"Remembering the War of 1812" Topic

Of possible interest?

link

Amicalement
Armand

When the Canadians brutally torched the executive mansion!

The website claims that it was a US war of aggression because US troops invaded Canada, but fails to mention the fact that the war started with the Canadian capture of Michilmackinac and Detroit and that British/Canadian forces operated well into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, not to mention Maine and upstate New York.

Canadians are taught in elementary school that the whole point of the war was the conquest of Canada. This rests almost entirely on the tirade of Congressman John Randolph of Virginia, who claimed that this was the case. They don't realize the context. Randolph had been the moving force behind the failed attempt to declare war on France, and he was also a highly partisan sectionalist who often imputed scurrilous motives to his opponents in the North and West.

The website also makes mention of American slaves joining the British Colonial Marines to fight for freedom. This is nonsense. The Colonial Marines were NOT a combat unit, they were substitutes for the draught animals that Cockburn's squadron in Chesapeake Bay couldn't maintain aboard ship. At least they were lucky enough to be settled in Nova Scotia. Most of the slaves that fell into British hands were sold in the West Indies.

I have heard this 'the Canadians burned the White House' quite a few times, but I cannot find an references to Canadian troops in the force that undertook the attack on Washington. Can anyone point me in the right direction for this information?

@Artilleryman; there were no Canadians in the attack on Washington.

@rmaker; 1.The war started with the declaration war by President Madison. The declaration of war was communicated quicker through the Canadian/British means than American means. For example, British/Canadian forces intercepted a schooner carrying the declaration (and his personal baggage) of war for General Hull at Detroit; and there were the other operations as you have stated. So, it was merely a questions of better British/Canadian communications and initiative.

2.Not sure of the point of the second paragraph. I was taught that were several reasons (impressment, interference in American sea trade etc. besides the conquest of Canada, which was a means to an end. To damage the British Empire at it weakest point.

3. The last point on the Colonial marines is incorrect. Three companies of Colonial Marines were "intensively trained" at Tangier Island and "became excellent soldiers". The Colonial Marines were used in several Chesapeake raids and at the Battle of Bladensburg. Prior to North Point they were amalgamated with the companies of the Third Battalion RMs. After North Point they continued to operate as part of Third Royal Marines under Admiral Cockburn in the Georgia raids.

Contrary to your assertion, the American slaves were offered three choices as stipulated by the British Colonial Secretary; join the Colonial Marines, settle in Halifax or settle in the West Indies. They were not sold as slaves because the Slave Trade was abolished by Parliament in 1807.

Artilleryman,
The ONLY fool spewing that shite is the so-called president. Oh & faux not news. That's it. Any REAL American knows the truth. But so many are willing to suspend the TRUTH & the FACTS about everything now. It's unbelievable over here…
And thanks IronDuke596, for setting that straight. "Sold into Slavery…" Right. Geeeze…

Thank you IronDuke596. Always sad to see misinformation.

On the Colonial Marines, after the war a number resettled in the island of Trinidad after the war.To this day their descendents still call themselves Muricans.

Thankyou all. I now have a clear view of who was involved and some very disappointed Canadian friends.

@Artileryman; your Canadian friends may gain some comfort knowing of course that before 1867 they were British subjects. During the War of 1812 most soldiers and citizens in Upper Canada (there were a lot of resettled Americans too) would certainly have considered themselves British first.So, indirectly they could claim credit for the Washington victory because they were British. For what it is worth.

Since the president doesn't read, it's a pity there wasn't a "You Are There" episode devoted to the War of 1812!

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

The war started with an American declaration of war and the reason behind the declaration were the maritime issued.

Canada was invaded principally because that was the place where the British were on land.

There were few Canadian combat units, although those in existence were excellent. None were in General Ross' command that captured and burned the public buildings in Washington, with the exception of the house of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, ostensibly for the conduct of the Marines and Sailors at Bladensburg.

That being said, I have no doubt that British infantry regiments recruited replacements from the Canadian population at large, just as they had procured replacements from the American provincials in the French and Indian War.

