That Time We Beat the Americans

A misunderstood moment, now 200 years old, defines us as Canadians. A citizens’ guide to the War of 1812
Illustration by Lauchie ReidBattlefield Park, Stoney Creek, Ontario
Canada exists because of
blundering Americans
The grand view of history has traditionally offered two paths for the interpretation of events. The first imagines social trends rising up from below to sweep humanity along in their irrepressible, all-powerful waves. The other dreams of iconic figures who shape history through their own vision and will. In the case of the United States during the War of 1812, we find neither. Instead, a third way emerges: history dominated by stupidity and impulse. From the revolution to the present moment, hardly a single generation of Americans has passed without giving rise to a bona fide military genius. The Civil War alone produced half a dozen. To Canada’s good fortune, the post-revolution US Army was stacked with bunglers and officers past their prime. It might have taken Canada easily, if not for the miraculously systemic idiocy among the top brass.

Canada exists because of
William Hull
Every Canadian city should build a statue to Brigadier General William Hull, because it is largely thanks to the American officer’s poor planning and cowardice that our provinces and territories do not number among a Star-Spangled constellation. Taylor describes Hull as “tall, strong, and courtly, he looked the part of a war hero, but he lacked substance, alternating an imperious manner with chronic indecision.” He drank. He bragged. His subordinates despised him. President James Madison, at Hull’s urging, made the terrible decision to divide the already weak army into three and attack Upper Canada from Detroit. If the United States had decided to strike straight at Montreal — a strategy confused by backroom dealings with a political heavyweight from Ogdensburg, New York, who didn’t want his land trampled on — it might well have been “a mere matter of marching,” as Jefferson predicted.

TecumsehIllustration by Lauchie ReidHe belongs to a tradition of misappropriated heroes, whereby one-time enemies are whitewashed as icons of a popular history. Canadians have named streets and schools after him, and the Friends of the Tecumseh Monument are now raising $5 million to honor his legacy in Southwestern Ontario. At the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, midshipmen rally around a bronze likeness, in the aptly named Tecumseh Court, which they cover in war paint for Commissioning Week, during exams, and before they face football rivals.

In life, Tecumseh fought for the survival and continued sovereignty of the Shawnee people. Born in the Ohio Country in 1768 and killed on October 5, 1813, near Moraviantown, Upper Canada, he campaigned for a confederacy of Indigenous nations. He urged Aboriginal leaders, from the Great Lakes to Georgia, to affirm pan-tribal ownership of the land — to reject settler-imposed boundaries.

During the War of 1812, he allied with the British to fight a common enemy. As Isaac Brock declared, “A more sagacious or more gallant Warrior does not I believe exist. He was the admiration of everyone who conversed with him.” Yet British actions in the battle of the Thames were not as gallant. Despite plans to fight side by side, Major General Henry Proctor retreated, leaving Tecumseh’s vastly outnumbered men to face the Americans alone. Tecumseh’s Confederacy was overwhelmed; its leader died and, along with him, the last, best chance for Aboriginal self-governance.

— Bronwen Jervis
But Canadians can thank William Hull for much more than his dreadful advice to the president. In person, he was a military buffoon and an accidental nation maker. On July 5, 1812, he arrived in Detroit with orders to take the small town of Amherstburg, just across the river. He found the town well fortified, so he sent his men instead to the undefended settlement of Sandwich, whose inhabitants immediately fled. At Sandwich (now Windsor, Ontario), he made one of the most important pronouncements in Canadian history, declaring, “No white man found fighting by the side of an Indian will be taken prisoner. Instant destruction will be his lot.” Since every Canadian militiaman and British regular served alongside Aboriginal allies, the edict effectively promised death to any farmer or shopkeeper who resisted invasion. Then Hull allowed his soldiers to plunder homes, shops, and farms, and he continued to avoid a battle at Amherstburg, even though his men outnumbered the British and Canadian troops by two to one. His cowardice proved as sizable as his malice.

Spurred on by American incompetence, the residents of Upper Canada chose to fight, where before they had been rather ambivalent and resigned to retreat. Hull squandered his military dominance and achieved the worst possible outcome. He was unnecessarily brutal, cowardly and, worst of all, totally ineffective. The major outcome of his campaign was that he left behind settlers — who may or may not have been Loyalists and late Loyalists before — who were now self-conscious possessors of a territory and a recognizable identity.

