4 ms·

The War of 1812 is a fascinating study in the ways we record and teach history. The US teaches it as a US victory because the US got everything it went into the

The War of 1812 is a fascinating study in the ways we record and teach history. The US teaches it as a US victory because the US got everything it went into the war looking for and repulsed a British invasion. Canada teaches it as a British/Canadian victory because they too got everything they went into the war looking for and repulsed an American invasion.

romwell 7y ago
Whereas, like many wars, it should really be taught as a mutual loss: a useless conflict that neither side needed.
- Spellman 7y ago
  The US did get a National Anthem out of it I guess... And a burned down White House
  - astrodust 7y ago
    It wasn't white when it burned down, only after to cover up the damage.
  - tenpies 7y ago
    And speaking of capitals: York, the capital of what would become Canada at the time was also burned down. In fact, it's the reason the capital of Canada is Ottawa today. When the Province of Canada was established, it was deemed that York (which is now Toronto) was way too vulnerable since a US army could get there from Buffalo in less than a day and ships from Rochester even faster. By contrast, Ottawa (then called Bytown) was surrounded by swamps, further inland, well away from any US city, but still had access to rivers so it wasn't excessively isolated. That and the fact that it was halfway between Toronto/Kingston (the English cities) and Montreal/Quebec City (the French cities) also made it a good political compromise. So without that war, Toronto would probably be the Canadian capital and Ottawa would be a glorified rest spot between Toronto and Montreal.
- IllogicalLogic 7y ago
  The US barely won the revolution. Luckily during the war, a volcano (Laki, Iceland) threw Europe & much of the British empire (including India & Africa) into a multiyear drought, causing one of the coldest/longest winters in the USA. About 3 months after the eruption formal negotiations to end the war began. No eruption, possibly no USA but historical accounts I've seen rarely mention the role of mother nature.
  - fouc 7y ago
    I've never heard of this idea. That's fascinating!
  - Causality1 7y ago
    I don't think the timing makes sense for that. The Laki eruption was eight months long. Three months isn't enough time for Britain to have felt economic pressure from crop failures and related impacts and then for that pressure to build into political change.
    - jimclegg 7y ago
      Seems possible with a powerful enough eruption. The UK is periodically affected by mild Icelandic volcanic activity and this reads like an extraordinary event. "The system erupted violently over an eight-month period between June 1783 and February 1784 from the Laki fissure and the adjoining volcano Grímsvötn, pouring out an estimated 42 billion tons or 14 km3 (3.4 cu mi) of basalt lava and clouds of poisonous hydrofluoric acid and sulfur dioxide compounds that contaminated the soil, leading to the death of over 50% of Iceland's livestock population, and the destruction of the vast majority of all crops. This led to a famine which then killed approximately 25% of the island's human population.[4] The lava flows also destroyed 20 villages. The Laki eruption and its aftermath caused a drop in global temperatures, as 120 million tons of sulfur dioxide was spewed into the Northern Hemisphere. This caused crop failures in Europe and may have caused droughts in North Africa and India." It goes on, in relation to the UK... "Inhaling sulfur dioxide gas causes victims to choke as their internal soft tissue swells – the gas reacts with the moisture in lungs and produces sulfurous acid.[20] The local death rate in Chartres was up by 5% during August and September, with more than 40 dead. In Great Britain, the east of England was most affected. The records show that the additional deaths were among outdoor workers; the death rate in Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire and the east coast was perhaps two or three times the normal rate. It has been estimated that 23,000 British people died from the poisoning.[21]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki
opps90 7y ago
I'm American and it was taught as a stalemate. I think most history classes probably teach it that way, and that's the most accurate interpretation. Your average American likely remembers nothing about their history class so asking an average American if it was a US victory is meaningless. Also it's not accurate to say the British got everything they wanted from the war. The Americans got the British to stop the impressment and harassment at sea, which is why the Americans declared the war to begin with. I think the British would have preferred not having the war at all in the first place since they had bigger issues with their own war with France.
- maire 7y ago
  I am also American and I also learned it was a stalemate. The most significant battle of the war was was fought two weeks after the war ended! American historians think that the British complied with the meager settlement of Ghent because of the battle of New Orleans. We did get a nifty song out of it.
- csdreamer7 7y ago
  Ditto, it was taught as a stalemate. I don't remember if they taught the White House was burnt down in my history books. I remember reading a article much later about someone from the US Patent Office begging the British Army not to burn down the Patent Office due to all inventions and history recorded there. They didn't, and that is my strongest recollection.
anoncake 7y ago
> the US got everything it went into the war looking for > they too got everything they went into the war looking for Did they even try trading beforehand? Going to war when there isn't a conflict of interests in the first place is particularly stupid.
- dentemple 7y ago
  The U.S. wanted Britain to stop kidnapping American sailors for its own war against France. I'd say there was a major conflict of interest there.
  - rhacker 7y ago
    Sounds just as convoluted as the Ukrainian crisis 6 years ago (and counting?)
dentemple 7y ago
It's certainly not taught as a US victory, at least in Pennsylvania. It was taught as a stalemate at best, with a final battle at the end that gave Andrew Jackson an impressive victory.
dwheeler 7y ago
I was taught (in the USA) that in the end nothing substantial changed (i.e., it was essentially a stalemate). I think that is more or less true.
ergothus 7y ago
I was taught ( in the US - Pennsylvania) that the US lost just about everything - in fact, the only victory was the Battle of New Orleans (?) that was actually fought AFTER the war was over but before word had reached the Americas. Plus there's that whole burning of the capital. That said, it wasn't taught as a loss that we should learn any lesson from. Much like the Revolutionary War, it was just "oh heck, those crazy Brits vs the indomitable American spirit again!" If we weren't good allies of the British today, I wonder what the teaching would be like...
- ZanyProgrammer 7y ago
  The US didn’t lose any territory.
eloff 7y ago
I can attest it's taught as a victory in Canada. Actually we're pretty proud of it, it was really the first time all of Canada, both French and English and native fought as one. The US was the aggressor, albiet not unprovoked, so we can also rightly be proud of defending our country successfully. Had it happened after the civil war with the much larger battle hardened union army - the outcome would have been very different (and pretty much anytime since.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