There were no Canadian units involved in the invasion of Washington. The units involved were British regular infantry units. The units involved were the 4th light infantry, 21st fusiliers, the 44th and 85th regiments. Canadians were formed mostly into their own provincial units and helped to defend Canada against U.S. invasions. The United States declared war on Britain because of British seizure of U.S. ships, cargo and sailors. It was also to take advantage of British involvement with Napoleon to conquer Canada.

The 4th Foot was not a light infantry unit, while the 85th Light Infantry was.

Where did you find the idea that one of Madison's war goals was to 'take advantage of British involvement with Napoleon to conquer Canada?

Further, there were few Canadian combat units. The British army defended Canada while most Canadian units were support outfits.

I am a retired history teacher, and one of the topics I taught was the War of 1812. The Canadians formed provincial units, I've painted some of them. Canadians were involved in some of the fighting on the border. Initially I found information in Wikipedia to help my daughter counter Trump's claim that Canadians burnt Washington. I researched further and found the following: the 4th's light company was involved. Wikipedia had listed it as the 4th Regiment (King's Own) light, the 85th was converted to a light infantry unit around 1808. Wikipedia listed it as the 85th infantry regiment.
I did not say it was one of Madison't goals. I said the U.S. was taking advantage of the British preoccupation with Napoleon. Madison wasn't the only one calling the shots. There was a strong Hawk group and it was one of their goals to take Canada while the British were busy elsewhere.

I'd be much more interested in what you have read and what is in your library on the War of 1812. The use of Wikipedia, especially for historical subjects, is not a good place to go, as too much of the material is substandard and there are also no general editorial standards for the site. In short, no one is actually in charge and there is no idea to check authors' creds.

The idea that the US was taking advantage of Britain's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars is not a credible idea, as there is no valid proof for it. For an excellent overview of the Canadian issue, as well as others, I would recommend Don Hickey's Don't Give Up the Ship! Myths of the War of 1812. It covers a myriad of subjects including Canada, the Canadian troops, and the goals of the Madison administration for declaring war. It also covers the War Hawks and their influence-they were not 'calling the shots.' However, it was Congress who declared war, not Madison per the Constitution.

You did not originally mention the light company of the 4th Foot, but the '4th Light Infantry.' They are not the same thing. Again, relying on Wikipedia is not a good idea. And, yes, the 85th Foot was converted to a light infantry unit from a line unit, as were other British regiments. You might want to get information on General Sir John Moore and the Shorncliffe Camp if you're interested.

I am surprised at your use of Wikipedia, especially since you are a retired teacher. I didn't let my students use it as a reference, and we were certainly not allowed to in graduate school.

The most famous Canadian combat units from the War of 1812 were the Glengarry Light Infantry and probably the Canadian Voltigeurs. The Glengarries were a fencible unit, and therefore regulars. There were six fencible units raised for the war and five of them saw combat.

The Canadian provincial units numbered 20, and most of them saw action during the war. The Canadian Voltigeurs was a provincial unit.

That being said, it was the regulars of the British Army that defended Canada, not the Canadian units. They served and backed up the regulars, but they were not the main defenders of Canada.

The Canadian provincial units numbered 20, and most of them saw action during the war……………….That being said, it was the regulars of the British Army that defended Canada, not the Canadian units. They served and backed up the regulars, but they were not the main defenders of Canada.

Which means they also defended Canada.

The Colonial Marines were NOT a combat unit, they were substitutes for the draught animals that Cockburn's squadron in Chesapeake Bay couldn't maintain aboard ship.

What is your source for this?

From page 161-162 in Don Hickey's Don't Give Up the Ship:

'On rare occasions, Great Britain supplemented its regular marine force with special leview. Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane raised Colonial Marines in the West Indies in 1808 and in North America in 1814-1815. Unlike Royal Marines, who were raised by Royal warrant and paid by the Treasury, Conchrane's Colonial Marines were raised under his authority, paid out of public funds at his disposal, and disbanded at the end of hostilities. But while they were in service, these troops were uniformed and armed like Royal Marines; they were trained and commanded by Royal Marine officers; and they often fought in mixed units with the Royal Marines.'

