News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.5K     1 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 793     0 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.8K     1 

War of 1812

Southoftheborder

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Maybe a Canadian can explain to me why Canada makes a big deal out of The War of 1812. It was started to punish Britain for violations of international law. It was ended in New Orleans. It has never been so important to Britain or the USA, the principal combattants. So why is a third party treating it as an important event?
 
I would direct you to get the two books on the War of 1812 by Pierre Berton:

  • The Invasion of Canada 1812-1813
    9780385658393.jpg

  • Flames Across the Border: 1813-1814
    9780385673594.jpg


To America's leaders in 1812, an invasion of Canada seemed to be "a mere matter of marching," as Thomas Jefferson confidently predicted. How could a nation of 8 million fail to subdue a struggling colony of 300,000? Yet, when the campaign of 1812 ended, the only Americans left on Canadian soil were prisoners of war. Three American armies had been forced to surrender, and the British were in control of all of Michigan Territory and much of Indiana and Ohio.

In this remarkable account of the war's first year and the events that led up to it, Pierre Berton transforms history into an engrossing narrative that reads like a fast-paced novel. Drawing on personal memoirs and diaries as well as official dispatches, the author has been able to get inside the characters of the men who fought the war — the common soldiers as well as the generals, the bureaucrats and the profiteers, the traitors and the loyalists.

Berton believes that if there had been no war, most of Ontario would probably be American today; and if the war had been lost by the British, all of Canada would now be part of the United States. But the War of 1812, or more properly the myth of the war, served to give the new settlers a sense of community and set them on a different course from that of their neighbours.

The Canada–U.S. border was in flames as the War of 1812 continued. York's parliament buildings were on fire, Niagara-on-the-Lake burned to the ground and Buffalo lay in ashes. Even the American capital of Washington, far to the south, was put to the torch. The War of 1812 had become one of the nineteenth century's bloodiest struggles.

Flames Across the Border is a compelling evocation of war at its most primeval level — the muddy fields, the frozen forests and the ominous waters where men fought and died. Pierre Berton skilfully captures the courage, determination and terror of the universal soldier, giving new dimension and fresh perspective to this early conflict between the two emerging nations of North America.

They are both available for download on iBooks. There is a special download copy that includes both books in one: Pierre Berton's War of 1812.
 
Last edited:
Uh, wait, is that historian saying Britain won the War of 1812? I think Andrew Jackson might quibble with that interpretation. Yeh, no doubt there were Americans who thought having an ally of the Crown perched on our northside was not desirable. But after the initial attempt, there was no followup to annex Canada. I think this is all about defiance of Big Brother to the South, no matter how much mythology you have to use. Too bad this spirit wasn't there to prevent NAFTA. That would have been very useful.
 
From the Star, at this link:

4dd1cb0b49d98c2eb3fc85e3cd50.jpg

The meeting of Tecumseh and Isaac Brock at Fort Malden on Aug. 13, 1812. They are are indelibly numbered among the founders of today’s Canada, says James Laxer.


Canada became a principal battleground in the war the United States declared against Great Britain on June 18, 1812.

Americans had developed grievances against the British over a period of years. They deeply resented the Royal Navy’s interference with U.S. commerce on the high seas during Britain’s life and death struggle with Napoleon Bonaparte’s empire in Europe. The Americans were especially furious with the British practice of “impressment,” seizing sailors on American ships and claiming they were deserters from the Royal Navy. The Americans who were pushing westward and occupying the land of native peoples on the western frontier — at the time, around the Great Lakes and in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and territories further south — reacted bitterly against sporadic British support for the native peoples and the supplying of their warriors with weapons.

If several major irritants drove the administration of president James Madison to declare war against Britain, the Americans had only one strategy to achieve military success — the invasion of Canada. American political leaders were confident of victory. Former president Thomas Jefferson wrote that the conquest of Canada as far as Quebec City would involve a “mere matter of marching.”

Nearly a month after the declaration of war, Gen. William Hull led a force of American troops across the Detroit River onto the soil of Upper Canada, near the present day city of Windsor. There friendly residents, many of them former residents of the U.S. who had migrated north to obtain land, greeted the invaders. Hull issued a proclamation declaring that “the standard of union now waves over the territory of Canada.

“I tender you the invaluable blessings of civil, political and religious liberty,” the general stated. But Hull’s honeyed words were followed by the stark warning that in the event that Canadians should choose to resist “this will be a war of extermination . . . No white man found fighting by the side of an Indian will be taken prisoner; instant destruction will be his lot . . . the United States offer you peace, liberty and security — your choice lies between these and war, slavery and destruction.”