William Hull ineffectually assaulted a disparate group of people. He left behind a cohesive, distinct Canadian community.

Canada exists because of
Aboriginal allies
Tecumseh was a Shawnee leader and one of the great military minds of all time. Outside the walls of Fort Detroit, he marched his men around and around, out of sight and back again, making his force appear five times larger than it was. The sleight of hand worked. Terrified, Hull liquored up and neglected his troops. The soldiers and militiamen under his command, both humiliated and scared, plotted mutiny. Major General Sir Isaac Brock, military commander and acting Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, had fewer men, and Hull held the fort. But all Brock had to do was threaten further use of Tecumseh’s force — the terror of all American soldiers. Hull’s men deserted, and he surrendered without a fight. Brock and Tecumseh were so disgusted by their opponent that they didn’t even grant him the customary honours of war.

Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Tuscaroras, Cayugas, Senecas, and other First Nations fought alongside British detachments and Canadian militias throughout the war, and they played pivotal roles at the battles of Queenston Heights, the Thames, and Stoney Creek, all up and down the Niagara Peninsula. Yet we rarely recognize this fact.

Previous · Page 2 of 5 · Next

37 comment(s)

RichardFebruary 13, 2012 22:17 EST

Great article...Like I always say they invaded us, they wanted to annex us for their Manifest Destiny. We won, I am here and I AM CANADIAN
Richard White

LCol. B.L. Nehring February 15, 2012 15:13 EST

Major-General Isaac Brock was not gazetted as a Knight of the Bath until AFTER the capture of Fort Detroit - London Gazette of 1812 October 10. To add Sir to his rank while describing his activities BEFORE the capture of Fort Detroit is totally incorrect.

SamanthaFebruary 20, 2012 18:14 EST

Why bring this up 200 years later? Besides which Canada wasn\'t even \"Canada\" at the time, and the War of 1812 had no clear winner. This just seems like a petty dig at America and a feeble attempt to assert some Canadian pride. You guys are cool as it is, this is just lame...

Vancouver CarpenterFebruary 20, 2012 18:14 EST

The schizophrenia of the article, mirrored in the first two comments, is fantastic.
Throughout the piece the "we" refers to canadians and/or british subjects however the victory is clearly "ours" meaning Canada.
Then, from the comments:
"We won, I am here and I AM CANADIAN" and a silly correction on the etiquette of when a knighted Major-General may be referred to as such.
200 years later and still not sure, Canadian or British?

vancouver carpenterFebruary 20, 2012 18:16 EST

Before the battle of New Orleans, many Britons would have agreed with the Times of London that British generals should press their advantage in the United States: “We should grapple with a young lion when he is first fleshed with the taste of our flock than await until in the maturity of his strength he bears away at once both sheep and shepherd.”

Canada being the "sheep" by the way.

vancouver carpenterFebruary 20, 2012 18:17 EST

if the war of 1812 defined canada, why do so few canadians know the truth?
Are we proud that our ancestors fought and died to remain subjects of a foreign monarchy, and that we remain so?

from wikipedia:
"Canada has a strong democratic tradition, upheld through a parliamentary system within the context of a constitutional MONARCHY, the MONARCHY of Canada being the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches."

Gregory C. MayerFebruary 20, 2012 18:17 EST

Although the statue at the U.S. Naval Academy is popularly known as Tecumseh, the statue, modeled on the figurehead of the USS Delaware, is actually a representation of Tamanend, a Delaware chief of the 17th century.

B-RobFebruary 20, 2012 18:17 EST

Growing up in the States, in Ohio, where many battles were fought, you would think we would be educated on this war. In fact, we are not. No one on this side of the border truly knows why the war started or what the desired outcome might have been. How do you swallow Canada, Young America, when you have not even digested the territory you have already?

I stumbled upon this book and really enjoyed it. A great balanced overview of the war from both perspectives. We still claim we "won" the war but, of course, that is nonsense.

http://www.amazon.com/1812-That-Forged-Nation-P-S/dp/0060531134/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329758832&sr=1-4

AnonymousFebruary 20, 2012 18:18 EST

War is ALWAYS about money.

