Bicentennial of the War of 1812-- You Missed It

[XLFD]

On June 18, 1812 the US declared war against Great Britain and what is sometimes called the second war of independence officially began.  It would last until the Treaty of Ghent was signed on Christmas Eve of 1814, and beyond since six land battles continued into 1815 in the southern states between the USA and Great Britain, and two sea battles, one off the coast of North Africa and the official last skirmish between the USS Peacock and the East Indian cruiser Nautilus in June.

 

I remember as a kid the big build up to the US Bicentennial back on July 4, 1976; the coins, the stamps, the collector plates, the celebrations, etc.  But the War of 1812, though significant, has never really gotten any respect as a war, and beyond some events happening around Baltimore, little else is happening to commemorate this period.  There is a good reason for that.  And there is plenty to learn from that war, as we have seen recently that "history has a tendency to repeat itself" by several parallels to our recent military actions.  This commemorative article will focus mostly on that.

 

Most history books will tell you that the impressment of American seamen by the British started the war, but this is fairly simplistic, and does not take into account that during all the 30 years after the Revolutionary War, this was a common practice, with no major uptick around 1812.  Congressman John Randolph said at the time: 

"Sir, if you go to war it will not be for the protection of, or defense of your maritime rights. Gentlemen from the North have been taken up to some high mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the earth; and Canada seems tempting to their sight. That rich vein of Gennesee land, which is said to be even better on the other side of the lake than on this. Agrarian cupidity, not maritime right, urges the war. Ever since the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations came into the House, we have heard but one word- like the whip-poor-will, but one eternal monotonous tone- Canada! Canada! Canada!”

 

The warhawks of 1812 did not conceal the fact that they had a strong dose of manifest destiny, their leader Senator John Calhoun said:  "I believe that in four weeks from the time a declaration of war is heard on our frontier, the whole of Upper Canada and a part of Lower Canada will be in our power.” 

Then Secretary of War William Eustis was very optimistic, saying:  "We can take the Canadas without soldiers, we have only to send officers into the province and the people . . . will rally round our standard.”

 

Both Calhoun and Eustis sound amazingly like some of the optimistic warhawks we have had in our time urging action in the Middle East.  And about as accurate in their forecasts.  Canadians didn't look at the US troops as liberators, nor did they give an inch freely. 

 

Frontiersmen were supportive of the war, since the Europeans in the interior were on good terms with the Indians, and armed and aided them at times in making life difficult for American settlers.  Warhawks primarily in Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party used the sea and frontier aggressions into a salient argument for war against an enemy that was trying to hem America in. 

 

But America's standing militias at that time were organized as per the Constitution for the defense against agressive forces, not for invading another country that most Americans had no quarrel with.  Conquering foreign lands at that time was considered-- un-American, and almost all attempts to enter Canada met not only the resistance of the Maple Leafers, but also the militiamen. 

 

One big reason for the failure to take Canada was the militias’ frequent mutinies. After the American defeat at Detroit (the supposed launching pad for the conquest of Canada, American millitias surrendered to British troops and Canadian militia without firing a shot), another march on Canada was launched, this time under the command of Gen. Stephan Van Rensselaer. This adventure came to an inglorious end, however, when the militiamen refused to cross the US/Canadian border.  A commentator of the time wrote:  "Another invasion attempt, on 19 November 1812, collapsed when American troops refused to leave New York State and forced their leader, Gen. Henry Dearborn, to march them back to Pittsburgh. Less than two weeks later, Gen. ‘Apocalypse’ Smythe twice ordered his troops to cross the Niagara, both times failing in his courage and calling off the attacks. On returning from the second attempt, the soldiers turned their weapons on Smythe, forcing him to flee to Virginia.”

 

One must understand as well that if Britain was not very engaged in the Napoleonic Wars at the time (French armies invaded Britain's ally Russia, 5 days after America declared war), that Britain may very well have taken America down a few notches.  The war quickly became unpopular for different reasons on both sides of the Atlantic, and there was a very real movement in the New England states to cease its support for the war.  Both sides were afflicted with inertia, and neither side was highly motivated, except when defending their own territory.

 

The US Navy did have some of its finest hours, and fared surprisingly well against the British, winning many sea battles, yet still the British sacked and burned the US Capital forcing little James Madison away to seek safer headquarters.  The treaty ending the war gave America no part of Canada, and a promise from Britain to quit impressing seamen.  When one looks at the various outcomes of battles, it is hard to say that America won this war.  Oh, they held their own militarily, and one could claim the stalemate was in their favor, but the real casualty of this war was not on the field of battle or at sea.   

 

The war established Federalistic principles to a republic that had been based on Jeffersonian ideals.  A central bank, high tariffs, domestic federal taxation, and internal taxation were all imposed for the war; many lingered for awhile, and never was the nation able to get back to the pre-1812 level of minimum state power.  The end results of the war only encouraged further American imperialism, ironically the imperialism they had found so distasteful less than just two generations before.

 

Ironically, also, the Canadians seem to understate their own victories in this war in their understated manner, by extending the offer of paying almost the complete bill for an international bridge 200 years after their own success at Detroit, extending from that city to Windsor.   Maybe there is a new imperialism fomenting up north of the border? 

[Sweater Cows!]

hahaha. that last sentence kills me, lol

[Willy]

Thanks for the topic X. I love history. Also,  Michigan played a large part in the war with conflicts at Detroit and Mackinac island.

http://www.warof1812.ca/batdetroit.html

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_mackinac_island_1812.html

[XLFD]

Let us not also forget:

the Battle of Brownstown (8-5-1812),

the Battle of Maguagua [Great name for a battle](8-8-1812),

and the Battle of Frenchtown/River Raisin(1-18-1813). 

All of these happened early in the war in Michigan, the last being the most significant in casualties and effect.  After these skirmishes, the most action took place around Mackinac in this theater of war.

 

[Willy]

X

Thanks for those links

[XLFD]

No problemo, I figured you would enjoy those other Michigan skirmishes.  One thing that surprised me when I looked at some of the history, was that the sea battles of the War of 1812 took place all over.  One was off the coast of Chile in the Pacific Ocean, one battle off the coast of Brazil, one in the Irish Sea, several in the Caribbean, in the south Atlantic, in the Great lakes of Erie and Ontario, and, as one would expect, most in the north Atlantic. 

This was a very mixed-up war, with a variety of battlefields, with battles taking place in these states:  Michigan, Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Virginia, Florida, Mayland, New York, Illinois, Washington DC- Virginia, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Ohio, Delaware, Indiana, Tennessee, and Iowa.