WAR of 1812

[Shabraque]

Though not a war which made great use of Calvary I'm curious at the lack of reference to this conflict on its bicentennial......

[Pat Holscher]

Though not a war which made great use of Calvary I'm curious at the lack of reference to this conflict on its bicentennial......

By that, do you mean a lack of reference to it here, or in general?

[Pat Holscher]

Also, fwiw, the US didn't declare war until June 18, 1812. It was the closest vote for such a declaration in US history, and the first time the US had declared war (which of course we haven't done since 1941). No engagements of any kind were fought until July, 1812. So, in terms of significant anniversaries, there haven't been any to record as of yet.

That might be the reason for lack of notice, but we just haven't run up on anything yet. And of course the 150th anniversary of a lot of Civil War events is likely to overshadow the War of 1812 nationally.

[unclearthur]

Also, fwiw, the US didn't declare war until June 18, 1812. It was the closest vote for such a declaration in US history, and the first time the US had declared war (which of course we haven't done since 1941). No engagements of any kind were fought until July, 1812. So, in terms of significant anniversaries, there haven't been any to record as of yet.

That might be the reason for lack of notice, but we just haven't run up on anything yet. And of course the 150th anniversary of a lot of Civil War events is likely to overshadow the War of 1812 nationally.

Plus it was a mess - the British had already revoked the Orders in Council, which precipitated the fighting, before it actually began. The news just took a very long time to get there.

[Pat Holscher]

Also, fwiw, the US didn't declare war until June 18, 1812. It was the closest vote for such a declaration in US history, and the first time the US had declared war (which of course we haven't done since 1941). No engagements of any kind were fought until July, 1812. So, in terms of significant anniversaries, there haven't been any to record as of yet.

That might be the reason for lack of notice, but we just haven't run up on anything yet. And of course the 150th anniversary of a lot of Civil War events is likely to overshadow the War of 1812 nationally.

Plus it was a mess - the British had already revoked the Orders in Council, which precipitated the fighting, before it actually began. The news just took a very long time to get there.

And ambiguous.

Our beef with the British about their impressing sailors was a real complaint, but in some ways it was a bit of an excuse for those who wanted a war, and some of the sailors the British were impressing were actually British subject who were on American ships for cloudy reasons.

Some sections of the US proved to be more sympathetic to the British than we would have cared to admit at the time. The British didn't always have a hard time finding local support.

However, British troops proved to be willing to drop out of formation and immigrate by desertion, just as Hessians had during the Revolution, which was embarrassing for an Army that had proven it could give Napoleon a pounding.

We invaded Canada again, only to find that they still hadn't changed their minds about signing up with us.

The net result of the war was basically an agreement to stop it, which isn't emotionally satisfying.

About the only ones who really remember the war are the Canadians, who figure they won it, with some justification. Canadian militias saw a lot of action, and by and large were pretty successful.

All in all, the War of 1812 is one which not all that many Americans were that keen on getting into in the first place, and was fought over a cause which might not have really been all that clear. Being that type of war, it may have suffered from a very early Vietnam War Syndrome in which Americans basically would have rather forgotten about most of it, save for the Battle of New Orleans, which we do remember, except to the extent that the war was already over at the time it was fought and we just hadn't gotten the news. It was a real mess compared to the successful Revolution, many of whose veterans were still alive, and therefore suffered, like Vietnam, from being deep in the shadows of a monolithic earlier war. It wouldn't surprise me if War of 1812 veterans suffered for years when they went down to the Bull and Tankard, or whatever, and ordered a beer only to be confronted with "why back in our day we pasted the Brits. . . .and we didn't have no fancy issue musket either, . . . why I had to fight at Lexington with a fouling piece. . . " Only the Canadians, who can claim to have successfully defeated a second major US attempt to invade, really recall the war, probably because they have the most to recall.

Not that it isn't worth recalling.

And, fwiw, the Pritzer Military Library has recently featured two brand new books on War of 1812 subjects. One on a big battle fought within what is now the boundaries of the City of Chicago (a real defeat for the US).