What stopped Hull’s invasion in its tracks was the remarkable fusing of the talents of two warriors, Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief, and Maj.-Gen. Isaac Brock, who commanded British forces in Upper Canada and led the province’s civil administration. In mid-August 1812, the two met at Fort Malden on the north shore of Lake Erie, a short distance from Fort Detroit on the other side of the border. Tecumseh, the pre-eminent native leader of his day, led a vast Confederacy of native peoples who came together to resist the American seizure of their lands. Brock, the most offensive-minded of the British military leaders in Canada, understood that effective coordination with Tecumseh and the native peoples was essential if the British were to prevail.

Drawing strength from each other’s determination, Tecumseh and Brock decided to undertake an immediate assault on the U.S. fortress, over the objections of Brock’s leading officers. They deployed British army regulars, native warriors and Canadian militia, despite the fact the Americans easily outnumbered these combined forces. Three days later, Hull, who was especially fearful of native warriors, surrendered Fort Detroit.

The stunning victory threw the Americans back on their heels and convinced much of the settler population of Upper Canada that a U.S. conquest of the province was far from inevitable.

Tecumseh and Brock merged two wars into one. The first was what we can call the Endless War, the struggle of native peoples to preserve their lands in the face of ceaseless pressure by setters and their regimes. The Endless War began many decades before the birth of Tecumseh and continued long after his death. The second conflict was the War of 1812 between Britain and the United States.

As a consequence of the roles they played in the conflict, Tecumseh and Brock are indelibly numbered among the founders of today’s Canada. Ironically, neither was, or aspired to be, Canadian. Tecumseh fought for the rights and sovereignty of native peoples. Brock fought for the British Empire and would have preferred involvement in the “big show” in Europe against Napoleon. Both Brock and Tecumseh died fighting on Canadian soil, Brock at Queenston two months after the capture of Detroit and Tecumseh a year later in the battle of Moraviantown, not far from London, Ont.

The war dragged on with battles won and lost by both sides, rarely noteworthy for military brilliance. Before it ended with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent (in present-day Belgium) in December 1814, the public buildings of York (Toronto) and Washington, D.C., were put to the torch.

The native peoples lost the chapter of the Endless War in which Tecumseh fought. At the peace talks, the British dropped the demand for the creation of a native state to be located between the Ohio River and Canada. But the Americans failed to conquer Canada, which meant that there would be two transcontinental states north of the Rio Grande, not one.

While the French Canadians were a people long before the War of 1812, the conflict was Upper Canada’s War of Independence, fought paradoxically under an imperial banner and with British regulars and native warriors doing the lion’s share of the fighting alongside Canadian militia.

Of course, Canadians should commemorate this essential chapter in our history. Those who have opposed such public commemoration financed by Ottawa ought to ask themselves whether they think that Americans of all political shades will stop feting their War of Independence or that the French will cease their annual marking of the storming of the Bastille.



James Laxer, professor of political science in the department of equity studies at York University, is the author of Tecumseh and Brock: The War of 1812. He will be speaking about the War of 1812 at 2 p.m. on Sunday at the Bloor/Gladstone Library, 1101 Bloor St. W.

With the British, Russia, etc. fighting France (Napoleon) in Europe, the war in North America made the War of 1812, the first world war, not WWI.
 
No, the Revolutionary War was WWI. England and France were fighting in India at the same time as France was providing support to the 13th colonies at Yorktown in America.

By the way, I read some online about Canada and the War of 1812. It got its territory back at the Treaty of Ghent, but the use of First Nations people to fight the USA probably helped doom them throughout the future states. They'd chosen to fight with America's enemies and were now considered a danger to the new nation. They won consideration throughout Canada (Sitting Bull went north after the Little Big Horn) but they'd shown their colors in the territory controlled by the US government, so they now had a target on them till the last uprising was put down. Not a prominently mentioned fact when discussions about US history touches on First Nations. After the War of 1812, they all should have migrated, but of course tribes like Seminoles and Apache had no idea what had been done by northern tribes.
 
Uh, wait, is that historian saying Britain won the War of 1812?

Uh, what are you trying to say? It's common knowledge that american history books tend to be mostly fiction.
 
Never mind. I know what this whole thing is about. Corporations on both sides of the border see a looting opportunity. Stephen Harper is there to help them in any way he can. But in democracies, there's always a necessity to misdirect voter attention as the looting commences. So that's when some ludicrous issue of patriotism is very handy. When Reagan was preparing to silence all the guard dogs, he started giving ringing speeches about freedom and painting the USSR as an immediate menace. It didn't fool everyone, but it did enough. Meanwhile, the gates were thrown open in every industry for executives to do what they wanted. The whole process of wealth transfer began in earnest. Plus, the secret plan to sell arms to Iran proceeded, as well as the support of the Nicaraguan contras. Meanwhile there was Reagan, the leader of the cheerleading squad giving his teary accolades to America's "greatness".

