The War of 1812

Sounds good, Boomer. Might bring the old books out again.  And what about the runup period to the war, say from 1810, saying what was taking place to cause Yankeedom to feeling expansive?  Like Napoleon. The Royal navy and its recruiting methods, etc. Hell, U.S. and Imperial politics will be seen to have hardly changed at all, in the past couple of centuries.  :D

If the war of 1812 walked into a room full of silly wars, within five minutes, they'd all be pointing at the war of 1812 and saying "who's the silly war?"  

I'm not sure anyone has an emotional investment or anyone can point to some outcome with confidence and say, "we are such and such today because of such and such an event in the war of 1812".   

I guess we can say it was the war where French Canada had it's opportunity to show it's allegiance-- whether it was to the idea of Canada, or some future as a culture in America.   But, it wasn't a hardy endorsement of the British way.   Just the lesser of two evils.  

Same with Tecumseh.  His grand idea for a Native Confederacy west of the Appalachians was never realized, and his people had to settle instead for land here.  Hip Hip, meh.

Upper, and I guess Lower Canadians too, could have played a more savy hand, and conspired with the Americans to create a separate Republic north of the U.S., and shake off the parasitic Family Compact.  Instead, they chose to throw in with The Family Compact, and they still suck from us our life blood today.

Of course, as with any war, there are individual tales of daring do, but on the whole?  It's a war whose movie could only be made by Monty Python's Flying Circus.

I may be finished my renovations by 2012, and maybe I'll fly out and rent a car for a couple of those events then. Not this year.

Thanks for all the info, webgear. My family has a connection to 1812.

What, no one has planned a little celebratory arson on the presidential mansion to mark the anniversary?

Inspired thought.

(You realize that this conversation has already been picked up by Homeland Security? Wave at the nice agents sitting outside your house in that unmarked car ...)

Which year are we going to Montgomery's Tavern? In 2037 I'll be 92 and will probably have been dead for some years already, but if not, count me and my pitchfork in.

Quite aware of that Webgear... at the time, the region I lived in was only inhabited by FNs of the Blackfoot Confederacy, none of my ancestors had yet crossed the pond and if I were trace the family tree, the only possible connection I could ever have to the war in question would be one of those sailors, marines or infantrymen... Doesn't mean I can't get a certain amount of glee out of the idea of someone playing with commemorative matches. (Remember, not all of us are Central Canadian Overlords, and there are no United Empire Loyalists rattling around in MY closet.)

Just an expression, George ; )

Seems to have made it into the popular parlance.

In fact in 2037 I look forward to getting tanked and marching on the original site of Montgomery's Tavern, having grown up near there.  Anyone is welcome to join me.

Oldgoat, I fervently hope we do it much sooner than that.

Webgear.... as long as I can refer to you as a Central Canadian Overload, and make fun of the UEL in your closet, we are cool...

Here's former General Rick Hillier's definition of a "terrorist":

The question I would ask Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Rick Hillier, Stockwell Day, etc., is, "What does the War of 1812 mean to you?"

If we are to take them at their word, then, according to their definition of "terrorism" our forefathers who defended Canada, were terrorists.

Let's see, the Americans unjustly attacked/invaded Canada. Canadians (having every right to do so) naturally defended themselves.

Anyone see the parallels between the War of 1812 and the Afghan War, or do I need to spell it out?

That to me is really the significance of the War of 1812. Nothing else.

Be careful you don't fall into the neocon/conservative/Conservative, political right etc., trap and fall for this reinvention/rewriting of Canadian history with its attendant mindless/incorrect glorification of war bullshit.

Instead, we would do better to support the 18th Century universal humanitarian values as expressed by George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others:

http://original.antiwar.com/blumner/2010/03/12/real-patriots-uphold-our-...

Here's to show how far we have fallen:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article70603...

I'm going to check out the 1990 movie starring Mel Gibson "The Patriot" and see if it has any merit.

I'm interested in the concept of the "patriot": one who has loyalty and fealty to one's country and fellow citizens and a concern for their welfare, versus a "nationalist": one who has fealty and loyalty to the government, one who seems to confuse "government" as being synonymous with one's "nation" or "country".