The Brittish \"Crown\" (not Canada for another 50 years though the author repeats the jingoistic, nationalistic, retoric over and over of how this was the decisive moment for Canada) had lost the fortune of controlling the currency of the United States in 1811. A situation equal to disolving the Fedreal Reserve today. This deserves a footnote if not full recognition of the motivation for this war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States

To reduce the war of 1812 to \"petty differences\" tells the real story of why this historic war has been forgotten in Canada and the USA. If you remove the plot from a story, you have no story.

Who won the war? The Americans won the war of 1812 but in the long run the victory goes to the \"Crown\" with the Second Bank of the United States and finally the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Why must we be shy to admit this. Everyone on the planet is familiar with the Brittish Empire \"Crown\" wars of fortune over the centuries.


Steve -a desendant of Loyalists of Upper Canada



RobFebruary 20, 2012 18:18 EST

This was an amazing article! Finally someone writes Canadian history in a way that promotes relevance and identity (and wasn't at all boring like I often expect, with groans at the mere thought of 'Canadian history').

MarioFebruary 20, 2012 18:18 EST

Amazing amount of anachronistic blabber in this article which seems to assume that Canada's demographics were similar then to what they are now. Back then 80% of the population lived in Lower Canada, and 75% of this population was French speaking. Canadians are a lot like Americans today. But in 1812 they weren't, and that's why the American invasion was hotly contested and ultimately defeated.

L. GrayFebruary 20, 2012 18:18 EST

As far as the War of 1812 is concerned, I recall the White House was burned by British (and mostly English) units. Of course if Canadians want to include themselves in the burning of the White House as being British, then I am sure they will graciously take the defeats on the Great Lakes and New Orleans as well.

*o* Canada was established in 1867 some 52 plus years after the war ended in early 1815.

*o* The U.S. declared war on Great Britain (June 18 1812.) for the kidnapping and imprisonment of American soldiers dating back to 1802.

*o* In 1813 the Americans burned York (Now Toronto) and Newark Now Niagara Falls.

*o* The war was a stalemate with neither side officially surrendering.

DanFebruary 20, 2012 18:18 EST

Having travelled extensively throughout Canada and the United States (including Medicine Hat, Butte, Toronto, Vancouver AND Kentucky) I take exception to the author\'s assumption that there is no difference between the peoples in each of those locations.

Counting myself as \"right of centre\" here, I fully appreciate many of the socialized aspects of Canadian society that just don\'t exist in the USA. I also recognized that \"right of centre\" in Canada does NOT equal \"right of center\" in the USA. We\'re still a collection of \"Pinko Commies\" in the eyes of the right in the USA, even Harper\'s Conservatives.

These two countries have grown up with different experiences and ideologies and as a result have matured differently.

While the \"invasion\" of American retail entities may have changed some of our minor cultural attributes I still find us incredibly different.

Anon-E-MouseFebruary 20, 2012 19:48 EST

Check out Mike Elgan's Google+ Replys and see for yourself!

KelvinFebruary 20, 2012 23:04 EST

This article makes me think of other American-sponsored wars that have ended in stalemate—notably Vietnam and Iraq.

Titus McGillicuttyFebruary 20, 2012 23:04 EST

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! snore-snore

RamonFebruary 20, 2012 23:04 EST

Thank you for the article very good read.

JeromeFebruary 20, 2012 23:05 EST

Oh, bless your heart Mr. Marche. Have you ever been to Kentucky? I assure you the majority of us from the Commonwealth of Kentucky fit in quit nicely in New York and Toronto. I am not sure the same could be said of you. Please check your prejudice at the journalistic door.

BrianFebruary 21, 2012 10:32 EST

Many thanks for the commentary. I am a student of history, but growing up in America (Ohio, even!) this topic is neglected at best and ignored at worst. It's nice so see it lain out in shorthand, even if it's framed as an opinion piece.
I don't mind how things turned out. I have a fond affection for Canada, and I can't see why anyone would still hold a grudge over these events- but that's what random jerks on the internet are for, I suppose. Cheers.

Michael Z. WilliamsonFebruary 21, 2012 10:32 EST

Oh, please. It was a dispute over hiring and labor practices, between the US and Britain, Canada not existing yet, and largely being Francophone lumberjacks.

You could have claimed something relevant, like the Canadian Expeditionary Force in WWI, or the beaches of Normandy, or even the kills in Korea, where Canadians projected force and fought valiantly to protect others, all out of proportion to their population and economy.

