Should we remember the War of 1812?
I had an interesting discussion on Twitter this morning about the War of 1812. It started when I linked to an article in The Wall Street Journal on the difficulties faced by those supporting bicentennial celebrations. Rather than restate everything that was said, I created a Storify that recounts the conversation:
View the story “What Deserves Commemoration?” on Storify
I’m probably not the best equipped to make the case in favor of defending the War of 1812, but I’ll take a stab at a few points that make it worth commemoration.
- It established that Canada would remain British. At least from the early 1770s, when the Boston Committee of Correspondence tried to entice merchants in Quebec and Montreal to join their network of dissidents, Americans had their eye on including Canada in the Union. A failed invasion in the winter of 1775-1776 put an end to that dream during the Revolution, but the question remained open into the Early Republic. The stalemate in the war pushed that possibility out of the realm of reality and forced instead treaty negotiations to determine the exact nature of the border. Alan Taylor in The Civil War of 1812 makes a similar argument that the key to the was is in the battles between Americans and Canadians across the border.
- It established the United States’ right to exist. Perhaps it is a hackneyed or outdated view of American history, but it seems to me that even in stalemate the United States blunted a threat to its national sovereignty in defending itself against naval harassment by the British.
- The War of 1812 was an event of important significance in several locales. Baltimore’s Fort McHenry, site of the im
mortalized bombardment in September 1814, still guards the harbor and is a point of local pride. Upstate New York and Michigan were shaped by the war and home to many battles. And, as both the Journal and Taylor point out, the war was of great significance for Canadians. Whether or not a national commemoration takes place, surely these places will remember the war in their own ways. Maryland made the war the centerpiece of its default license plates in 2010 (to run through 2015).
On the other hand, I’m not a War of 1812 expert, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I have some of this wrong. So my open question is, should we be funding bicentennial celebrations of the War of 1812? And beyond that, what should be the standard for selecting what to commemorate on a national level?
I agree with your bullet points and on my understanding of the War of 1812 (which, like yours, may not be cutting-edge as I’m not an expert), I would add a few more:
- We can include the Creek War and Tecumseh’s War in the broader story of the War of 1812 – important events in finalizing the dispossession of Native Americans east of the Mississippi and in the Great Lakes region – I think some historians would argue this is the final nail in the coffin for the Native Americans in terms of being able to play the European powers/the U.S. off of each other (the final, final end of “the middle ground”).
- The Battle of New Orleans, while of course unimportant to the outcome of the war (the war having already ended), would become key to the mythology around Andrew Jackson. And it’s a fascinating battle given all the different groups that got involved in the fighting.
- The Hartford Convention is an interesting episode for thinking about state/federal relations.
- And I also understood the War of 1812 to have settled some political questions such as the need for a stronger army, though I could be overemphasizing that in my memory.
Of course, maybe these are just reasons to study the War of 1812, not reasons to specially commemorate it at anniversary intervals. Still, I think I would always tend to err on the side of commemorating if the question is close; I don’t think we’re in danger of over-commemorating it (which might raise another interesting question: when if ever are we over-commemorating? how would we know?). This doesn’t mean we need a national holiday or some very expensive initiative, but why not, for instance, make it a bigger part of tours and presentations to visitors this year to the relevant federal sites/national parks, or encourage teachers to work it into their curricula where it’s a good fit.
Comment by Sara Mayeux — January 25, 2012 @ 3:53 pm
[...] point on Twitter today: should we commemorate the War of 1812? And if so, on what grounds? Joe’s ably summarized and commented on the conversation that ensued in a blog post here. Take a [...]
Pingback by Nasty, Brutish, Short — and Not Worth Commemorating « Goose Commerce — January 25, 2012 @ 7:36 pm
Should we remember the War of 1812? Of course.
Will we? Eh… probably not.
So, allow me to take a stab at one reason why the war should be commemorated – it fundamentally shaped the progress of the United States during the nineteenth century, for good or for ill.
The war determined that manufacturing (and the industrial revolution) would be a significant sector of economic development as merchants shifted capital to industry and successfully lobbied Congress for tariff protection.
The Creek War, as mentioned by Sara Mayeux above, was also highly significant as it opened up the cotton belt to slave labor and ensured the homogeneity of the deep south’s agricultural output through the Civil War and into the twentieth century.
The War also demonstrated that the United States would adopt an aggressive expansionist foreign policy when it came to the Western Hemisphere. While the Northern states were blunted in their drive into Canada, the West remained open and the Latin American independence movements ensured that the Caribbean would be a viable option for American expansion.
And last, but not least, it led to the pinnacle of Western artistic expression in:
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v1557916zyx7f8Kh?h1=The+Battle+of+New+Orleans
and
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6583679/the-war-of-1812-the-movie
Comment by Andrew Fagal — January 25, 2012 @ 8:34 pm
[...] on Twitter about the War of 1812. The discussion was subsequently picked up on the blogs of Joe Adelman and Dael Norwood. The key question was whether there should be greater support for commemorations [...]
Pingback by Commemorating the War of 1812 | The Committee of Observation and Inspection — January 25, 2012 @ 9:47 pm
Canadians certainly commemorate the war as a successful defense of their borders.
The War is complicated, because in some ways it was late to its own party, but it did decisively end the British practice of impressing American sailors, and boarding American ships to look for deserters from the British navy. To some people this may not sound like much, but it was an issue that plagued British-American relations from the 1790s until 1815.