Now we have NAFTA, which really should be called the Contract To Loot A Continent. Again, leaders have to direct attention AWAY from efforts to exploit it. So whaddyaknow, suddenly a tiny incident where Canada won a couple of battles is THE BIG THING. All I can say is when you feel the hand in your pocket, try NOT to look at the flag they are waving. This is how pockets have always been picked. This is how millions of men's lives have been lost. If you really need the pride of those battles on Lake Erie (or wherever), congratulations, you are the entree on the looter's menu!
 
suddenly a tiny incident where Canada won a couple of battles is THE BIG THING.

Suddenly? tiny? lol.

Here's a question for you, why do americans claim to have invented the telephone?
 
What a bunch of suckers. Harper really has a crop to harvest. Well, go ahead, have your "Reagan moment", but don't start crying when you discover later how bad this blindness kept you from seeing how your country is being scammed. We had Reagan and Bush. You all talk so much like their fans that I can predict what is coming.
 
As I said about looting:
"Two U.S. oil companies have won their complaint against Newfoundland and Labrador over spending obligations related to their participation in an offshore oil play. A Canadian trade official confirmed Friday that Canada had lost the case after unofficial reports from a U.S. website broke the news that Exxon Mobil Oil and Murphy Oil won a 2-1 decision by a panel under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The report said Canada and the U.S. were advised on May 22 that the obligations for research and development spending imposed on the oil firms by the province breached Article 1106 of NAFTA prohibiting governments from applying performance requirements as conditions of investment. The panel is seeking additional information before assessing a penalty, but the parties originally sought more than $50 million in compensation Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Canada+loses+NAFTA+ruling+play/6719822/story.html#ixzz1y5q8KfsL"]Two U.S. oil companies have won their complaint against Newfoundland and Labrador over spending obligations related to their participation in an offshore oil play. A Canadian trade official confirmed Friday that Canada had lost the case after unofficial reports from a U.S. website broke the news that Exxon Mobil Oil and Murphy Oil won a 2-1 decision by a panel under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The report said Canada and the U.S. were advised on May 22 that the obligations for research and development spending imposed on the oil firms by the province breached Article 1106 of NAFTA prohibiting governments from applying performance requirements as conditions of investment. The panel is seeking additional information before assessing a penalty, but the parties originally sought more than $50 million in compensation Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Canada+loses+NAFTA+ruling+play/6719822/story.html#ixzz1y5q8KfsL[/URL]
 
I actually would disagree that the Bicentennial of the War is a Harper propaganda ploy or that it's insignificant. I think it's very much worth commemorating. Here's a few reasons why:

1. It's the only war on Canadian soil against another country (not including the battles against natives).

2. It's a war in which a different outcome would have potentially resulted in Canada's non-existence.

3. In some parts of the country, like Niagara, it's a very big part of local history.

4. We tend not to commemorate Canadian history (even if it's technically pre-Canada). I think some of the discomfort around commemorating the event (along with some people mis-categorizing it as a "celebration of war") is that we're not a country that is in touch with our historical roots. There are very few statues and monuments in this city, and cities throughout the country, especially in comparison to America and Europe. We're just not overt about these things. My hope as someone who is into heritage and heritage preservation is that this milestone might act as a catalyst towards Canadians being more interested in our history.

5. I think the one way it could have been seen as a celebration is as a celebration of 200 years of peace with our closest neighbour.

6. Simply because the event is one-sided in its importance doesn't make it less of a significant event. It might seem odd but the best example I can think of is the World Junior Hockey Championships, which this country celebrates like mad for 2 weeks at Christmas time while the rest of the world isn't aware they're even on. If it is important to you, why should you allow the lack of acknowledgement elsewhere to cheapen it?
 
It's not about glorifying war, it's about mythologizing history. All societies have their myths that reflect the values of society. The focus in Canada on 1812 has been on the 'myth' of a combined effort between British soldiers, Canadian militia and loyalists, women (laura Secord) and native people (and black peope thanks to Runcey's Coloured Corps) coming together for the first time in defence of an emerging vision of Canada. It's a very inclusive view, deliberately, and the fact that we choose to view the war through these optics is a reflection of our ethos as a nation. It's the same perspective wherein Canadians like to view their armed forces as 'peace keepers' rather than military...
 
Tewder:

We shouldn't "mythologize" history, as beneficial (or harmful) as it maybe - we should seek to understand it in the most neutral terms possible. That's the best way to do service of - and more importantly, learn from it.

AoD
 

Back
Top