By this same scale, the US can demonstrate WWI, WWII and the Berlin Airlift (which also had some Canadian participation, that I recall).

But 1812? Seriously?

i lick batteriesFebruary 21, 2012 12:34 EST

What? You canadians didn't even exist as a country back then. Also, I think you'll find we won the war. It was the US that successfully defended its territory, stopped impressment and fought back against the british empire as well as an attempted puppet Indian empire.

Near Crysler’s FarmFebruary 22, 2012 14:59 EST

A very interesting article. But no mention of two pivotal battles fought a bit further east of Toronto! The Battle of Crysler's Farm and the Battle of Chateauguay. Again American military leadership incompetence coupled with efficient British military manoeuvres kept us from becoming Americans in the fall of 1813. If the Americans had succeeded they would have taken Montreal effectively cutting off the supply lines to the "British Regulars" , the "Canadian Militias" and the "Native Allies."

Richard RabinowitzFebruary 24, 2012 11:02 EST

I always considered that war a draw, but the American Revolution, not the War of 1812, started northern North America down the road to becoming a country distinctive from the USA. Folks such as Ben Franklin even went up to Quebec to try to convince the French-speakers into joining the Revolution. (This was following an invasion of Canada and taking of Montreal by the Americans in 1775.) However, the Americans were pretty heavy-handed, arresting Loyalists, disarming communities, trying to seize Crown commissions (whatever they are), and paying for goods and services with paper money instead of coins, and the Quebeckers already had what they wanted from the British (tolerance of Catholicism), and the Quebeckers essentially said no. A siege of Quebec City that had already begun went on until British ships came to the mouth of the St. Lawrence River and started north. The American effort began to collapse at that point.

After the war, Loyalists were shipped over to start the city of St. John, New Brunswick, and this helped to start the anglophone part of Canada (although non-political Anglo-Americans were the next wave of immigrants into "British North America"). So the division of the Americans from the Canadians really began with the American Revolution.

’mericanFebruary 27, 2012 10:37 EST

Informative article, although it is pretty subjective and the author's views differ from many other Canadians it seems. I'm not sure if the facts are straight because I can definitely say that was the most I have ever read or heard about the War of 1812. This is all that I can remember from my American History classes:
1. The war was basically a waste of everyone's time.
2. The British forces burned the White House.
3. The only real achievement by us Americans was Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans (and it happened after the war officially ended).

Gilbert ReidFebruary 27, 2012 10:37 EST

The article is lots of fun and very enlightening, and it is very English Canadian in one respect, I believe, since it neglects the role of French Canadians, and the French Canadian manned regulars and militia which, with Mohawk allies, crucially defeated the Americans at the Battle of the Chateauguay; many of the more general comments about our identities overlapping with those of Americans apply to English Canadians, such as myself, and not, in most respects, to French Canadians, though French Canadians are certainly "North American". The French, interestingly, were on the whole very loyal to Canada. The French Canadian - and Quebecois - identities are still very distinct, happily, from the identity of English Canadians such as myself. Variety is the spice of life.

chris gFebruary 27, 2012 10:37 EST

Great article but what is even more interesting is the comments. Seems like Americans (well, USA Yanks to be precise) still refuse to admit they lost the War of 1812, at best some some grudgingly concede a draw.
Mind you, most of them deny they lost in Vietnam either, and still they they can \'win\' in Afghanistan.

Donna MageeFebruary 27, 2012 10:38 EST

The Six Nations had divided loyalties. Oneidas and Tuscaroras supported the Americans not the British.
The lack of specific and accurate information about the role of Aboriginal people other than Tecumseh gives a very biased rendition of the factors that affected the outcome of the war. Where is John Norton? After General Brock fell on Queenston Heights, he led the Mohawk warriors charging out of the woods to drive the advancing Americans back to the river's edge where they were forced to surrender. Dominique du Charme? John Brant? and more.... their stories missing??? the outcome was affected by more than just American bunglers

Bruce HarshbergerFebruary 27, 2012 22:15 EST

Your thesis that Canadians are NOT Americans rings true with me. I was born to a Canadian mother in the USA and often visit relatives in Canada. For a short time I was a landed-immigrant of Canada. I often think of myself as more Canadian than American in my values...especially is it so in our present poisonous American political life. I find Canadian "Peace, Order, and Good Government" much more appealing and healthy than American "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness". Americans could learn so much about living together as "community" if we we would turn our faces to the North and listen.