Even on that item, however, I'd note that apparently the City of Chicago once had a monument to an event in that battle, in which an Indian chief, allied with the British, saved the life of a female member of a soldiers family by holding her head under water, but the city now has it warehoused somewhere as being too controversial.

[Shabraque]

Though not a war which made great use of Calvary I'm curious at the lack of reference to this conflict on its bicentennial......

By that, do you mean a lack of reference to it here, or in general?

Just asking in general...and it was a rather important event as it solidified one of the longest international boundries (with occassional flares ups later on such as in British Columbia over a pig). There had been a rather significant behind the scenes push by certain US interests to try and annex Canadian territory. After five unsuccesful invasions by the US, which included the torching of Canada's Parliment buildings (a favour repaid with British help), the war became very unpopular south of the border. There were a few significant battles where French speaking and English speaking Canadian militias fought together with little or no British support. This demonstrated that the Canadian colony had a future and forced the US to look elsewhere in their efforts to expand their territories. It was the major reason North America looks the way it does today.

[Couvi]

The last time I was in Ottawa for a joint military museum conference, the Canadians were still referring to that war as "that recent unpleasantness."

[Joseph Sullivan]

One good thing about the War of 1812 is that the veterans were granted real estate in the "west," which meant places lke Kentucky and Indiana. Some of my family recieved 1812 land grants. Ans, if you look around the really old monuments, parks and cemetaries in those areas, you will find nicely executed memorials to the soldiers of the war of 1812. Of course, I always thought it was actually fouught in 1814...

Maybe as a horsey crowd we ought to commemorate the Bladensberg Races.

[Pat Holscher]

Though not a war which made great use of Calvary I'm curious at the lack of reference to this conflict on its bicentennial......

By that, do you mean a lack of reference to it here, or in general?

Just asking in general...and it was a rather important event as it solidified one of the longest international boundries (with occassional flares ups later on such as in British Columbia over a pig). There had been a rather significant behind the scenes push by certain US interests to try and annex Canadian territory. After five unsuccesful invasions by the US, which included the torching of Canada's Parliment buildings (a favour repaid with British help), the war became very unpopular south of the border. There were a few significant battles where French speaking and English speaking Canadian militias fought together with little or no British support. This demonstrated that the Canadian colony had a future and forced the US to look elsewhere in their efforts to expand their territories. It was the major reason North America looks the way it does today.

The war wasn't necessarily popular everywhere south of the border prior to it even being declared. As noted, it had a larger degree of opposition in Congress than any other American War at the time the war was declared. There were certain sections of the US, and sectors of the US population, that were quite opposed to it from the onset, just as, of course, there were those that were in favor it.

In the US, I think the war suffers in attention, in spite of the significance of it, which you have noted, as it is a war like the Korean War, or the Spanish American War, that fits into other major historical events so it's easy for people to forget. The cause of the war seems minor in comparison to the Revolution or the Civil War. There was no huge territorial result, like the Mexican War. The war itself was overshadowed by the Napoleonic Wars, of which it is an uncomfortable part, and which means that in later years we found ourselves looking back fondly on the British effort to defeat an enemy we regard as a megalomaniac while we were basically that megalomaniac's ally. It's analogous, therefore, to other important wars that share these traits.

It might not, however, be as forgotten as we might imagine. As noted, there are two new recent books on the war, so it is getting some attention. The war is a frequent topic of items in the Company of Military Historians journal, showing that it isn't completely forgotten. And as noted, it receives a fair amount of Canadian attention.

[Pat Holscher]

One good thing about the War of 1812 is that the veterans were granted real estate in the "west," which meant places lke Kentucky and Indiana.

I didn't realize that. Very interesting.

[Pat Holscher]

Maybe as a horsey crowd we ought to commemorate the Bladensberg Races.

Not one of the prouder moments in U.S. history.

[Jim Bewley]

Along these lines, here is the new Maryland license plate. This is not a special plate, but the regular one on all cars.

Jim

[Pat Holscher]

Along these lines, here is the new Maryland license plate. This is not a special plate, but the regular one on all cars.

Jim

Well shoot, apparently some are paying attention.

