- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Old War Looks Awfully Familiar
Mark Zuehlke plumbs the hubris and duplicity of the War of 1812.
- For Honour's Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace
- Knopf Canada (2006)
- Bookstore Finder
Ask most Canadians about the War of 1812, and they'll say it's the war the Americans lost. But they probably won't know much more than that.
They should. Mark Zuehlke has now given us a concise and readable history in For Honour's Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace. It does more than fill in a gap in our collective memory; it uncomfortably foreshadows the wars of the 21st century.
The United States in the early 1800s was a seaboard nation of eight million. It was also a seafaring nation, and many of its sailors had been born English subjects. As naturalized Americans, they were still prey to the British Navy, which was desperate for men to help fight Napoleon. Britain claimed the right to stop and search any American vessel on the high seas and to kidnap any seaman considered a British subject.
This was a severe irritant, just as in our own time Canadian citizens have been abused (and killed) by the governments of Iran and China, which don't recognize dual citizenship.
The U.S. was also expanding westward into Indian country -- what are now the states of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. They were running into trouble with tribes allied to and trading with Britain, and the boundary between the U.S. and British North America was far from clear. Britain took its treaties with the Indians far more seriously than the Americans did, so the threat of new wars loomed on the frontier.
Hawks drove US to war and taxes
Even so, the War of 1812 could have been avoided. Britain was fighting Napoleon. The U.S. depended heavily on trade with Britain, and had no army or navy to speak of.
So this was a war of choice, and the man who chose it was Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. He attracted a number of other young politicos who became the "War Hawks," and who eventually forced the administration of James Madison to declare war.
The sheer cost of it nearly killed the War Hawks' plans. Albert Gallatin, the Swiss-born secretary of the treasury, estimated the war would require imposing high new taxes on a population that didn't want to be taxed at all. Lacking a serious standing army, the U.S. would have to use the state militias -- which by law couldn't be deployed outside the US.
Clay and the War Hawks somehow surmounted these financial and legal obstacles, and the war was on. One U.S. goal was the conquest of Upper and Lower Canada -- modern Ontario and Quebec. But invasion forces were run by incompetents left over from the Revolution, and manned by poorly trained militias. The Americans' chief advantage was arguably Sir George Prevost, the commander of British and Canadian forces. Prevost's caution resulted in many missed opportunities.
Even so, the battles fought were startlingly bloody affairs, a mix of European and guerrilla tactics. The battle of Crysler's Farm cost the victorious British 22 dead and 148 wounded. The Americans lost 102 dead, 237 wounded, and 100 captured. Lundy's Lane was another British victory, though a Pyrrhic one: 171 dead Americans, 572 wounded, and 110 missing versus 84 British and Canadians killed, with 559 wounded and 193 missing.
Brits burned Washington...and Indian allies
The Americans looted and burned York (now Toronto), but their worst atrocity was the burning, in December 1813, of Niagara. Almost 400 civilian residents were left homeless and destitute.
The atrocity outraged the British into their famous attack on Washington. But they were careful to burn only government buildings, and they were aided by the gross incompetence and cowardice of the Americans defending their capital. (The follow-up attack on Baltimore was less successful, and inspired Francis Scott Key to write "The Star-Spangled Banner.")
While these battles were going on, London and Washington were trying to end the war. After months of slow, long-distance negotiations, both sides agreed to meet in the Flemish city of Ghent to find agreement on a peace treaty. The American side included the war's chief architect, Henry Clay. The British included some capable people, but not a single Canadian.
Zuehlke spends almost as much time on the negotiations as on the battles and political intrigue, and it's time well spent. We learn a great deal about the two cultures, as well as the negotiators themselves.
The talks started badly, with the Americans amazed that the British wanted protection for the Indian allies. John Quincy Adams and Clay quarrelled violently over U.S. fishing rights in British waters. Clay saw no value in those rights; Adams feared New England would secede from the union without them.
The talks depended largely on reports from the battlefields, weeks or months old but valuable as bargaining tools. The American failure to take Canada was balanced by Prevost's failure to counterattack deep into New York. As it turned out, the war was really settled by Waterloo: Britain was now absorbed in building a post-Napoleonic Europe, and wanted to get out of the North American war as quickly as possible.
The British negotiators therefore cut loose their Indian allies, knowing that the Americans were determined to "extirpate" them and take their land. Britain also gave up free access to the Mississippi River and restored U.S. fishing rights. In return the British settled the boundary at the 49th parallel, established a balance of naval power on the Great Lakes and kept a firm grip on their North American colonies that would become Canada.
