"The British View the War of 1812 Quite Differently ..." Topic

…Than Americans Do

"For people like me, who have got their flags and wars mixed up, I think it should be pointed out that there may have been only one War of 1812, but there are four distinct versions of it—the American, the British, the Canadian and the Native American. Moreover, among Americans, the chief actors in the drama, there are multiple variations of the versions, leading to widespread disagreement about the causes, the meaning and even the outcome of the war.

In the immediate aftermath of the war, American commentators painted the battles of 1812-15 as part of a glorious "second war for independence." As the 19th century progressed, this view changed into a more general story about the "birth of American freedom" and the founding of the Union. But even this note could not be sustained, and by the end of the century, the historian Henry Adams was depicting the war as an aimless exercise in blunder, arrogance and human folly. During the 20th century, historians recast the war in national terms: as a precondition for the entrenchment of Southern slavery, the jumping-off point for the goal of Manifest Destiny and the opening salvos in the race for industrial-capitalist supremacy. The tragic consequences of 1812 for the native nations also began to receive proper attention. Whatever triumphs could be parsed from the war, it was now accepted that none reached the Indian Confederation under Tecumseh. In this postmodern narrative about American selfhood, the "enemy" in the war—Britain—almost disappeared entirely.

Not surprisingly, the Canadian history of the war began with a completely different set of heroes and villains. If the U.S. has its Paul Revere, Canada has Shawnee chief Tecumseh, who lost his life defending Upper Canada against the Americans, and Laura Secord, who struggled through almost 20 miles of swampland in 1813 to warn British and Canadian troops of an imminent attack. For Canadians, the war was, and remains, the cornerstone of nationhood, brought about by unbridled U.S. aggression. Although they acknowledge there were two theaters of war—at sea and on land—it is the successful repulse of the ten U.S. incursions between 1812 and 1814 that have received the most attention…"

link

Armand

Although the article is very light on the British/Canadian/Indian victories in the first year of the war, and the complete omission of Major General Isaac Brock (of the Tecumseh/Brock leadership team) it is nonetheless a very balanced and well written synopsis of the war.

Thanks

Armand

"History is written by those who write things down."
Max, Tasting History
We have our truth, they have their….. 😄🍺

In the South, the Canadian front was not politically key.
The rush to acquire and secure new lands was the Rumsey focus.
Too long and complicated to describe here.
The Americans entered the Creek War at the request of the few settlers and the Lower Creek tribes.
The Lower Creeks had formed the Free Muskogee Confederation with British super had fought the Spanish in Florida until the British changed sides in 189.
So the Lower Creeks allied with the Americans who had also attacked the Spanish via Georgian Patriot forces. The Americans also worried about Pensacola which was controlled by Spanish and British troops. Pensacola threatened New Orleans.
After the war new migrants flooded into Alabama from Tennessee and the Carolinas. The area of east Alabama and north Georgia were the main gold fields until 1848.

Thanks also…

Armand