War Of 1812 Seems To Be The Truly Forgotten ConflictRoundup: Talking About History
The Korean War is justly called a forgotten conflict, partly because the process of forgetting coincided with the war itself.
But for a truly forgotten conflict, the War of 1812 seems the one to beat.
Do you know who started it? Do you know why? Can you name two heroes from it? Do you know when it was fought?
The History Channel documentary"First Invasion: The War of 1812" answers these questions, insofar as straightforward answers are possible, and unfolds an epic of heroism, chicanery and shifting motives that could inspire Shakespeare, G.B. Shaw or John le Carre.
The simplest answer is that the war was like a Part 2 of the Revolutionary War and included a few veterans of both sides -- but no French. But then again, the French war with Britain may have been the slim edge in the eventual Yankee victory. The main U.S. adversary, again, was Britain, and each side felt the other started it.
Americans felt that England forced war on its victorious former colony by fomenting native peoples against frontier settlers, by blatantly violating maritime laws and traditions, by stopping American ships and impressing their crews into the Royal Navy and by other outrages. When Congress finally voted to go to war with England -- by the narrowest such vote in our history -- British leadership took the position that it had been aggrieved by, approximately, an impudent whelp that needed a sharp thump on the nose.
This is where the French come in. And where the motivation gets fuzzy. England took America lightly because it was more thoroughly engaged with Napoleon ashore and at sea. The French emperor finally met his Waterloo at Waterloo, Belgium, in June 1815. Just a few months before that, Americans and the British signed the treaty that formally ended the War of 1812 in Ghent, Belgium.
Had England been able to throw its undistracted full might at us in 1812, history surely would have been mightily different. As it was, American forces endured defeat after defeat. And the vindictive British did not merely rout militias and thinly spread regular troops but often pillaged towns and then burned them. The British could come and go at leisure, as there was almost no U.S. Navy to impede them.
comments powered by Disqus
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Transcribed Document: Soviet Politburo Discussed CIA Billion Dollar Spy Adolf Tolkachev
- Pentagon withholds Iraq War photos showing detainee abuse
- These Rebels Have Amassed A Library From Syria’s Ruins
- Was 1916 fire at Canadian Parliament set by German saboteur?
- United Nations Calls On U.S. To Pay African Americans Reparations For Slavery
- Juan Cole says America’s inclination to turn to the military started with Manifest Destiny
- History Jobs Drop
- Paul Krugman gives credence to Robert J. Gordon's pessimism about American economic growth
- Harvard President Drew Faust Condemns Free Tuition Proposal from Outsider Overseers Ticket
- Andrew Roberts says Trump is the Mussolini of America with double the vulgarity