Zuehlke is excellent at bringing his soldiers and diplomats to life. The battlefield narratives are too much like those of regimental histories, full of names of units and their commanders. Even so, the battles are vivid and horrifying. I would have liked more of the social background of colonial Canada and post-Revolution America: why did men join the militias on both sides, and how did both sides fund the war?
Disturbing parallels with today
The book is good at evoking a forgotten war; it's even better at drawing unspoken parallels with our own time. Henry Clay and his warmongering contemporaries were as scurrilous and dishonest as Bush and his supporters. The War Hawks thought they could get away with a cheap and easy victory. American expansionism was taken for granted, and national security meant destroying all possible enemies -- especially the Indians who were fighting for their homes.
In settling the War of 1812, the Americans achieved essentially none of their aims. It had all been a wretched waste of money and lives, and Clay could claim nothing but "honour preserved."
We're often chided for not knowing our own history, and it's too true. This book is a good place to start learning it.



6
Login or register to post comments
murdock
5 years ago
Comments on "Old War Looks Awfully Familiar"
"We're often chided for not knowing our own history, and it's too true."
HISTORY is not a subject in schools.
SOCIAL STUDIES covers none of this.
Chiding someone for not knowing these details is wrong, blaming our 'appointed' leaders and 'the system' that teachers are forced to present to our childten is the source of our error.
Stop teaching SOCIAL STUDIES; return to teaching HISTORY.
Will this happen?
Not if the 'government' can help it...
speedo
5 years ago
William T Vollmann has written some fascinating "semi-fictional" novels on the history of North America as part of his "seven dreams" series. "Fathers and Crows" on the establishment of Quebec City is especially good.
Skookum1
5 years ago
Hard to find a single Canadian in the 1810s, other than someone who wasn't identifiably British, i.e. UELer, unless you're meaning un canadien, which of course you're not. But still, it's typical British style to do things from the home office (not capital h, capital o) instead of inviting input from underlings in the colony, isn't it? Same shihizzle went down with the Oregon Treaty, the San Juans, and the Alaska Boundary Treaty; London did all the talking, generally wihtout comprehending the geographic issues locally in the slightest (ditto with the surrender of the Red River Country, as in the next bit). London signed away the best land in the Pacific Northwest, gave up islands the US had no good claim to, nor use for except as an annoyance to "our" colonial capital (being right offshore from Oak Bay), and yielded on the Yukon Ports. All decided in London; the San Juans and Alaska, sure, arbitered in Europe - by the Queen's cousin no less (the Kaiser of the day in both cases I believe; Wilhelm II was also a blood-relation of TE Roosevelt however, or so I was told at some point about all this).
Er, uh, I know you're a schoolteacher and all that, but since when did the terms of the Treaty of Ghent have to do with the resolution of the boundary between the Louisiana Purchase and Rupert's Land? This wasn't settled until the Anglo-American Convention of 1818 (also a write-off of good land in the name of appeasing the gluttony of US ambitions). The Treaty of Ghent was in 1814. Surely you're not suggesting there's a diplomatic linkage between the two?
Skookum1
5 years ago
Britain also mistakenly surrendered Fort George, near modern Astoria, as part of the Treaty of Ghent; it was "returned" to American hands, even though its status was not the result of war, but of corporate dealings. The American claims to the so-called Oregon Country were partly as a result of it being "given back"; had the British retained it the American case for the Oregon Country would have been much weaker than it was (and it was pretty weak).
dolphin
5 years ago
Killian asks what motivated men on both sides to join the militias. My grandmother's great grandfather Barnes fought with Brock, and went by the title "Colonel" for the rest of his long life, (though I don't know if this was an actual title or a sobriquet). His father was a British officer, who, when answering a knock on the door at his residence in Boston, had his head blown off by an American revolutionary. He and his mother fled to Canada for safety. I would say revenge was a pretty good motive for him and may have been an issue for a number of UEL people. Of course, Tecumseh and the other First Nations leaders clearly recognized that the British were more inclined to respect their treaties than the American governors. Their contribution to the Canadian victories were significant.
Frank
5 years ago
The War of 1812 was a milestone in the development of Canada. Without that war its hard to say whether what's now Canada would have drifted slowly into joining the US. Fortunately there were people like Isaac Brock here and taking Canada proved to be more than "a mere matter of marching".
i had an ancestor killed at Chrysler's Farm, in fact 6 out of 7 brothers in that family were killed in the War of 1812 or sunk at sea.
Zuehlke's book "For Honour's Sake" is on my Christmas wish list. Sounds like a great read