Trump is right about the War of 1812

There`s a marker miles south of here - It isn`t on the internet anywhere coz it`s by the side of the road back in the trees covered. Most historical markers here are destroyed by vandals and forgotten and are only remembered by the older locals here in the mountains. I`ll see if I can find a picture of it. Lots of fires have destroyed town and village records here so the local historians have no knowledge except for the hunters who stumble upon these markers in the middle of nowhere. We found 4 graves of Revolutionary War soldiers here and 40 forts that aren`t even in the. records anywhere, by stumbling upon them when we were hunting in the woods when we were kids. We even tell the American Legion where the graves are but they don`t believe us. They appear to be very lazy. We also found a battle at a fort that shows up on an old British map, but the archaeologist said there was never a battle there. So the locals went out with metal detectors and found cannon, muskets etc and gold coins. Even the stone Knox cannon trail to Boston markers are gone here and nobody cares. A lot of stuff will never appear on the internet coz the locals aren`t going to tell anyone outside the town. We ain`t stupoiid. So you are just wasting your time looking for it on the internet coz it`ll never be there.

“...I think it’s funny how Canadians get all unctious about so-called War of 1812 (really should be the British War) as being Americans invading THEIR country.
They were not a country; they were colonies. Under the thumb of Britain (and still largely beholden to them). It was BRITAIN we were attacking and how else were we going to do it? Go over the sea with a couple ships and attack? Better to start near home.”

Too preoccupied with the land forces (a common error - it is the simplest venue of military endeavor. Many of us Americans refuse to see the world in any other terms).

Also historically out of phase … in 1812, the USA wasn’t the economic and industrial powerhouse it became 100 years later. It was closer to a tenth-rate agricultural experiment. The fledgling US national government was entirely out of its reckoning, declaring war on the UK. It was only by the greatest good luck Americans avoided getting squashed like the bugs they were - and by timing, as the preponderance of British power and most of the attention of its leadership was engaged in leading the coalition that was beating Napoleonic France.

Victories on the high seas by isolated units of the fledgling US Navy were electrifying to US civil morale, and caused consternation to the British. Just some of the uses of sea power - a lesson still wasted on too many Americans. But in the end, not even the most spectacular ship-to-ship contests could overcome the strategic dominance of the Royal Navy.

When in 1814 the British got together enough force to mount a serious raid US land forces in Maryland did not cover themselves in glory; the entire central government came within inches of being wiped out.

But British moves on land were afflicted with terrible luck, losing a number of key personnel. Only through a fluke did Baltimore (then a thriving seaport and a keystone in the US economy) avoid the fate that befell DC. Night operations are always risky, and theirs came to naught. Fort McHenry withstood bombardment: resistance had been fearless, but American forces were not strong enough to thwart enemy incursions; if the British raiding parties had extended their efforts one more hour, or hadn’t missed each other in the dark, that would have been that.

As the war dragged on, the British became the laughingstock of the diplomatic circles of Continental Europe, as they kept failing to deliver a killing blow to the Americans. As it was, the USA was on the verge of splitting; a delegation of prominent New Englanders was waiting to petition President Madison on a unilateral peace proposal, backed by their threat to dissolve the Union if they did not get their way, when word of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent reached the New World. The fact that in the aftermath a great many New Englanders and New Yorkers were never hanged for treason is more of a comment on the American generosity of spirit, than on their innocence (they weren’t).

And as Paleo Conservative pointed out in post 8, the American victory at New Orleans made it extra clear to the Euro powers that the tenth-rate agricultural experiment was determined to go its own way, in its own way. “Strange new respect” was engendered.

And it was driven home to American military establishment, that the militia was inadequate for national defense. The fortunes of military technology were on the rise; citizen soldiers, bursting with national fervor and armed with nothing more than republican virtue (the small-r sort) were not equal to national defense. Professionalism was needed, and so was naval power. The sort of thing that cannot be done on the cheap. Nor on short notice.

Respect garnered for American arms came in handy later; many historians view the outcome as the genesis of what’s now called the “special relationship.”

A good summary of the war and its impact can be found in _Amateurs, To Arms!_ by John R Elting (Da Capo, 1995. ISBN-10: 0306806533; ISBN-13: 978-0306806537).

Oh my sir, while I agree essentially with many of your statements, I take issue with a few factoids or at least their interpretation.

Indeed Britain was occupied with concern about Napoleon. And undoubtedly had to be vigilant about his actions. But at this specific time period, I don’t know that UK was overly embroiled in fighting with Nap and I think their protestations on this are overstated; I believe their hottest contest being the Peninsular campaign (no expert on European wars, me). Reasonable summary from Wiki:

“The French launched a major invasion of Russia in the summer of 1812. The campaign destroyed Russian cities but resulted in the collapse of the Grande Armée and inspired a renewed push against Napoleon by his enemies. In 1813, Prussia and Austria joined Russian forces in the War of the Sixth Coalition against France. A lengthy military campaign culminated in a large Allied army defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig in October 1813, but his tactical victory at the minor Battle of Hanau allowed retreat onto French soil. The Allies then invaded France and captured Paris in the spring of 1814, forcing Napoleon to abdicate in April. He was exiled to the island of Elba off the coast of Tuscany, and the Bourbon dynasty was restored to power. However, Napoleon escaped from Elba in February 1815 and took control of France once again. The Allies responded by forming a Seventh Coalition which defeated him at the Battle of Waterloo in June”

Recall Nap was missing for an entire year of our so-called W1812, when the southern theaters were invaded.

