims indemnity paid to the U.S. after arbitration in Geneva. If the "Trent Affair" had a good side it soured Britain on further use of impressment tactics - it had finally been used on them in a similar fashion. THEN did it end as a method of warfare.

[***In 1895 the U.S. and U.K. almost came to blows over the dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana on their exact boundary. The large territory involved was rich in natural resources, so both wanted to settle this to their own advantage. Britain found the second Grover Cleveland administration keen on supporting Venezuela's claims, as it looked like a land grab in violation of the "Monroe Doctrine". Things got quite heated, with then outside observers Winston Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt hoping for a chance at a real war for the military glory they sought. Finally an arbitration was held, and former President Benjamin Harrison represented Venezuela's claims. But the arbitration found more in favor of Britain, so it did better than the Cleveland Administration would have wanted. But within a few ears the U.S. and U.K. began rebuilding a stronger family friendship again. Anti-British opinion in Europe due to the Boer War and suspicions of the U.S. stealing colonies from the Kingdom of Spain in the Cuban War led to American and British diplomats causing a change in the behavior of both states towards each other.]

As for the real losers of the War of 1812, I suspect we all know it was the Native Americans. They had found an organizer of genius in chief Tecumseh, who (in retrospect) both sides should have embraced. There was room in North America for a third country under Native American hands, probably beginning around Illinois and headed across the Mississippi. I think it could have worked, basing it on some kind of combination of tribal leadership counsels and democracy. But land greed got in the way, and it led to the British willingly (for the moment anyway) to ally with Tecumseh against the U.S. This had led to his defeat before the war at Tippicanoe (1811), and then his death and final defeat at the Thames (1813). Following that were several massacres, culminating in Fort Mims, which angered the Whites in the areas of Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama, and gave Jackson the full support he needed for his fighting through "Horshoe Bend" (1814). At Ghent, Lord Gambier and the British negotiators initially tried to keep Tecumseh's state on the table, but gradually realized that it was an expendable item and dropped it. Indian rights in the U.S. would never again have any strong non-American champion to push it. For the Native Americans, the road from Horshoe Bend to President Jackson's "trail of tears" of the 1830s is quite clear.

Jeff

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Fleetwood Mac

Many thanks for your interesting reflections on Canada then and now.

Yes of course from the Canadian perspective, the War of 1812 was a war for survival. It is in fact the Canadians' "Great Patriotic War" that ensured that Canada was not swallowed up by the American behometh. It stands out in Canadian history as their major war of the period, while by contrast, in the United States, the War of 1812 is overshadowed by the Revolution but particularly by the Civil War. This was a major problem for the War of 1812 community at the time of the Bicentennial of the war because the Civil War's Sesquicentennial (150th Anniversary) was at the same time!!! So our war got short shrift as a result. It's also a fact that a number of states involved in the war did nothing to commemorate the Bicentennial of the war -- this happened with both New York and Louisiana -- despite the Battle of New Orleans having happened there. Maryland did commemorate the war in a big way, however.

Although the War Hawks in the U.S. might have claimed the capture of Canada was the objective, was the takeover of Canada what the Madison administration was aiming for? The administration never said that was the objective, so U.S. historian Don Hickey can reasonably maintain that it might not have been the aim. As I stated, for practical purposes, the only real way the Americans could "get at" the British was to attack Canada.

There is also the myth believed by the American public -- I hear it time and again -- that the British wanted their former colonies back. No they didn't. Britain's main aim in the war was to protect Canada, their major remaining possession in North America. The United States had been recognized as a sovereign nation by Great Britain for 30 years, and that was not going to change.

Best regards

Chris

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Demaso

Good to meet you.

Thanks for your interesting posts about the War of 1812, which happens to be my area of expertise when I am not a Ripperologist. I have also written this post once before then lost it, so hopefully this time it will stick. Grrrrrrrrr.

A piece of trivia for you is that as a congressman Richard M. Johnson chaired the Congressional Committee of Inquiry into the capture of Washington.

Were the Americans trying to liberate Canada, as you claim? That is unclear. For practical purposes, to attack Canada was the main way that the Americans could fight the British. Leading U.S. historian of the war Donald R. Hickey maintains that if the U.S. had captured Canada the Madison administration would have used it in the peace negotiations not kept hold of it. Uowever, I think that Manifest Destiny shows the Americans would have kept Canada, but that's just my opinion.

Of course the Americans burned the public buildings of not Toronto in April 1813 but York, the then capital of Upper Canada. It is sometimes erroneously said that the British burned the public buildings of Washington D.C. in retaliation the following year. But there's nothing in the British correspondence to show that was their intent. They spoke of other American infractions on the frontier, such as the burning of Newark (later Niagara-on-the-Lake) but not York.

The British Army that captured Washington on August 24, 1814 didn't come down from the north (i.e, Canada) as you state. They came from Europe -- the army under Major General Robert Ross left the Garonne in southern France at the end of May.

Yes impressment did end after the war but the reason was not to do with the War of 1812 but because the war with Napoleon was over with the deposed emperor being sent into his second exile on St. Helena.

