To the War of 1812 List: One writer recently noted that the History Channel special on the War of 1812 did not present a balanced political perspective. I think this is correct; the point-of-view was strictly from the American side. However, the writer noted that the Americas did not achieve any of their goals, and, presumably, were "losers" in the war. At the outset, since the American side declared the war, the British could not have formulated any "pre-war" goals. Of course, the Americans may have been forced into the conflict, because of such policies as impressing American sailors. No country could tolerate a policy of having its ships boarded by a hostile power, and having its citizens removed (although American ships at the contemorary time will board those of other nation states in international waters, in search of contraband). The British were also looking for sailors who had deserted their posts and pretended to be Americans. However, the conditions in the Royal Navy were horrible. Otherwise honorable sailors were forced to escape this brutal service. During the war, the British wanted to lop-off, and take, the northern part of Maine (the the Maine district of Massachusetts). The purpose for taking this land would have been to create a more direct method of communication between the Maritime Provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island), and the city of Québec (and Lower Canada, later the province of Québec). The British never achieved this goal. In additon, the British wanted to create a Native American buffer state between Canada and the United States. The Americans, true Indian-haters, prevented this from taking place. I think the War of 1812 was a draw. Bill Volonte William J. Volonte Attorney at Law 117 Central Avenue Hackensack, NJ 07601-4207 Tel.: (201) 883-0777; Fax: (201) 883-0767 H: (201) 659-4941; Cell: (201) 780-4327 E-Mail: H: volonte@promail.com; O: volonte@qmail.com

To be sure, who won the war can be a puerile and inflammatory exercise for some, but it was far from irrelevant then or now. The job of historians is not just to enumerate "facts", but to ask "why", to analyse cause and effect, to sort "truth" from myth, and to propose lessons for the future. It is rather ironic that the survival of nation-states is usually seen as being dependent on lies and myths rather than an informed citizenry. The history taught in schools is actually the mythology deemed necessary to foster civic loyalty, pride and duty. That accounts for the diverging US, Canadian and British "views" today concerning the War of 1812. Those views perpetuate stances taken immediately after the war. Historians take into account all views because perception is as important as reality and shapes both a war and all subsequent history. The defeated go through an agonizing process of justification and reconstructing myth (sometimes going so far as pretending to be victors). The victors likewise congratulate themselves on the god-given success of a moral crusade (which is no less a myth). Walt Borneman wrote of his book "The War That Forged a Nation". I presume he means the US. It is true that the war was of major importance in shaping the US, but since it was eventually eclipsed by the far more important wars against Mexico and between the States, the war of 1812 was probably of greater enduring importance in forging Canadian identity and institutions. Bill Volonte wrote, "the British wanted to lop-off, and take, the northern part of Maine ... The British never achieved this goal." Actually they did. When the war in Europe ended in 1814 and the British were able to give the American war more attention, they decided that occupying northern Maine's unpopulated expanses was pointless and that seizing coastal points at Castine, Machias and Eastport would have the same effect. The locals capitulated almost without any opposition and happily considered themselves re-absorbed into the British Empire since they never wanted the war in the first place. The British held the region until war's end. The major American complaint leading to war, namely the impressment of sailors, was not addressed in the concluding Treaty of Ghent. Had the renewed war in Europe continued after Napoleon's hundred days, the British had every intention of continuing to irritate the Americans in order to meet their manpower needs. Despite the bizarre and surprising victory at New Orleans, the US was in no position to renew war against Britain. While American survival was a victory of sorts, the British never sought to reconquer and recolonise the US. Their aim was to give the US a drubbing, and after surprising themselves with the ease of taking and burning Washington (in retaliation for the American burning of York [Toronto] -- something rarely mentioned in US mythology), they decided to move on to a more economically significant target, namely Baltimore. While the Americans may have thought they were fighting for their very survival, the British were far from engaged in a fight to the death. Their intent was to harass at little expense to themselves. When Fort McHenry failed to fall after a night's bombardment, the British considered further assault on Baltimore too costly -- i.e. not worth any British casualties. If conquest and occupation had been imperative, they would have pursued the objective and almost certainly succeeded. Likewise, defeat at New Orleans did not deter the very same British force from looking for another target of opportunity as a bargaining chip. They were poised to take Mobile when they heard the war was over. Mythology says everybody won the war of 1812. Conventional wisdom says it was a stalemate. The reality is more complex than facile arguments. But seeking an objective answer to the question of who won broadens the mind, and that is quite salutory for peace and understanding. regards, T.F. Mills tfmills@regiments.org (Denver, Colorado, USA) Land Forces of Britain, the Commonwealth and Empire: http://www.regiments.org British Empire/Commonwealth Forces discussion group: http://topica.com/lists/Emp-Comm-Forces