As to the navy - that was my whole point. We had virtually no navy and we might still have to back that up with amphibious forces, after a 2-month journey or so on the high seas. Foolish to try that move on the mother country when it’s so much easier to invade the local colonies.

I stated before Baltimore was not merely a Ft. McHenry action. While the troops failed to hold the Brits through North Point (though Ross had been killed), they found that the entire region had entrenched on the east of the city covering 5 miles, and concentrated all kinds of support from local volunteers to regional militia and some regulars. Coupled with the failure with Ft. McHenry, the Brits gave it up and left.

As for the New Englanders, I’d generally agree, and add it is more proof indeed Americans believed in the right of secession, before those kinds of Yankees declared it not so a little while later.

Thanks to marktwain for the courteous reply (post 46).

“...while I agree essentially with many of your statements, I take issue with a few factoids or at least their interpretation....

...Britain was occupied with concern about Napoleon.... ... I don’t know that UK was overly embroiled in fighting … ‘forming a Seventh Coalition which defeated him at the Battle of Waterloo in June’...

...We [USA] had virtually no navy and we might still have to back that up with amphibious forces, ... Foolish to try that move on the mother country …

...Baltimore was not merely a Ft. McHenry action. …” [OlLine Rebel, post 47]

The British were not concerned solely with direct attack on France. I summarized too tightly; they did spend more time, more cash, and more effort at putting together coalitions to oppose the French. I defer to OlLine Rebel on the number, sequence, and timing of coalitions.

Looking at those times from a remove of more than 200 years, I have come to believe that the British, and the motley collection of other nations that joined the Allies at various times, with varying fervor, for various reasons, I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that it was Revolutionary France that frightened them all; from 1793 until mid 1815 it was unending war. The pauses and the side-changing might seem significant to a mind obsessing over legalistic trivia, but they did not alter the strategic essentials.

Napoleon Buonaparte (who was a Corsican, not a Frenchman) merely gave opponents someone to focus on - and be further frightened of.

OlLine Rebel is entirely correct in emphasizing that the British raid launched against Baltimore in 1814 wasn’t aimed at Ft McHenry alone. And Baltimore wasn’t the only target. Not many of our fellow citizens are aware of that.

I’m not aware of any US warplans of 1812-1814 aimed at invading the British Isles. Whatever US strategy goals were then, that level of invasion does not appear to been entertained with any seriousness.

As a first-generation citizen descended from late-arriving English immigrants, born & reared in rural NY State, I find the conduct of New Yorkers and New Englanders during the War of 1812 to be not merely borderline treason, but moralizing hubris that was odious.

But it falls short of the hypocrisy Freepers love to pillory them for: the early years of the Republic were a time of great social dynamism, restlessness, and experimentation. The nature, purpose, mandates, and limitations of self-government were being invented as the citizenry felt their way along, into their own future and that of the nation. So it’s less than surprising that outlooks, goals, and moral precepts changed radically by the 1860s - more than once, in every state, and across regions.

What still seems less that honest is the moral superiority that Northerners generally, and New Englanders in particular, arrogated to themselves by the 1860s. They had become the nation’s moral arbiters: a position to which the appointed themselves.

“What still seems less that honest is the moral superiority that Northerners generally, and New Englanders in particular, arrogated to themselves by the 1860s. They had become the nation’s moral arbiters: a position to which the appointed themselves.”

NEers in particular. They think that because they “agitated” the Revolution they are the final say in what is really American.

Think about it. While I was steeped in history due to my history-loving mom (dad liked too, but mom was a degreed), if I had left it to the public schools AND general societal norms, I’d think the Pilgrims were the first English in the NA colonies and that the RevWar was fought mostly around New England, while somehow the Congress met in Philly.

They were good at starting things but not actually finishing. Including that VERY early, they took a “liberal” turn which basically betrayed the experiment.

BTW, I do think John Adams is due much more credit than he gets, even if he is a NEer.

“...[New Englanders] were good at starting things but not actually finishing. Including that VERY early, they took a “liberal” turn which basically betrayed the experiment.

... I do think John Adams is due much more credit than he gets, …”

The roots of Progressivism predate the Seven Years War. Some silly ideas take longer to kill of than others.

New Englanders have helped themselves to extra shares of credit forgetting AWI going into its hot phase. They don’t deserve that much; there were Committees of Correspondence all over the Atlantic-Coast colonies, and groups equivalent to the Sons of Liberty in a lot of places. Paul Revere was the least successful alarm rider in terms of distance covered and people alerted; some made it into New York & Pennsylvania and points south over stretches longer than a week.

A big deal is made of the Boston Tea Party but it ruined only private property, in small amounts. The big story of those days was the Gaspee Affair of June 1772, in which Rhode Island smugglers burnt a Royal Navy sloop to the waterline and (supposedly) mortally wounded her captain (he survived). The ringleaders were caught and were to be sent out of the Colonies, back to England for trial; “transportation” to foment prosecution became another cause celebre on the lengthening list of grievances the Colonists were stacking up, against the Crown.

Paul Revere wouldn’t even be remembered today if his name did not rhyme with “Listen my children and you shall hear...” He was a minor figure, court-martialed for cowardice after the Penobscot Expedition - the biggest American fiasco of the war, thanks mostly to folks from Massachusetts. New Englanders stay mum about it even now.

I’m slower to praise John Adams. His intellect was pretty sharp but he was too-pie-in-the-sky and dreamy. Without his wife Abigail, he’d have come to nothing: she managed the finances, ran the farm, hoed the garden, and kept him from ruining everything by one goofy scheme or another. All while bearing and rearing the offspring.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.