[Jim Bewley]

I admit, I don't know much about this war, but there are several small parks around Baltimore, dedicated to battles fought during the War of 1812, so it seems to have been a big deal in Maryland. Guess I should learn more about it.

Jim

[Joseph Sullivan]

Well, yes. In places where the War was fought, there are lots of memorials that you will now start seeing (like anything else, they don't show up untill you consciousness is raised -- forgive the '60 phrase here). Of course, almost everyone has heard of the Battle of New Orleans, which was part of that war. Of course, in my generation Johnny Horton probably did more to familiarize people with that particular fight than did any histgory book.

Actually, Pat, a substantial amount of land west of the mountains and east of the Great River went as 1812 grants. My parents presently live in a 60 acre virgin forest in Illinois that was originally part of an 1812 grant. This particular grant was not made to our family --we didn't buy it until 1941 -- but if you look at abstracts in those regions, it might surprise you.

The Bladensberg Races are not a highpoint in US history. On the other hand, the British honored the general on their side.

It might be fun to see how many such interestingly named panic evacuations there were in US history. Offhand, I can think of two: Bladensberg; and the Runaway Scrape in Texas. Of course, at the time of the Scrape, Texas was still a Mexican provence, and it involved most of the population and not just the militia, but still...

[Pat Holscher]

Oddly enough, there's some War of 1812 events listed in today's history thread.

[Pat Holscher]

I admit, I don't know much about this war, but there are several small parks around Baltimore, dedicated to battles fought during the War of 1812, so it seems to have been a big deal in Maryland. Guess I should learn more about it.

Jim

The CBC catalogs Canadian history events on a daily basis, and I note that they run piles of War of 1812 items, including quite a few from New England. Some are very surprising, and there seems to have been some small scale naval raiding by both sides that I don't know anything about, and only have read a little about there. The whole war is an under explored topic.

[Joseph Sullivan]

The naval raiding left a feeling of mistrust for quite a while. One of my mother's gr gr gr grandfathers was a [ost captain in the RN when Boney was finally locked up for the second time. When the navy was cut back, he emigrated to Canada, where he commanded Kingston-based gunboats on the Great Lakes to help defend against the US.

[Pat Holscher]

Well, yes. In places where the War was fought, there are lots of memorials that you will now start seeing (like anything else, they don't show up untill you consciousness is raised -- forgive the '60 phrase here). Of course, almost everyone has heard of the Battle of New Orleans, which was part of that war. Of course, in my generation Johnny Horton probably did more to familiarize people with that particular fight than did any histgory book.

Joe, you are familiar with the Chicago area. In the recent Prizter podcast on the new book "Illinois in the War of 1812" (there's also a new book out called "Mr. and Mrs. Madison's War") the author discussed a battle that occurred within what is now the city limits of Chicago, and referenced a statute there that once memorialized it, but is now is storage as being controversial. Are you familiar with that at all, and if so, can you elaborate on that story? I find it odd that it's controversial.

Actually, Pat, a substantial amount of land west of the mountains and east of the Great River went as 1812 grants. My parents presently live in a 60 acre virgin forest in Illinois that was originally part of an 1812 grant. This particular grant was not made to our family --we didn't buy it until 1941 -- but if you look at abstracts in those regions, it might surprise you.

I'm sure it would surprise me. The author of the book mentioned above noted that the pre 1812 settlement of the Chicago area (small numbers of people, of course) was heavily dominated by discharged soldiers, but didn't otherwise go into it.

We hear a lot of about Western homesteading, but that's really a post Civil War story. We don't hear much about the legal mechanism of pre Civil War settlement. Histories reference "homesteaders", but they rarely say how they purchased the land. Law students learn a little, as one of the very early significant US Supreme Court opinions ruled that Indians held "aboriginal title", but that they couldn't freely alienate that title by selling into to European Americans. Only the US government could acquire the Indians lands, and then alienate it as it saw fit. But how did most of that occur? Generally it seems that prior to 1860, the Federal government generally transferred title to the states upon their admission, and then the states must have alienated it in some other fashion, but we don't hear much about that.