I'd be much more interested in what you have read and what is in your library on the War of 1812. The use of Wikipedia, especially for historical subjects, is not a good place to go, as too much of the material is substandard and there are also no general editorial standards for the site. In short, no one is actually in charge and there is no idea to check authors' creds.

The idea that the US was taking advantage of Britain's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars is not a credible idea, as there is no valid proof for it. For an excellent overview of the Canadian issue, as well as others, I would recommend Don Hickey's Don't Give Up the Ship! Myths of the War of 1812. It covers a myriad of subjects including Canada, the Canadian troops, and the goals of the Madison administration for declaring war. It also covers the War Hawks and their influence-they were not 'calling the shots.' However, it was Congress who declared war, not Madison per the Constitution.

You did not originally mention the light company of the 4th Foot, but the '4th Light Infantry.' They are not the same thing. Again, relying on Wikipedia is not a good idea. And, yes, the 85th Foot was converted to a light infantry unit from a line unit, as were other British regiments. You might want to get information on General Sir John Moore and the Shorncliffe Camp if you're interested.

I am surprised at your use of Wikipedia, especially since you are a retired teacher. I didn't let my students use it as a reference, and we were certainly not allowed to in graduate school.

The most famous Canadian combat units from the War of 1812 were the Glengarry Light Infantry and probably the Canadian Voltigeurs. The Glengarries were a fencible unit, and therefore regulars. There were six fencible units raised for the war and five of them saw combat.

The Canadian provincial units numbered 20, and most of them saw action during the war. The Canadian Voltigeurs was a provincial unit.

That being said, it was the regulars of the British Army that defended Canada, not the Canadian units. They served and backed up the regulars, but they were not the main defenders of Canada.

Thanks Kevin!.

Amicalement
Armand

Canadians are taught in elementary school that the whole point of the war was the conquest of Canada.

As an actual Canadian, who actually went to a Canadian elementary school and actually was taught Canadian history, this is nonsense.

This rests almost entirely on the tirade of Congressman John Randolph of Virginia, who claimed that this was the case.

Err….not so fast. How about Henry Clay, the influential Speaker of the House? His early attention was in acquiring the last Spanish holdings in Florida after the Louisiana Purchase. He defended Madison's military occupation of these lands and then turned his attention to British North America. He wrote to Madison:

"The conquest of Canada is in your power. I trust I shall not be presumptuous when I state, that I verily believe, that the Militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet"

Remini, Henry Clay: Statesman of the Union, Norton Pub., p.60

As for Randolph, I think I have things in context. Granted, he didn't like the War Hawks. He argued against their promulgation of a conflict with Britain over Canada. According to John Latimer, Randolph thought the USA would possibly lose in an armed conflict with Britain. More importantly (to him) he thought that conflict with Britain could cause the slaves to revolt in the manner of the French Revolution, that it would strengthen anti-slavery forces and that it may cause the South to secede.

Latimer, 1812: War with America, Harvard University Press, p.31

To this John Calhoun (another prominent War Hawk) responded in a debate, that Randolph:

"……May alarm himself to the disorganizing effects of the French principals, I cannot think that our ignorant blacks have felt much of their baneful influence. I dare say that one half of them have never heard of the French Revolution."

Speech on the Resolution of the Committee on Foriegn Relations. Dec 12, 1811

The idea that the US was taking advantage of Britain's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars is not a credible idea, as there is no valid proof for it.

Agreed, especially if you are trying to turn it into a "casus belli" . However, if it means going to war with Britain over British North America, then the timing is just so good while Britain is mired in the Peninsular War. I'm sure Madison or someone in Congress thought the same.

And no……Canadians did not burn down the White House.

The War of 1812 by Harry L. Coles has some interesting discussion of the causes of the War of 1812 in the first chapter, Prologue to War, 23-25.

He notes that President Madison submitted his ‘war message' to Congress on 1 June 1812 and that ‘the document was an indictment of British policy under five main heads.'
First-impressment.

Second-‘the practice of British cruisers hovering near American ports and harassing entering and departing commerce.'