Andrew Jackson was a general at the time of the Battle of New Orleans not a colonel.

I don't know where you live but I have organized a War of 1812 Symposium to take place in Baltimore on Saturday, October 22. Email me at editor1812@yahoo.com if you are interested.

Best regards

Chris

**********************

Christopher T. George,
Author, Terror on the Chesapeake: The War of 1812 on the Bay
Co-author (with Dr. John McCavitt), The Man Who Captured Washington:
Major General Robert Ross and the War of 1812 now available
from Amazon at http://tinyurl.com/p6bsvze - hear interview at
http://historyauthor.com/2016/03/man...ed-washington/

The Canadian museums were unequivocal in that it was a battle for their survival and had they lost it would have been incorporated into the United States.

Have to say a few things about Canada that surprised me. I've been fortunate enough to get around the world so I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance:

Never have I seen so many national flags flying from flag-poles. Far, far more than the United States.

Never have I seen such a ratio of businesses to people. Not sure how these places stay in business.

Never have I seen so many fast food outlets. Unbelievable.

The French Canadiens were great by the way over towards Quebec City. I really liked them. It could have helped that I speak enough French to get by in your average conversation, but regardless they were nothing but warm and friendly with us.

Ottawa and Montreal pick of the bunch. Ottawa a real nice surprise.

[ChrisGeorge]

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".

Hello Demaso

Good to meet you.

Thanks for your interesting posts about the War of 1812, which happens to be my area of expertise when I am not a Ripperologist. I have also written this post once before then lost it, so hopefully this time it will stick. Grrrrrrrrr.

A piece of trivia for you is that as a congressman Richard M. Johnson chaired the Congressional Committee of Inquiry into the capture of Washington.

Were the Americans trying to liberate Canada, as you claim? That is unclear. For practical purposes, to attack Canada was the main way that the Americans could fight the British. Leading U.S. historian of the war Donald R. Hickey maintains that if the U.S. had captured Canada the Madison administration would have used it in the peace negotiations not kept hold of it. Uowever, I think that Manifest Destiny shows the Americans would have kept Canada, but that's just my opinion.

Of course the Americans burned the public buildings of not Toronto in April 1813 but York, the then capital of Upper Canada. It is sometimes erroneously said that the British burned the public buildings of Washington D.C. in retaliation the following year. But there's nothing in the British correspondence to show that was their intent. They spoke of other American infractions on the frontier, such as the burning of Newark (later Niagara-on-the-Lake) but not York.

The British Army that captured Washington on August 24, 1814 didn't come down from the north (i.e, Canada) as you state. They came from Europe -- the army under Major General Robert Ross left the Garonne in southern France at the end of May.

Yes impressment did end after the war but the reason was not to do with the War of 1812 but because the war with Napoleon was over with the deposed emperor being sent into his second exile on St. Helena.

Andrew Jackson was a general at the time of the Battle of New Orleans not a colonel.

I don't know where you live but I have organized a War of 1812 Symposium to take place in Baltimore on Saturday, October 22. Email me at editor1812@yahoo.com if you are interested.

Best regards

Chris

**********************

Christopher T. George,
Author, Terror on the Chesapeake: The War of 1812 on the Bay
Co-author (with Dr. John McCavitt), The Man Who Captured Washington:
Major General Robert Ross and the War of 1812 now available
from Amazon at http://tinyurl.com/p6bsvze - hear interview at

http://historyauthor.com/2016/03/man-captured-washington/

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

This song, about the capture of Detroit, was written during the War of 1812:

THE BOLD CANADIAN.

Come all ye bold Canadians,
I'd have you lend an ear
Unto a short ditty
Which will your spirits cheer
Concerning an engagement
We had at Detroit town,
The pride of those Yankee boys
So bravely we took down.

Those Yankees did invade us,
To kill and to destroy,
And to distress our country,
Our peace for to annoy.
Our countrymen were filled
With sorrow, grief and woe,
To think that they should fall
By such an unnatural foe.

At length our brave commander,
Sir Isaac Brock by name,
Took shipping at Niagara,
And unto York he came.
Says he, ye valiant heroes,
Will ye go along with me
To fight those proud Yankees
In the west of Canada?

Our General sent a flag to them
And thus to them did say:
"Surrender up your garrison,
"Or I'll fire on you this day."
Those Yankee hearts began to ache
Their blood it did run cold
To see us marching forward
So courageous and so bold.

Their general sent a flag to us,
For quarter he did call,
Saying, "Stay your hand, brave British boys,
"I fear you'll slay us all."
"Our town, it is at your command,
"Our garrison likewise."
They brought their arms and grounded them
Right down before our eyes.

Now prisoners we made them,
On board a ship they went,
And from the town of Sandwich
Unto Quebec were sent.

The Times of London set this to "Yankee Doodle":

Brother Ephraim sold his cow
And bought himself a commission:
And now he's gone to Canada
To fi-ight for the nation.

Brother Ephraim he's come back
Prov'd an arrant coward,
Afraid to fight the enemy,
Afeared he be devour'd.

Wolf.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.