I can't give you any useful links because the Hamilton Spectator is trying to monetize their content and have erected a pay wall, but on March 5 they reported that the Throne Speech had mentioned funding for War of 1812 commemorations. This is a big deal locally because citizens of the GHA tend to see the Battle of Stoney Creek as the pivotal event of the war, and want funding for appropriate bicentenary hooplain 2013. The same day's paper also reported that to the evident scandal of many, about 40 soldiers who were killed in the battle remain in unmarked mass graves. I can see that the events must seem remote to people in Alberta or New Brunswick, but you can't go more than a few miles in Southern Ontario without coming upon a place marked by the war.

You will find me popped up, tankard in hand, in mummified state of rebellion.

Uh...what is the symbolism involved in this work?  And who could have commissioned it, when smokin' something ? (there was clearly no contest)

Since the fallen pice also has a foot pedestal, I thought that perhaps it symbolizes an awakening America and the positions of the two pieces could easily be reversed at a moment's notice.   Would save on commissioning a new piece down the road in this age of austerity.

State of New York Society U.S.D. 1812: On Line Indexes

That's a very witty photo, Mycroft. Well, I laughed, anyway.

I was sort of chuffed to discover some years ago that my dad's family, who came to Nova Scotia from Scotland in the 1770s-80s, produced a number of junior army officers who turned into minor rebels in the 1830s. All that was sort of local to the Truro/Colchester County/Musquodoboit area, but it was an actual wee mutiny for a while among young officers who obviously harboured rebel and maybe republican sentiments -- not Merkin, just not establishment. There's a lot more to our history than most of us learned in school.

I'd heartily reccommend Strange Fatality by James E. Elliott for probably the final word on the Battle of Stoney Creek. Distills the misadventure of the whole war down to a single incident. Although as always, I turn to Berton for the overarching account.

It's been said before, but Coupland is engaging in yet more games with the sculpture. Where is a representative from the FNs?

Oh, I laughed at the photograph because of the moment the photographer captured, the woman walking by and turning so that she is in almost the same posture as the standing figure. That's just serendipity, o' course.

George, I'm not sure how my ancestors thought of Culloden -- the family had lived for a long time in a number of touns along both sides of the Firth of Forth, Edinburgh-Stirling, so they weren't exactly the Highlanders of No Great Mischief, although that doesn't automatically tell us much about their politics. I don't know more than that until after a pair of brothers, born right after Culloden, came to Nova Scotia and settled in Colchester County. It may well have been Canadian and Nova Scotia politics alone that engaged them, although being Scots, there'd be a certain general bloody-mindedness in the heritage, eh?

I'm sorry for being such a noodgey dark cloud of sardonica on this.   But I find the war of 1812 one of those poiniantly tragic wars, right up there with the Boer War.   I know some may argue the same for all wars-- but, I do think there's the odd one where killing and dying made a difference, were worthy risks.   Not so this war, and I don't look for anything to draw on here, except the futility and utter stupidity of most wars.

But, I understand, in fact I'm more often than not one, that some are interested in the historical esoterica for it's own sake.   And, sorry for raining on this dress parade.  

I'll march along in another war, with you.

For that I have an answer. The whole sculpture's on a hinge. Simply lift it up (an earthmover/crane would help), and you can see the UELs cowering underneath.

I agree with Webgear

The militias of both Upper and Lower Canada played a significant role in homeland defence.  But I do agree that the FN's and British regulars were the main fighting forces that won the war.

The author of that piece, Francis Scott Key, also acted as deffense lawyer for Sam Huston, after Houston beat another Congressman with a hickory cane.  I think Key's song writting ability matched his legal prowess:  Huston was found guilty.

Houston served as a lieutenant under Andrew Jackson, and was wounded in the 1814 Battle of Horseshoe Bend.

Francis Scott Key seems to have had PR prowess (either intentionally, accidentally or a bit of both). At the time, Sam Houston received many canes from sympathizers and well wishers. What was his punishment - an apology before the House and a small fine?