Third-‘the blockades that were…illegal even according to definitions issued by the British themselves.'

Fourth-the Orders in Council. Madison charged ‘that the commerce of the United States is to be sacrificed, not as interfering with the belligerent rights of Great Britain; not as supplying the wants of her enemies, which she herself supplies; but as interfering with the monopoly which she covets for her own commerce and navigation.' George Canning charged in parliament ‘that the Orders in Council had been transformed from a blockade into ‘a measure of commercial rivalry.' And Canning was ‘a staunch adherent of strict blockades.'

The ‘commercial rivalry' denounced by Canning ‘had been done through the sue and the abuse of a system of special licenses. The Board of Trade had the power to issue licenses exempting ships and cargoes from the effects of the blockade. It is not difficult to see that the interests of the empire might be well served by a judicious use of such power. The issue of licenses, however, became honeycombed with favoritism, corruption, and fraud. Many an Englishman who would have supported the government to the death on impressment and legitimate blockades blushed at the traffic in special licenses.'

Fifth-‘the renewal of Indian warfare on the western frontier.'

So, of Madison's five points for declaring war, four were concerned with maritime issues, and one with the Indians. There were none for invading and taking Canada as a permanent possession.

Regarding the Canadian issue and the land-hungry Americans in the west, there has been a plethora of scholarship on it by Louis Hacker, writing in 1924, and continued by Julius Pratt the next year in his volume The Expansionists of 1812. George Taylor, Warren Goodman, AL Burt, Reginald Horsman and others supported the idea of invading and taking Canada as a main war aim for a variety of reasons. Beginning in 1961, Bradford Perkins, in Prologue to War, and others, maintained that the reasons for war were both because of maritime grievances and ‘national honor.' Roger Brown's Republic in Peril continues the discussion, and both he and Perkins believed that ‘the sectional character of the vote for war has been overemphasized.'

Cole (1965), who evaluates the above source material in his book (27-37) concludes that ‘Expansionism still has its advocates, but Burt, Horsman, Perkins, and most recently Brown have all rejected the idea of a sectional conspiracy to enlarge the boundaries of the United States. Among these historians there is a consensus that the war hawks were interested in Canada primarily as a means of waging war rather than the object of war. This is not to deny, of course, that what was originally a means could not easily have become an object of war. To use a modern expression, a war to win recognition of maritime rights by seizing a hostage could easily have escalated into a war for maritime rights and territorial conquest. It cannot be denied, furthermore, that certain members of Congress wanted both Canada and Florida, and it is possible that they voted for war hoping to get one or both. But Brown maintains, and his conclusions seem borne out by recent research, that ‘Republicans were willing to give their votes for war even without assurance that either Canada or Florida would ever be annexed. In the face of many objections it is doubtful that anyone voted for war primarily on the basis of a future annexation of these areas.'

So, based on Madison's five points for a declaration of war, and the above conclusion and the evidence supplied, that the conquest and annexation of Canada (and/or Florida) was not a primary reason, and may not have been a reason at all, for the American declaration of war against Great Britain on 4 June 1812.

Napoleon and France are not mentioned.

Three excerpts from the Committee on Foreign Relations: Report on the Causes and Reasons for War, June 1812, which was an official report from the subject committee as to the causes of the war, and as an 'appeal to arms' against Great Britain:

'…After the experience which the United States have had of the great injustice of the British Government towards them, exemplified by so many acts of violence and oppression, it will be more difficult to justify to the impartial world their patient forbearance, than the measures to which it had become necessary to resort, to avenge the wrongs, and vindicate the rights and honor of the nation. Your committee are happy to observe, on a dispassionate review of the conduct of the United States, that they see in it no cause for censure.'

