Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We're both right.....
"On August 17th, Captain James Gordon took seven warships up the Potomac River to Washington to destroy any fortifications along the river."
And the rocket's red glare
The bombs bursting in air
Describing British rocket ships attacking Fort McHenry. A constant reminder of history - a defeat as well.
I waited in vain for any observance of the bicentennial of the War of 1812. There were a few minor Indian fights near me at the time inspired by British agents. An odd thing west of the Mississippi. Finally, I went to a lecture by a Canadian Military historian and retired and decorated officer. It was entertaining to hear the Canadian version. That period of history deserves greater study. There were major divisions in US public opinion and political unrest associated with the war. The word "secession" was mentioned a few times. We still had a chip on our shoulder toward Britain, well deserved aggravation and distrust, but the French were not any better. If you read Chief Blackhawk's autobiography or study up on Tecumseh it is interesting the level of interference and false promises made to the Indians by the British agents. The war in Europe probably saved us but the War of 1812 was the end of our adolescence as a country and the boosted the emergence of sectionalism. The Monroe Doctrine followed in 1823.
The Americanization of Hawaii was so patently awful, it doesn't get taught at all, simply assumed "It's in our ocean, so why not?", and to this day. Japanese-Hawaiians out-census European-Hawaiians living in the islands. The US didn't even want Hawaii, but Dole begged Washington to save his for-profit dictatorship by eliminating duties...
And then the Philippines. where the population was reduced by 10% in two years while Americans were "saving" them from Spanish rule.
Ironically, the Hawaiian acquisition granted the former subjects sovereign status under the republican form. . . Unfortunately, that wasn't quite well known at the time.
Sigh.
Another aspect glossed over - the reliance on "militia men" instead of a professional military was a disaster. The majority of battles were lost by the descendants of the "Founding generation".
Pitted against the most well disciplined and experienced British war machine, the outcome was pitiful.
If Napoleon hadn't distracted them, so that they agreed to an armistice to get their troops back to Europe, we'd be in deep Kimchi.
Britain was heavily engaged in the Napoleonic Wars, most of the British Army was deployed in the Peninsular War in Portugal and Spain, and the Royal Navy was blockading most of the coast of Europe. And they were still whipping us. . . though to be fair, all sides were using indigenous Indian tribes as "light infantry", using guerrilla tactics, to harass the enemy.
The state of Maine was ready to drop out of the Union because of the US attack on Canada.
No...just....no.....
Maine didn't become a state until 1820. Until then, it was part of Massachusetts. Maine became its own state as part of the Missouri Compromise.
The border between British Canada and the United States along the the area that is now Maine had been in dispute since the end of the American Revolutionary War, and in 1814 British forces invaded, occupied, and looted parts of present-day Maine. The Monroe administration at that time took no action to expel the British troops there.
The result of this was the Hartford Convention (Dec 1814 to Jan 1815), during which time there was talk of secession due to the non-responsiveness of the federal government to defend New England from the British. The end of the war and the news of the American victory at the Battle of New Orleans pretty much killed off all talk of New England secession.
I think it was that Maine wanted independence from Massachusetts being prepared to go and be a part of Canada. The war fuelled that desire. It was called New Ireland at one time. All New England was against the war not offering men to fight. Suggestions of New England seceding from the USA were put forwarded, as were some of being independent and others of joining Canada.
They feared that they would be a part of Canada anyhow as the USA was losing. New Englanders, especially those in Maine, had little political faith in the states further south after the declaring of war and needless conflict. They may as well be a part of Canada, who they had no dislike, with British goods freely flowing in, with the powerful British as protectors? Then the Treaty of Ghent made sure they stay a part of the USA. If the treaty put them in Canada, most would have gone with it. I am sure that was about it.
There are a number of events in U.S. history that are taught incorrectly. For example, the War of 1812 is rarely brought up as a counter-example to the statement "the U.S. has never been invaded" even though we were unable to stop the British invasion. Another example is the American Revolution, which is often portrayed as a straightforward fight for independence when in reality it was a much more complex conflict with a number of different factions vying for control.
The War of 1812 is rarely brought up, period. It was fought to a draw. It was consequential, though, in paving the way for a productive U.S. relationship with its northern neighbor, be it Britain, Lower Canada, Upper Canada or eventually the Dominion of Canada. The importance of this cannot be underestimated.
in the 12 years of school, we never got to the war of 1812, never toucj civil or anything after that, every year, all twleve, it was the freaky pilgrims and by the time of summer break we was about 1792. most of history, i learn watching tv, no not a history channel but MASH and john wayne movies
Growing up on the Canadian border, we learned quite a bit about the War of 1812 as a good deal of it was fought where we lived. In our grade school there was even a large mural in the auditorium depicting US and NY militia soldiers in Buffalo pointing a cannon at invading British troops marching towards them.
We also got to do field trips to nearby Canada (this was before passports were needed) and visited forts and battlefields on the Canadian side. We learned that Canada celebrates the war as a victory in repelling the foreign (American) invaders. We also learned that the British burning Buffalo and Washington was in retaliation for the US first burning the capital of Upper Canada (York, now called Toronto) and former capital Newark (now called Niagara-on-the-Lake).
As far as being taught history "incorrectly" - there are often several sides to a story (such as my example of who "won" the war), often conflicting data and records of events, and more often so many events that not all can be studied let alone taught without a data and comprehension overload. This thread got me reading a fascinating book about local history during the War of 1812, and it is astounding how much is glossed over in larger history texts just because of the sheer volume of details and reporting to be covered. Hundreds of pages documented in that book are often summarized in comprehensive history texts to merely a paragraph (at best) or just as often as a bullet point or chronological reference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