I think everyone accepts that war is hell, but the War of 1812 happened, and thus is open to historical analysis. I think it's a huge mistake to glorify the event in any way, and I am 100% opposed to re-enactments (also opposed to those stupid American Civil War enactments down south as well). I'm worried about the 200th coming up in 2012, especially if Harper is still PM, because likely a big deal will be made of this Bicentennial. There's history books available for folks that want to read up on the war - some well written, and by Canadian authors. Friends have sent me links to 1812 discussion groups, but my only interest in 1812 was reading about the causes of the war; however I'm also concerned about the possible jingoism we're about to experience as 2012 draws near.

Two authors seem to dominate our library's holdings on the topic: Granatstein and Hitsman. I met the former at a Conference on WW II held in Kingston in 1986. He was and has remained a pompous ass. He and Bothwell chattered though everyone else's presentations.

I'd hardly describe Granatstein as in his dotage in 1986. As well, I was staffing the conference registration table when he arrived. He took humbrage at the fact that I didn't recognize him and greater humbrage at the fact he was expected to pay delegates fees.

I just checked the Hitsman book out of the Libray. The 1965 edition had small print and was much marked up by generations of undergrads. The 1999 version sems much more user friendly to my middle-aged eyes.

What was his punishment - an apology before the House and a small fine?

It was some insignificant penalty, due to the fact that the person he assaulted had, in the first case, lied about Houston and impuned his reputation to get at an ally of Houston's, and secondly, that the person tried to shoot Houston but the pistol had missfired.   However, Houston was taken to civil court, and fined $500.00.  

Rather than pay, Houston left for Texas.  

Webgear wanted to avoid thread drift, but the world seemed very much smaller in those days, and it's fascinating how all these characters interacted, and how events were connected.

quote:

"George Victor my good friend, please accept my apologies if you feel I singled out you for a lecture on the glorification of war. I did not single out you as a person, but, as you state, your summary of those battles, which are actually summaries/interpretations that have been repeated ad nauseum ever since these battles were fought. I do not engage in ad hominem arguments as they are vulger and something small minded people do. My arguments are a warning to all babblers posting on this War of 1812 page against the dangers of glorifying war. That is why I also brought up Hong Kong and Dieppe and the olympics, which you didn't mention on this page. Perhaps to lecture on the danger of glorifying war on this page is to piss on others' cornflakes. For that I am sorry. This is what the discussion of war does to me; excites the realization of the waste, folly and senselessness of war."

Of course those interopretations of the wars are THE mainstream understanding of their results. That is why they were used. But in your excitement at the realization of the folly of war, do not quote others about whom you have no understanding at all. I'm not about to quote at length from Berton's Vimy to ensure that the exciteable don't make me out to be a vulgar and small-minded warmonger.

I do hope this de-personalized response does not mark me as churlish in attitude or viewpoint.  Objectivity is the objective, always.

I disagree.  I think it was a (arguably 'the') pivotal point in Canadian history. 

Now that I agree with.  It was a huge missed opportunity.  I can't help but think about the 'what if's'.  Say Britain hadn't sold out its First Nation's allies, maybe a pipe dream considering the nature of the empire and obviously it's wrong to put too much significance on individuals but if Tecumseh had lived, from what I've read he was one of those charismatic driven leaders that occasionally can help channel alternate historical currents, could a Western First Nations Confederacy allied with a British colony more interested in maintaining the balance of power in North America than in racial and linguistic solidarity have been a possibility?  Maybe not, but I think the road taken at the Treaty of Ghent pretty much sums up how Canada has played it ever since.  Any solidarity we've ever shown with the fourth world is superficial and only when it works in our interests, ultimately we're willing to trade our sovereignty away for assurances that other people bear the brunt of our neighbour's aggression.  I think the War of 1812 is crucial to understanding our country and if we weren't such a purposely non-nationalistic client state and embarrassed by the tragedy and betrayal in our narrative the history would be much more widely known.

Webgear, I reallly appreciate all the links you've posted on here, really interesting stuff.  Thanks!

Given that babble is a written medium, all one can do is go by what is written. That is why I reproduced what you wrote and responded to that. I have no prejudicial (preconcieved) notions about who you are or what you personally believe in. Again, I can only respond (or not) to what you write.

In my comments about being vulgar and small minded, I was referring to myself and what I try to avoid; (heaven forbid) they were not directed at you.