I have it very generally in mind that some Revolutionary War veterans received land grants, but I don't know from whom, or how many. I had no idea that had been done in the War of 1812. It occurs to me that I don't really know the percentage of American forces that were in the regular Federal Army vs. militia for that matter.

The Bladensberg Races are not a highpoint in US history. On the other hand, the British honored the general on their side.

Who no doubt deserved his accolades too

When you look at the US land effort during the War of 1812 in general, there's a lot to be disappointed about. Generally, the US Army did not really do all that well. the Army had been pretty small and neglected prior to the war, which might help explain it, and the Army was rife with politics at that time, which no doubt didn't help things much either. Still, it was not our finest hour.

I recall reading years ago that what really hurt the British during the war, more than anything else, was their extraordinarily long supply line. While the British controlled Canada, of course, it was basically stretching its supply line back to England, which was simply too long for any sort of extended effort in North America. Having said that, however, they did a brilliant job of conducting a global war against Napoleon, while having to deal with some regional conflicts world wide at the same time. In the overall scheme of things, they seem to have somewhat regarded us as a nuisance deserving of a slap, which they gave us. We can be proud of the Battle of New Orleans, but given the British difficulties in even landing there, and the fact the war was over, our victory is somewhat tempered.

Another thing I recall reading, in Tuchman's book on the war, was that a real fear on the part of the British forces was a developing desertion crisis. That they did not contemplate. Their Army had a fine record in Europe and they had no reason to believe that soldiers would desert, but it proved to be very easy to do, and they had that problem even when they marched on Washington D. C. It wasn't that their troops sympathized with the American cause, but rather that British enlistments were typically life long, and most of the men came from humble backgrounds. The regional accents in the D. C. region were apparently fairly close to their own, and it rapidly dawned on them that they could drop out of formation and be absorbed into a generally fairly sympathetic populace and ply a civilian trade, more lucratively, in the US. Fearing attrition in that fashion, the British found that they didn't want to leave British troops ashore on the American east coast too long.

t might be fun to see how many such interestingly named panic evacuations there were in US history. Offhand, I can think of two: Bladensberg; and the Runaway Scrape in Texas. Of course, at the time of the Scrape, Texas was still a Mexican provence, and it involved most of the population and not just the militia, but still...

That would be interesting.

[Pat Holscher]

The naval raiding left a feeling of mistrust for quite a while. One of my mother's gr gr gr grandfathers was a [ost captain in the RN when Boney was finally locked up for the second time. When the navy was cut back, he emigrated to Canada, where he commanded Kingston-based gunboats on the Great Lakes to help defend against the US.

It's been referenced a little bit above, but Canadian loyalist really did have reason to fear the US, something that we've generally forgotten. American democracy was a radical movement in some ways for the entire 18th and 19th Centuries, and even up into the 20th Century (and perhaps even now), and English speaking Canadians were generally loyalist, and in many cases the descendants of the Loyalist who were on the loosing side of the American Revolution. They looked at us as a bunch of unruly expansionist. We looked at them as needing liberation and not knowing it. This was no doubt greatly increased by the fact that American immigrants had flooded into Canada in the years between the American Revolution and the War of 1812, and by the time of the War of 1812, Americans outnumbered English loyalist descendants ten to one, and they did favor incorporation into US. Indeed, its almost amazing to realize that what happened to Texas in 1836 didn't happen to Upper Canada. The French Quebecois looked at everybody as a bunch of pests who should have stayed home in the first place, but viewed us with particular suspicion as the English had agreed not to interfere with their religion, but Americans at the start of the Revolution had made some statements about needing to go up there and wipe out Papism.

Canadian military history is interesting in these regards, and at least this part of it seems to be remembered, as English speaking Canadian militias saw a lot of action, and there were locally raised Great Lakes naval units, as you note (and have a connection with). I'm sometimes amazed by how, at least here, there's a common assumption that Canada never fought a war. Indeed, last year in Middle School one fairly liberal English teacher my son had made that statement. Canada underwent its own small civil war in 1837-38, when there were rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada, and that story seem to be nearly completely forgotten.