Comment by Megan B. — January 26, 2012 @ 10:13 am
@jmadelman meet @1812now, @1812now meet @jmadelman http://t.co/nxzgy5yM #warof1812
Comment by John Theibault (@jtheibault) — January 26, 2012 @ 11:50 am
If the War of 1812 is defined to include everything from Tippecanoe to the aftermath of the Battle of New Orleans, and Horseshoe Bend in between, then it certainly is a major event in U.S. history. The western phases of the War of 1812 constituted the final battle for the continent between the USonians (Anglo-American settlers) and the natives, at least the final battle in which there was any doubt about the outcome. To successfully arrest U.S. control and settlement, the Indians had to have some outside support or prospective support from a European empire that could supply warriors with weapons, ammo, food, & trade goods. Indians had European allies in the colonial wars, Revolutionary War, etc. The War of 1812 era was the last time within the present U.S. where the natives had that kind of backing, or hope for it. Harrison over Tecumseh + British, Jackson over Red Sticks and then British & Spanish, sealed the military outcome. “Worth commemorating” would depend on whether we are only commemorating events we approve of.
Comment by Jeffrey L. Pasley — January 26, 2012 @ 12:38 pm
Thanks everyone for the comments on this post, it’s been a fascinating discussion.
First, to Dael’s point about the slippage between memory and commemoration: guilty as charged, if unintentionally.
As for the larger questions, I think there are three separate issues at play.
1. To what extent should there be a national commemoration of the War of 1812?
Based on the initial article from the Wall Street Journal, the United States has not taken up the mantle of commemoration. I looked and can’t seem to find a national organization coordinating the bicentennial. One does exist, however, in Canada. And frankly, that’s something I think several of us (myself included) overlooked in initial comments, though both Dael and Megan B. hit the mark.
At this point the ship has sailed, but I think I’m okay with there not being a national commemoration of the war, though I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some interest in 1814 for the bicentennial of the “Star-Spangled Banner.” But fine, we don’t need national celebrations.
2. To what extent should there be local commemorations of events during the War?
At the local level there’s been considerable interest in recognizing the bicentennial, in no small part because of the potential to generate tourism. As I noted in the original post, Maryland is going all in (see starspangled200.org for its official website and not-so-subtle marketing pitch), and several other states, including Michigan, New York, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, plus the District of Columbia have established official commissions.
Personally, I see no problem with this, and as I said above and on Twitter, if people think history is a good way to attract visitors, we should encourage that, and I’ll have more to say about that below. In any case, those events are going to be happening between now and January 2015, and I think there’s much to be gained for local communities by celebrating.
3. What was the significance of the War of 1812, and how should that shape its memory and any bicentennial commemorations that happen over the next three years?
No one is arguing, I don’t think, that historians shouldn’t study the War of 1812, and I think the range of opinions expressed both in the comments and in other blog posts suggests that we’ll find plenty to argue about.
Where I think these posts are helpful is in pointing out some of the ways historians would influences commemorations that do happen. Whether or not historians think some of these events should be commemorated, there will be events, both in the United States and Canada. Our interpretations are important, and in some ways a debate about whether to hold events prevents us from engaging with commissions, state governments, and private groups that are organizing them and influencing the history they present. (As an example, the Maryland Commission includes political and business leaders and no historians. I haven’t been able to determine the background of the Executive Director.) If people want history, let’s make sure we’re involved.
I’m enjoying the discussion, and hope we can keep talking.
Comment by Joseph M. Adelman — January 26, 2012 @ 7:25 pm
While many historians and students alike erroneously believe that the Battle of New Orleans did not matter, it is well documented that in many ways it is the singular significant event in the 19th century aside from the Civil War. The peace treaty had not been ratified by Congress when the Battle was fought. It made it clear that the U.S. could unite Spanish, French, freed blacks, black slaves, pirates and militia men under General Jackson. Were it not for the Battle of New Orleans, Andrew Jackson’s rise to prominence would not have resulted in his presidency. With him he brought populism, the disempowerment of the elite and the national bank and he brought universal suffrage for white males. The United States became, for the first time, a country of all men, not just property owners and poll tax payers. Jackson, being the first Southerner and the first Scots Irish President, was also the first from Tennessee, South Carolina and North Carolina. Born in SC, passed the bar in NC, a judge in TN and a general all over the South for the nation. He was a nation builder at a time when nation building had not been done before. If he had not risen to prominence, there is a strong possibility the Louisiana Purchase would not have been honored or that defections and traitorous activities and secession would have occurred before the nation was prepared to mount its self discipline and defense in the form of union opposition. Jackson was able to prevent the Civil War for over thirty years. It is something that Buchanan failed to do, but nonetheless tried. Only a powerful and strong leader such as Jackson, with all his faults, could have accomplished so much. To read more about the Battle of New Orleans there is a good article on wiki that cites the book by noted historian Tim Pickles.
Comment by ErskineGrier — January 27, 2012 @ 11:44 pm
[...] few months ago I and several others had a conversation (here, on other blogs, and on Twitter) about the dearth of commemorations of the War of 1812 in the [...]
Pingback by Publick Occurrences 2.0 » More on 1812 Commemorations, Canadian Edition — May 16, 2012 @ 1:46 pm