AnonymousMarch 03, 2012 17:18 EST

Hey Uncle Sam...why this kolaveri... kolaveri.... kolaveri... di?

pride of canada or..whatever...i enjoyed the reading

i liked Mr. HULL.. on behalf of canada i thank him

appadi podu podu podu

vayya mappiley valapala thoppiley volley ballu aadalama

vijay aniduMarch 03, 2012 17:18 EST

I tell you..take it seriously...if you need more pride and honour.... all canadians become vegetarians...

by 2020 you can just march over and win USA...as God bless your people and nation for turning in to Vegetarians and gaining god\'s blesses as your people will not hurt any living beings for tasty food...as a gift for not hurting the nature made by god...god may place USA in a platter for you...

winning may be in the way of GDP / strong dollars/Good harvests/ No calamities/ No storms etc comparing to US worries of finances or down grading of ratings etc...

I dont tell you to follow my religion..just pick few points... do not kill living beigns for taste....if you follow...you will see lots of Hulls at USA

AnonymousMarch 05, 2012 01:36 EST

I really enjoyed reading this excellent essay summarizing some of the crucial military events that helped to foster the emergence of Canada as a separate nation/polity (rather just this just being a war between early Americans and the British/French colonists).

Some thoughts after seeing some of our American friends\' comments. (my opinion) A balanced & fact-based recount of history does not have to diminish some or praise others. Truthful history just is (i.e. neutral). It\'s a sign of maturity and wisdom if you can face your country\'s history as is, rather than as you would prefer to think, or as politicians/teachers would want you to believe. This particular episode was in emerging Canada\'s favour, so what\'s the big issue. I\'m wondering if some of our American readers may be taking this account a bit too personally/ seriously. I think every ambitious/emerging nation probably goes through these growing pains (attempts at expansion being one). Back in 1812, America did try to capture the Northern/British & French dominions, and was apparently defeated in this effort.

In my humble opinion, loving your country and being patriotic includes being proud of its glories, but also accepting that your country can fail too, without losing stature (and actually gaining more wisdom and getting more respect from other nations). I feel today\'s Canadians are different in that we definitely don\'t think our country is the grandest in the world that can\'t have failed/been defeated (on the contrary, as a nation we may be lacking in confidence and healthy assertiveness as we continue to redefine what it means to be Canadian).

I think that in many ways, God shed his grace on America, but he also did so to numerous other nations in the world (or should I rather say \'rulers/leaders\') throughout history.
The fact is we Canadians don\'t go around touting the victory in this War; and this would seem to confirm the point made.

I think one can be patriotic without being exclusive and obsessive about only one nation being the role model for the whole world. Like with different individuals: what works for one, does not automatically mean it has to work for everyone else.
I regard America as a great & dynamic nation with lots to teach the world. But I also happen to think America could learn a few things from others, like Canada, in getting a bit less insulated and defensive about its infallibility (I am taking this a bit to extremes, but I hope you get the point).

The article actually pinpoints lots of interesting examples that highlight the historical differences with Americans; one was dealing with the natives (i.e. the original \'Americans\' and \'Canadians\'). Whatever our cheeky PM Trudeau may have said later - as seen in the article, the natives up here were mostly earnest partners in defending the emerging nation of Canada, unlike the States, where they were probably seen primarily as a threat to their survival as a new nation. Based on the current situation, I feel that unfortunately since then Canada has not treated its Aboriginal peoples as well as it could/should have (there, we\'ve been failing in a major way, too).

So, thank you Mr. Marche (& Lauchie Reid) for a great illustrated overview of those important historical days. I might keep a copy of the article as a reference for later.