romwell 7y ago

Whereas, like many wars, it should really be taught as a mutual loss: a useless conflict that neither side needed.

Spellman 7y ago
The US did get a National Anthem out of it I guess... And a burned down White House
- astrodust 7y ago
  It wasn't white when it burned down, only after to cover up the damage.
- tenpies 7y ago
  And speaking of capitals: York, the capital of what would become Canada at the time was also burned down. In fact, it's the reason the capital of Canada is Ottawa today. When the Province of Canada was established, it was deemed that York (which is now Toronto) was way too vulnerable since a US army could get there from Buffalo in less than a day and ships from Rochester even faster. By contrast, Ottawa (then called Bytown) was surrounded by swamps, further inland, well away from any US city, but still had access to rivers so it wasn't excessively isolated. That and the fact that it was halfway between Toronto/Kingston (the English cities) and Montreal/Quebec City (the French cities) also made it a good political compromise. So without that war, Toronto would probably be the Canadian capital and Ottawa would be a glorified rest spot between Toronto and Montreal.
IllogicalLogic 7y ago
The US barely won the revolution. Luckily during the war, a volcano (Laki, Iceland) threw Europe & much of the British empire (including India & Africa) into a multiyear drought, causing one of the coldest/longest winters in the USA. About 3 months after the eruption formal negotiations to end the war began. No eruption, possibly no USA but historical accounts I've seen rarely mention the role of mother nature.
- fouc 7y ago
  I've never heard of this idea. That's fascinating!
- Causality1 7y ago
  I don't think the timing makes sense for that. The Laki eruption was eight months long. Three months isn't enough time for Britain to have felt economic pressure from crop failures and related impacts and then for that pressure to build into political change.
  - jimclegg 7y ago
    Seems possible with a powerful enough eruption. The UK is periodically affected by mild Icelandic volcanic activity and this reads like an extraordinary event. "The system erupted violently over an eight-month period between June 1783 and February 1784 from the Laki fissure and the adjoining volcano Grímsvötn, pouring out an estimated 42 billion tons or 14 km3 (3.4 cu mi) of basalt lava and clouds of poisonous hydrofluoric acid and sulfur dioxide compounds that contaminated the soil, leading to the death of over 50% of Iceland's livestock population, and the destruction of the vast majority of all crops. This led to a famine which then killed approximately 25% of the island's human population.[4] The lava flows also destroyed 20 villages. The Laki eruption and its aftermath caused a drop in global temperatures, as 120 million tons of sulfur dioxide was spewed into the Northern Hemisphere. This caused crop failures in Europe and may have caused droughts in North Africa and India." It goes on, in relation to the UK... "Inhaling sulfur dioxide gas causes victims to choke as their internal soft tissue swells – the gas reacts with the moisture in lungs and produces sulfurous acid.[20] The local death rate in Chartres was up by 5% during August and September, with more than 40 dead. In Great Britain, the east of England was most affected. The records show that the additional deaths were among outdoor workers; the death rate in Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire and the east coast was perhaps two or three times the normal rate. It has been estimated that 23,000 British people died from the poisoning.[21]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki

opps90 7y ago

I'm American and it was taught as a stalemate. I think most history classes probably teach it that way, and that's the most accurate interpretation. Your average American likely remembers nothing about their history class so asking an average American if it was a US victory is meaningless. Also it's not accurate to say the British got everything they wanted from the war. The Americans got the British to stop the impressment and harassment at sea, which is why the Americans declared the war to begin with. I think the British would have preferred not having the war at all in the first place since they had bigger issues with their own war with France.

maire 7y ago
I am also American and I also learned it was a stalemate. The most significant battle of the war was was fought two weeks after the war ended! American historians think that the British complied with the meager settlement of Ghent because of the battle of New Orleans. We did get a nifty song out of it.
csdreamer7 7y ago
Ditto, it was taught as a stalemate. I don't remember if they taught the White House was burnt down in my history books. I remember reading a article much later about someone from the US Patent Office begging the British Army not to burn down the Patent Office due to all inventions and history recorded there. They didn't, and that is my strongest recollection.

anoncake 7y ago

> the US got everything it went into the war looking for > they too got everything they went into the war looking for Did they even try trading beforehand? Going to war when there isn't a conflict of interests in the first place is particularly stupid.

dentemple 7y ago
The U.S. wanted Britain to stop kidnapping American sailors for its own war against France. I'd say there was a major conflict of interest there.
- rhacker 7y ago
  Sounds just as convoluted as the Ukrainian crisis 6 years ago (and counting?)

dentemple 7y ago

It's certainly not taught as a US victory, at least in Pennsylvania. It was taught as a stalemate at best, with a final battle at the end that gave Andrew Jackson an impressive victory.

dwheeler 7y ago

I was taught (in the USA) that in the end nothing substantial changed (i.e., it was essentially a stalemate). I think that is more or less true.

ergothus 7y ago

I was taught ( in the US - Pennsylvania) that the US lost just about everything - in fact, the only victory was the Battle of New Orleans (?) that was actually fought AFTER the war was over but before word had reached the Americas. Plus there's that whole burning of the capital. That said, it wasn't taught as a loss that we should learn any lesson from. Much like the Revolutionary War, it was just "oh heck, those crazy Brits vs the indomitable American spirit again!" If we weren't good allies of the British today, I wonder what the teaching would be like...

ZanyProgrammer 7y ago
The US didn’t lose any territory.

eloff 7y ago

I can attest it's taught as a victory in Canada. Actually we're pretty proud of it, it was really the first time all of Canada, both French and English and native fought as one. The US was the aggressor, albiet not unprovoked, so we can also rightly be proud of defending our country successfully. Had it happened after the civil war with the much larger battle hardened union army - the outcome would have been very different (and pretty much anytime since.)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]