'…More than seven years have elapsed since the commencement of this system of hostile aggression by the British Government, on the rights and interests of the United States. The manner of its commencement was not less hostile than the spirit with which it has been prosecuted. The United States have invariably done everything in their power to preserve the relations of friendship with Great Britain…'

'…This lawless waste of our trade, and equally unlawful impressment of our seamen, have been much aggravated by the insults and indignities attending them. Under the pretext of blockading the harbors of France and her allies, British squadrons have been stationed on our own coast, to watch and annoy our own trade. To give effect to the blockade of European ports, the ports and harbors of the United States, have been blockaded. In executing these orders of the British government, or in obeying the spirit which was known to animate it, the commanders of these squadrons have encroached on our jurisdiction, seized our vessels, and carried into effect impressments within our limits, and done other acts of great injustice, violence, and oppression. The United States have seen with mingled indignation and surprise, that these acts instead of procuring to the perpetrators the punishment due to unauthorized crimes, have not failed to recommend them to the favor of the government.'

'Whether the British government has contributed by active measures to excite against us the hostility of the savage tribes on our frontiers, your committee are not disposed to occupy much time in investigating. Certain indications of general notoriety may supply the place of authentic documents, though these have not been wanting to establish the fact in some instances. It is known that symptoms of British hostility towards the United States have never failed to produce corresponding symptoms among those tribes. It is also well known that on al such occasions abundant supplies of the ordinary munitions of war have been afforded by the agents of the British commercial companies, and even from British garrisons, wherewith they were enabled, to commence that system of savage warfare on our frontiers which has been at all times indiscriminate in its effect, on all ages, sexes, and conditions and so revolting to humanity.'

So it appears that the maritime issues were causes of the war…

On British impressment of American seamen from Donald Hickey's Don't Give Up the Ship!, page 21:

'Based on State Department figures, contemporary American newspapers often reported that 6,257 Americans had been impressed between 1803 and 1812. This figure included some duplications, but it probably omitted other cases that went unreported. Based on various figures provided by the State Department, one might conservatively estimate that 3,000 Americans were impressed from 1793-1802 and 7,000 from 1803-1812. Thus, in all, perhaps 10,000 American citizens were impressed into British service during the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars.'

Canada is not mentioned at all in Madison's 'War Message to Congress' in June 1812.

Canada is not mentioned in the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Relations 'Report on the Causes and Reasons for War' previously mentioned.

Canada is mentioned in a letter from Secretary of State James Monroe on 13 June 1812 to John Taylor, mentioning that 'in case of war it might be necessary to invade Canada, not as an object of the war but as a means to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.'

So, it does seem by these three documents that the conquest of Canada was not a war aim of Madison but as a means to attack the British on land. That seems to be a common sense idea in order to take the war to the enemy and not wait on the defensive. Any idea of 'conquest' would come as an afterthought, not as an initial war aim by the Madison administration.

The repetitive thumping regarding the American attempted conquest of Canada is termed 'the annexation myth' by Donald Hickey in his book Don't Give Up the Ship!-Myths of the War of 1812.

Hickey is one of the leading American historians on the War of 1812 and his works are both readable and based on solid research and common sense and deserve to be read by all interested in the war.

His conclusions, based on his research and expert use of historical inquiry, are interesting and valid, even if you don't agree with them. They are worthy of long and varied discussion.

Regarding 'the annexation myth' Hickey writes, in part, the following (pages 36-39):

'The Lure of Canada'

'In late 1811, as the debates on war preparations were under way in the US Congress, John Randolph of Roanoke, a dissident Republican from Virginia, delivered a speech that was to reverberate through history. 'Agrarian cupidity,' he said, 'not maritime rights, urges the war. Ever since the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations [urging war preparation] came into the House, we have heard but one word-like the whip-poor-whill, but on eternal monotonous tone-Canada! Canada! Canada!'

'Most scholars have stressed the maritime issues, particularly the Orders-in-Council and impressment, caused the war, and this view has the weight of evidence behind it. Whether speaking in Congress, in the newspapers, in the diplomatic docments, or in personal letters, Americans in the years before the War of 1812 devoted far more attention to the maritime issues than to the prospect of acquiring Canada. Ransolphs' argument, however, has never gone away. It enjoyed considerable vogue in the early twentieth century, when its proponents argued that the United States went to war either to get more farmland or to put an end to British influence over American Indians. Even today Randolph's views still has some adherents in the United States and a great many more in Canada.'