FiregoatMarch 08, 2012 10:27 EST

Good Lord, where to begin? I don't have all day, so the short version I guess. We do not exist because of the War of 1812. We were able to fight the Americans to a stand still largely because of our unique position in world history. We are a nation that evolved out of the combined efforts or first two, and three, founding peoples; Aboriginal and Francophone and then, much later, Anglophone. We exist because the European leaders of both the Francophone and Anglophone contingents deftly ignored the simple-minded imperial bigots giving them orders and chose to recognize and embrace the reality of their situation and, after the fall of New France, chose to get along. And finally, we exist because we were the first nation in history to extricate itself from empire without resorting to bloodshed (although we certainly volunteered enough of that precious fluid on said empire's behalf).
Were there problems? Of course,not the least of which has been the whole-hearted enthusiasm for feeble-minded, craven colonialism embraced by most of this country's elites since the middle of the ninteenth century; this is why most Canadians have forgotten our reality. for the full story, readers of this article would do well to avail themselves of John Ralston Saul's A Fair Country.

JohnMarch 11, 2012 18:59 EST

The history of this war has been a long time hobby. The excuses and rationalizations used to claim a draw in this war are so many and strange that you could write a book on this subject by itself and that includes many Canadian historians who seem to have an attack of overblown modesty. If the US succeeded at anything it was the propaganda war based on widespread newspapers and literacy. When a country starts a war for stated and unstated reasons and fails to gain any of them while having some of their country occupied, almost their entire navy destroyed or blockaded and 70% of their trade destroyed(note since the American transportation system was so undeveloped much of their internal trade was by sea) , they have lost not only they have lost badly. The US could not even finish paying its troops until 1823. This was not a nice war as suggested by the decorative uniforms and historical reenactments. Almost all the homes, farms and villages west of the Grand River and Niagara were burned out setting the province back by 20 years. The wife of the head of the Anglican Church was raped by American troops while the homes of militia were targeted and destroyed. If the American invasion had been more successful it is likely even more of the province would have been laid waste.
Additionally the American side is portrayed as American David vs the British Goliath. While Britain did have a little more than twice the American population it had been at war with France for almost twenty years which by itself had almost twice Britain’s population but also controlled most of Europe. At the time the US decided to attack, Britain had almost no allies in the world war it was fighting. 60% of the population of Upper Canada was non loyalist Americans who initially could not be counted on to defend the province. The British did not want the war and even after it was declared restricted it troops to defensive war in hopes of an armistice. Even as the war progressed British objectives other basic defense of it possessions (which can be seen from government correspondence) were very limited simply a desire for buffer zones and an independent Indian territory. The war ended without gains for either side but since the British did not start the war and tried to avoid it that is no indication of a draw. To capture the US the British would have to deploy a very large army in a country as Wellington stated that had poor communications and few major targets that were worthwhile. As far as its financial value goes Haiti would have been worth more to Britain. A war weary Britain had little reason to continue a war that would provide so little value and in fact following the war the US was even more dependent on British trade than before.
In another sense it was both a defeat for the US and what created Canada. The residents of Upper Canada came out of the war much more supportive of Britain due to the brutality of the invasion and incompetence of its leaders. More importantly the Americans never dared to openly attack British North America again. Despite the American mythology and the fact that the Manifest Destiny was not invented for 30 more years there was always major support expansion and willingness to aggressively pursue it . Either officially by the government or semi officially by filibusters ( meaning of the term at the time was freebooter) the US starting with Indians invaded all of its neighbors from Mexico to Nicaragua usually more than once and frequently after American settlers moved into the territory as happened in Texas, California and Hawaii. Mexico lost half its territory and only retained what it did because many Americans considered Mexicans themselves incompatible. Upper Canada fit this approach perfectly and was ready for the picking. Had Upper Canada fallen it is likely everything west of it would have went to the US. There is good reason to believe except for the failure of the war of 1812 there could have been a later revolt such as Mackenzie’s that would have been successful. As it was the revolt was put down by Upper Canada residents with no help from the British. I would argue that the American failure in the war of 1812 cost them half a continent.
It comes down to this if you start a war and you fail meet any of your objectives, you lose and if your primary intent is to defend what you have and you do so you win.

Boston CarpenterMarch 11, 2012 19:00 EST

I enjoyed reading the article and the comments. I'd suggest to any teacher of Canadian history, that they add this article to their students' reading list. The perspective is entirely Canadian, which is lacking in many modern histories.

That said, I must take exception with one of the premises of the article, that the national consciousness of Canada, specifically Upper Canada or Western Canada, started with the War of 1812. While 1812-14 was a unifying moment and a point of pride, that consciousness gelled before and during the American Revolution, when subjects later called Loyalists "rallied to the King's standard." For that expression of patriotism as British subjects, they were rejected by their townsmen, expelled, and occasionally killed. Contrary to the mythology conveyed by most US history books, that revolution was a bloody, spiteful civil war that split families, my own included.