If the statements that you wrote (and I quoted) are not your own and you do not yourself agree with them, they why did you write them?

If you wrote them to criticize this point of view, then my also criticizing such arguments should make us in agreement with each other and should not have caused a problem, right? (Thinking about it emoticon.)

Well, I just wanted to walk away from this making sure that your feelings weren't hurt.

Some of the most interesting but less well known War of 1812 history occured in the west.

Focus of my own interest is Coigach in the Scottish Highlands, tracing descent of one of the prominant families there, "MacKenzie of Achiltibuie" has led me to a passing knowledge of events. Four MacKenzie brothers originally from Achiltibuie followed their cousin Alex, later Sir Alexander MacKenzie the explorer, to North America to enter the fur trade. Eldest of those, Roderick, founded Fort Chipewyan which is now the longest established community in Alberta, and as confidante and best friend from childhood of Alex helped send him off on his discoveries; Alex became first European to follow the river now known as "MacKenzie" to the Arctic, he later was first European to cross North America north of Mexico.

John Jacob Astor, a German immigrant to the U.S.A. became wealthy through trade in furs, a frequent guest at the Beaver Club in Montreal he became aware of the trading opportunities on the west coast. He hired among others Donald MacKenzie to cross the continent and found Fort Astoria at the mouth of the Columbia River.

Word of outbreak of the War of 1812 reached the fur traders of the North-West Company, with news a British Man of War was to sail around the bottom of South America, and capture Fort Astoria. A hasty invasion was begun by the Nor-westers, paddling down the Columbia to attempt to capture the fort, and storehouses of furs, before the navy could arrive.

Characters all on both sides, with people who later became known as fathers of Oregon and New Caledonia (B.C.). The Norwesters laid siege to Fort Astor. Those manning the fort were mostly former Nor-westers themselves, friends and relatives of their besiegers. After sunset many nights hampers of food were taken from the fort to feed the "enemy" without.

During the siege one of the Norwesters, John George McTavish, married Nancy MacKenzie, often known as "Matooskie", a fascinating character with an interesting history herself. Nancy was "country daughter" of Roderick MacKenzie, though not recorded it is likely her uncle Donald was paroled from the fort to give her away.

Knowing the Navy was on its way, the rival fur traders sat down and negotiated a deal, primarly for the furs but also deeding what later became Oregon and Washington states to the British. Many of the Astorians then re-joined the North West Company, Donald MacKenzie carrying the agreement and funds with free passage through the warring lines back across the continent to an irate Astor at New York.

The British Navy arrived. Captain of the ship quite "disapointed" that he could not conquer by force, and so claim the furs as booty of war. The Captain ordered a symbolic capture, with cannon volleys from the ships, and firing by the defenders. Only physical victim of the War of 1812 on the west coast was an old voyageur whose rusty musket had "a flash in the pan" during the ceremonial attack, burning his face badly.

Some time later treaty negotiations declared land seized by force must be returned. Because of the ceremonial capture of the fort by the British Captain the areas that later became Washington and Oregon States went to the U.S.A.

Characters from the war later had great effect on Canadian history; John George McTavish became best friend of Sir George Simpson, later in 1830 those two abandoned their country wifes starting an overthrow of wester society. JG's wife Matooskie survived a disaster on the Columbia that claimed four of her daughters from her second husband. She lived to later see a daughter married to first Captain of a steam boat on the west coast. John Stuart founded Kamloops and other places, he had been guardian of Matooskie and her sister Louisa after their father had left the west (Louisa a gt-grandmother of Dr.Norman Bethune of China fame). Stuart with Matooskie's uncle Donald fought the overturn of society in 1830. Matooskie's uncle Donald was for many years Govenor of the west for the Hudson's Bay Company. Dr.John McLoughlin recognized as father of Oregon. John Stuart was later to sponsor his nephew Donald Alexander Smith to enter the furtrade, much under the help of another of the MacKenzie brothers, James. Smith later was known as Lord Strathcona, guy in the photo driving the last spike of the C.P.R.

Donald.

Donald MacD. - that certainly is an interesting story .. is it related any other than here? I would like a more permanent copy.