Canadian Dopers - How important is the war of 1812 to Canadian Identity/Pride

Factual Questions
1

A recent post, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26563, noted the reburial of some American KIA’s from the War of 1812 in Ontario. The post started me thinking about the significance of the War of 1812 to Canadian national identity.

Most Americans remember that war, if at all, purely in America v. Britain terms. However I started reading a book a while ago (don’t remember the name - found it turgid and dropped it), that held that one of the great goals of the War for the Americans was the annexation of Canada, and that the Canadian/British repulsion of America’s attempts to invade was the kernel around which Canadian national identity was formed.

How true is this? How much emphasis is given to the War of 1812 in Canadian schools? [insert related questions here]

V.

2

I saw a few years ago Michael J. Fox on “The Daily Show”. He referenced Canada’s defeat of America in the War of 1812 in a great comeback to a snide comment about Canada. So, the War is on the mind of at least one modern Canadian.

If Fox’s view of the War as a Canadian defeat of America is common, how annoying is it for you Canadians that most Americans aren’t even aware they were defeated?

V.

3

Well, it certainly was part of the curriculum when I was in school back in the 70s. Not the MOST important event of the 19th century, but in the top 5 or 6. Let me put it this way: if the American Civil War rates a 10 in importance to Americans, and the American Revolutionary War rates 8 or so (?) in importance, (incidently, it also rates highly to Canadians as well, since the Loyalists, or Tories to you Americans, were ‘ethnically cleansed’ and fled to essentially found what would become Canada) then the War of 1812 would be about 6 to Canadians, or at least to me.

It’s more amusing than annoying. This is a good example of rationalization. America went in with the war goal of conquering and annexing British North America, while BNA had the war goal of NOT being conquered and annexed by America. Based on the accomplishment of war goals, BNA won and America lost. But since America itself was not conquered and annexed, it somehow became a ‘draw’. As I said, more amusing than anything else.

Bill

4

Canadians are depressingly ignorant of all Canadian history, and military history in particular. This, I believe, is a legacy of: a) poor history teaching; and b) general 1960s-70s Trudeau/liberal anti-military bias.

An excellent, if controversial book on the subject was written by Jack Granatstein, currently the head of the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. Who Killed Canadian History? made some waves, but at least it got people debating the subject: no easy task in Canada! http://www.canoe.ca/JamBooksReviewsW/whokilled_granastein.html

Fortunately, in the last 5 years, there has been something of a (minor) renaissance in the observance of Canadian military history, sparked mainly by the “Canada Remembers” program of 1995, which commemorated the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII, http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/vol2/no25/canada.html, the efforts of the War Amps “Never Again” series, http://www.waramps.ca/video/nvra.html, and the belated recognition of just how important the Battle of Vimy Ridge (in France) was to maturing us as a nation
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/firstwar/vimy

Just over one week ago, Canada finally got an Unknown Soldier, laid to rest in Ottawa with full honours. http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=Memorials/tomb Interestingly, an undertaking was signed as part of the arrangements for the exhumation that no effort will ever be made to identify the soldier.

Now, to answer the OP question: very little is taught in Canadian schools about the War of 1812. Many, but probably less than say, a third, of Canadians might be able to tell you that “we” burned the White House, but most likely have no idea as to whether it happened in 1814 or 1914.

To say that “Canada defeated America,” is of course, stretching things beyond the breaking point. There certainly were Canadian Militia involved in a number of battles and skirmishes, but the bulk of the fighting was undertaken by British Army regiments in Canada, and the Royal Navy. The only major role played in the war by “Canadians” was that of the First Nations (“indians” to you), who might not have considered themselves “Canadians.” The word at the time really referred to les Canadiens, the Francophones in Lower Canada.

Without the alliance (made between sovereign nations) of the British forces and the First Nations under Tecumseh, probably the most able military leader of the war of 1812, the British would quite possibly have lost to the American forces. General Sir Isaac Brock (who with Tecumseh should be considered the saviours of Canada), said of him, “A more sagacious or a gallant warrior does not, I believe, exist”.

Sadly, few Canadians remember the vital role played by these men in the history of our nation.

5

If I recall correctly from my high school history books, it’s an exaggeration to say that Americans are taught that they won the war. I recall being taught that it ended with a treaty that restored the status quo. Perhaps the word “draw” wasn’t used, but that was the impression given. One of the things you are taught in American History texts was that Washington was burned, and that hardly makes it a glorious time for the U.S. Sometimes you are given some of the details of the war which make it clear that it was probably the stupidest war that the U.S. ever got into. For instance, the Battle of New Orleans, the biggest battle of the war, was fought two weeks after the treaty ending the war was signed.

On the other hand, there’s little mention in American History courses of the fact that the U.S. wanted to take over Canada. It’s generally implied that the major cause was the British impressing American seamen against their will into the British navy.

Perhaps the most interesting thing is that if you ask a Brit about the War of 1812, they will generally say something like “What war? You mean the one between the French and the Russians?”

6

Actually, both “sides” (with rather divergent humans making up the sides) were quite interested in taking land. Both sides sponsored invasions of the other’s territory and (with a few minor, and one major, exceptions, neither side could win on the other guy’s turf. Detroit was taken (ignominiously surrendered) and the west end of Lake Erie to the Maumee River, then the British were driven back. Mackinac Island changed hands, winding up under the Union Jack before being surrendered by treaty. The U.S. forces made a considerable drive into Ontario, winning a big victory, then falling back. Then both sides spent a lot of powder failing to make any inroads across the Niagara River.
Oliver Perry won a remarkable victory in Lake Erie, (portaging his ships across an isthmus to avoid a British blockade, then defeating them and giving Walt Kelly one of the best straight lines in (relatively) modern times).