'Why has the annexationist myth been so durable? For one thing, Republican leaders at the time talked openly about how easy it would be to conquer Canada. As early as 1810, Henry Clay claimed that 'the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at our feet,' and shortly after the declaration of war Thomas Jefferson boasted that 'the acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching.' The notion of quick victory, commented the Boston Yankee in late 1812, 'had taken deep root in Washington…and will not be easily exterminated. It is supposed that the show of an army, and a few well directed proclamations would unnerve the arm of resistance, and make conquest and conciliation synonymous.'

'The idea that the United States could conquer Canada in what John Randolph called 'a holiday campaign' was a colossal misconception…'

'Another reason for the popularity of the annexationist myth is that the US government never clarified its position on Canada during the war. It never said that it would hold any conquered territory as ransom for concessions on the maritime issues, nor did it repudiate the annexationist proclamations issued in 1812 by Brigadier General William Hull on the Detroit frontier and by Brigadier Alexander Smyth on the Niagara frontier. Doubtless the government wanted to keep all its options open in case the British proved more willing to part with Canada than with their maritime pretensions. Doubtless, too, Republican leaders did not want to forestall the annexation of territory if they later concluded that public opinion or public policy demanded it. Indeed, it is hard to imagine the United States voluntarily surrendering Canada if it had been conquered, but that does not mean that the desire for Canada caused the war.'

'…But none of this proves that the United States went to war in 1812 to acquire Canada. The confusion here is over ends and means. henry Clay, a western War Hawk who spearheaded the war movement and supported expansion, put the matter clearly in late 1812. 'Canada was not the end but the means,' he said, 'the object of the War being the redress of injuries, and Canada became the instrument by which that redress was to be obtained.' Republican Thomas Wilson of Pennsylvania made the same point a little differently. The conquest of Canada, he insisted, was neither 'a motive to commence the war or a primary object.' It was instead 'an inevitable consequence.''

'There is another way of looking at this matter. Without the maritime issues, is it likely that the United States would have declared war on Great Britain in 1812 to get Canada? Probably not. However, if the United States had no territorial ambitions, is it likely that it still would have gone to war in 1812 over the maritime issues? Probably so. In short, what drove American foreign policy in this period was not the wish to acquire Canada (as desirable as this might be) but a determination to win recognition for what contemporaries called 'Free Trade and Sailors Rights.'

I recommend that it would be enlightening to read the entire section in the book which I have not placed here as it is too long. However, Hickey's argument regarding 'the annexation myth' and the reason(s) the US declared war against Great Britain in 1812 is logically presented with plenty of primary source evidence presented. It is quite clear from Hickey's presentation that the conquest of Canada was not a reason the US declared war in 1812.

That subject, unfortunately (no matter what is presented to the contrary) keeps coming up on the forum from 'the usual suspects' and I would suggest that the argument has been done to death and it is time to move on. Making referrals to the war in Iraq and the US participation and motives in that was have nothing to do with the War of 1812 and is an invalid analogy. While the US declared war in June 1812, it was British aggressive actions that brought on the crisis and the war. That much is very clear from the evidence.

Again, Napoleon and France are not mentioned.

Sure, and had the US invasion of Canada gone well for the US, all the captured territory would have been returned to Britain during the Treaty of Ghent, right?

I'm not sure who you are arguing with. I have no dog in the race concerning Hickeys opinions.

Making referrals to the war in Iraq and the US participation and motives in that was have nothing to do with the War of 1812

??

I'm not arguing with anyone. I merely was attempting to provide information for the thread.

I have this information saved in my files and didn't edit it well and missed the comment above regarding the US and Iraq. That was my error. The posting was originally in reply to a book on the War of 1812 where that analogy was used, incorrectly in my opinion. My apologies for the confusion.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if the US had possession of Canadian territory at the end of the war. As it didn't happen, it is only speculation, but I would think it would have been returned because of the overall situation in late 1814. The US invaded Canada during the War of the American Revolution failed also. And those Americans, Thomas Jefferson among them, that believed the conquest of Canada would be easy had no idea what they were talking about. The size of Upper and Lower Canada themselves was either not understood or overlooked-probably the former.