Many who later joined the cause of the revolution were initially skeptical of the rabble-rousers such as Sam Adams and John Hancock who spawned a mob-rule version of democracy. Many others remained skeptical, and preferred the English democratic process that included the "adult supervision" of a social structure and King. Some Loyalists formed volunteer military units, most notably under William Johnson and John Graves Simcoe. Those Loyalists who could, sought the protection of the British Army during the war, and departed to British colonies such as Canada and the Caribbean islands soon after the war. Additional family and friends continued the path of emigration for a decade after. The point is that the bond of loyalty was generations-old, and it was that separation from the American rebel cause that formed the initial common bond among the pioneers of Western Canada. Indeed, when the militia companies were formed in anticipation of an American invasion, only the sons of United Empire Loyalists were selected as officers and sergeants.

While Sir Isaac Brock may have been a reluctant leader of Canadian forces, he had the professionalism and foresight to build the volunteer force that would save and define Canada. He was one of several who saw the likelihood of another attempt by American forces to annex all or part of the Dominion. He deserves the credit for leading the effort to establish, equip, and train a new and stronger Canadian militia. Events would prove him correct and timely, and he died as a hero, leading those troops. My grandfather and his grandfather were named after Brock, as were many other Canadian sons.

There is much about the War of 1812 that defined Canada as a Dominion that would become a nation. But the foundation that made that victory possible are part of the Canadian story, too.

Remain strong and independent.

Jean LepleyMarch 11, 2012 19:02 EST

No argument from this (British born) American! Ever since boning up on American history for college placement exams and learning that the War of 1812 was fueled primarily by expansionist voices from western states (\"with the militia of Kentucky [Canada] will be ours,\" was the boast of one vainglorious legislator) — and NOT, as I\'d been taught, by maritime issues (indeed the old whaling town of New Bedford spoke for maritime Massachusetts when it voiced violent opposition to the \"awful calamity . . . a war which has been so long predicted by the wise, ridiculed by the weak, deprecated by the honest, and courted by the wicked\") — well, it seemed obvious that the Canadians won. An American invasion was repulsed, and if England had only been more interested in Canadian affairs, less distracted by Napoleon, it could (and should, some Canadians argue) have bargained for a more northerly boundary, at least through the Great Lakes which were, after all, first explored by French voyageurs. . . .
So I didn\'t need to be convinced on the score of \"who won\" the War of 1812. But I still learned a lot from this article, about both America and Canada. Thanks for writing it!

JeanMarch 11, 2012 19:03 EST

A last thought. Of course, the U.S. declared war on Great Britain in 1812, and it was Great Britain that provoked the U.S. with its seizure of American ships and American seamen — not Canada or even Canada-to-be. But the land-grab that western War Hawks thought they could execute with such ease — yes, that was for the real land of present-day Canada, and I, for one, am happy that the grab did not succeed. Especially in the poisonous political climate of America today, I, too, look northward with a sense of relief that we have such a sane neighbor.



PS My apologies if all these revisions got printed. I surely hope not.

LotharMarch 11, 2012 23:23 EST

Far from being a "fort that barely survived", Fort McHenry took a pounding for 25 hours and an estimated 1500 cannonballs and suffered only 4 killed and 25 wounded. It was a part of the larger Battle of Baltimore in which American forces also defeated the British army on land in which British commanding officer General Robert Ross was killed. Unable to enter Baltimore harbor and provide covering fire for their ground troops, the British were defeated ending the Chesapeake campaign. The fleet then moved on to New Orleans where the British would be defeated again.

Add a comment

  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
June 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Foundation National Event Guide

The Walrus HOOPP Pension Debate
Be It Resolved That Canadians Are Incapable
of Saving for Their Retirement Needs Alone

12 pm, Wednesday, May 30 at
Hart House Debate Room, Toronto

The Walrus Glenbow Debate
Calgary’s Cowboy Culture:
Living Legacy or Just History?

6:30 pm, Thursday, June 7 at
Epcor Centre: Max Bell Theatre, Calgary

The Walrus Laughs
The Walrus SoapBox