I was reading something about a year ago that I will have to try to find, again. Apparently, a fairly bright young Canadian (but with an appalling lack of military skills) led a valiant, but foolish, attack on a U.S. position during one of the Niagara River fights, doing nothing to actually win the battle, but becoming a martyred hero in the attempt. It was the contention of the author of the piece I was reading, that the resulting legend that rose up around his death was used by certain elements of the emerging Canadian aristocracy to establish the “personality” of Upper Canada much in the way that the U.S. looked to Washington through Parson Weems. I’ll try to find the article; I’m pretty sure it was on-line.

7

Some pundits are fond of saying(and no, I am not referring to you WW), that the Battle of New Orleans, far from being a “glorious US victory” was actully a pointless battle, fought after the war was over. Not True. 1. The war was not “over”: in those days before instant communication, all treaties/cease fires, etc, carried a clause which mentioned they were not completely in force until the word spread to all the combatants. Since neither side at the Battle had heard about, or COULD have heard about, the Treaty, the War was not over-- for them. 2. Many of the British, including the minority party in Commons, thought that they gave up too easily, that the Yanks could never win a ground battle against good Brit regulars- the BoNO shut THEM up- fast. 3.The New England States were considering separation/ secession, and had even sent a delegation to the Capitol with an ultimatum. When the news of the BoNO hit, there was wild acclaim, parties in the streets, etc. The delegation slunk back home. So, the BoNO was a great American Victory, even if is WAS alittle late.

8

In my high school history classes, which were not too many years ago, we were taught that the trigger for the War of 1812 was the British pressing American seamen into service in the Royal Navy, because noone with a functioning mind wanted to enlist on a Royal Navy ship (I am told that this is still the case ;)). After hostilities started up, the British made an attempt to reconquer America, and America responded by trying to take over British North America (Canada). Both sides had one or two big wins, but soon the war stalemated, and a peace treaty was signed restoring the status quo. The Battle of New Orleans, as was pointed out, was militarily insignificant but was a huge social/political victory for the U.S.

9

One thing that I’ve always found interesting is that most Americans that I’ve talked to about the War of 1812 (admittedly an unscientific, ancedotal survey) mention or know that the nasty British burned Washington. Few seem to know that the reason the Brits burned Washington was direct retaliation for the Yanks burning York (modern Toronto), the capital of Upper Canada.

Now, tit for tat is not much of a reason for a war atrocity, but how come only half the story entered American mythology?

10

High School history books tend to say little of the war, mentioning “Old Ironsides,” the burning of Washington, sometimes the defeat of the U.S.S. Chesapeake (“Don’t give up the ship”–which they lost anyway), Perry’s victory on Lake Erie, and the Battle of New Orleans. They generally get the intentions of the war wrong, concentrating on the issue of British impressment of seamen and ignoring the much greater goal of driving the British from Upper Canada and neutralizing the Indian allies of the British. (Conquest was not, actually, as high on their list as removing British support for the Indians.)

I found the site I mentioned earlier. I conflated the roles of the Canadian Macdonnel and the Brit Brock (but then, most Canadian histories seem to have confused them, a bit, as well). Near the bottom of the page are some very interesting explorations of (or conjectures about) the creation of the Canadian “personality.” I would be very interested if any Canadian history buffs would concur with or dispute their conclusions.

Stan Rogers and General Brock’s War

The conclusion is here (if I did this right):
The Legacy of the War
and this further conclusion engages in some very interesting speculation:
The Redemption of Macdonnell

11

The United States may not have won the war. But they won the peace!

The War of 1812 was not fought over captured sailors. As Danielinthewolvesden points out, New England was not afire with war-fever to avenge the shabby treatment of its sailors. The War Hawks were elected by the states of the South and the West. This is because the war was fought to gain land. While many in the US certainly thought that they could take and hold Canada, the land that they were seeking was the land that belonged to the Natives. This is the reason that the western states sought war. The southern states wanted the Natives off the land as well. Proximity to unconquered territory made it difficult to keep slaves from escaping. That’s why America annexed Florida after the war, even though Spain was our ally against Great Britain. It was too easy for slaves to run off and join the Seminoles.

In the Treaty of Ghent, Great Britian agreed not to make any more alliances with the First Nations. This effectively ended any chance of the Natives west of the Mississippi to hold onto their land. The US didn’t gain Canada, but they guaranteed themselves the Pacific. I would say that was victory enough for the War Hawks. Plus, good old Andy Jackson went and “won” them Florida.

Speaking of Jacksa Chula Harjo, as much as I hate the ratfuck, I must admit that his victory was not meaningless. Danielinthewolvesden is correct. Without an American victory in the Battle of New Orleans, the treaty may not have held up.

12

Damn, 2sense, you beat me to it! Thanks for the plug, anyway. :smiley: A great general is not always a good President.

You are right, American sailors was just an excuse, a way to get New England behind it (altho, it was possible we MIGHT have declared a “limited” sea war over that issue). Actually, we thought to grab Canada (also) while England was busy with Napoleon.

13

“We did not lose The War of 1812! It was a tie!”

14

And they ran through the briars
And they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where the rabbits couldn’t go
And they ran so fast that the hounds couldn’t catch 'em
Way down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico…
I always felt bad for that poor aligator…

15

Actually, IIRC, it was Mike Myers responding to the last of Craig Kilborn’s Five Questions: “Canada. What went wrong?”