The 10 Things You Didn’t Know About the War of 1812
Why did the country really go to war against the British? Which American icon came out of the forgotten war?
- By Tony Horwitz and Brian Wolly
- Smithsonian.com, May 22, 2012, Subscribe
1. The War Needs Re-Branding
“The War of 1812” is an easy handle for students who struggle with dates. But the name is a misnomer that makes the conflict sound like a mere wisp of a war that began and ended the same year.
In reality, it lasted 32 months following the U.S. declaration of war on Britain in June 1812. That’s longer than the Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, and U.S. involvement in World War I.
Also confusing is the Battle of New Orleans, the largest of the war and a resounding U.S. victory. The battle occurred in January, 1815—two weeks after U.S. and British envoys signed a peace treaty in Ghent, Belgium. News traveled slowly then. Even so, it’s technically incorrect to say that the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the war, which didn’t officially end until February 16, 1815, when the Senate and President James Madison ratified the peace treaty.
For roughly a century, the conflict didn’t merit so much as a capital W in its name and was often called “the war of 1812.” The British were even more dismissive. They termed it “the American War of 1812,” to distinguish the conflict from the much great Napoleonic War in progress at the same time.
The War of 1812 may never merit a Tchaikovsky overture, but perhaps a new name would help rescue it from obscurity.
2. Impressment May Have Been a Trumped-Up Charge
One of the strongest impetuses for declaring war against Great Britain was the impressment of American seamen into the Royal Navy, a not uncommon act among navies at the time but one that incensed Americans nonetheless. President James Madison’s State Department reported that 6,257 Americans were pressed into service from 1807 through 1812. But how big a threat was impressment, really?
“The number of cases which are alleged to have occurred, is both extremely erroneous and exaggerated,” wrote Massachusetts Sen. James Lloyd, a Federalist and political rival of Madison’s. Lloyd argued that the president’s allies used impressment as “a theme of party clamour [sic], and party odium,” and that those citing as a casus belli were “those who have the least knowledge and the smallest interest in the subject.”
Other New England leaders, especially those with ties to the shipping industry, also doubted the severity of the problem. Timothy Pickering, the Bay State’s other senator, commissioned a study that counted the total number of impressed seamen from Massachusetts at slightly more than 100 and the total number of Americans at just a few hundred.
Yet the Britons’ support for Native Americans in conflicts with the United States, as well as their own designs on the North American frontier, pushed Southern and Western senators toward war, and they needed more support to declare it. An issue that could place the young nation as the aggrieved party could help; of the 19 senators who passed the declaration of war, only three were from New England and none of them were Federalists.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (18)
+ View All Comments
Don't forget the internal chaos in the 6 years preceding the way linked to the Louisiana Purchase mentioned in point #8...and the deal V/P Burr struck with the British. Would this request from the US V/P illustrate the British had a natural expectation of empressement for the navy?
Posted by sharon wilton on June 27,2012 | 12:43 PM
There needs to be an 11th Thing You Did Not Know: 11. The U.S. also invaded Florida in a covert operation incited by Revolutionary War veteran George Mathews of Georgia and run by John Houston McIntosh. A ragtag group of Americans from Georgia, South Carolina, and other locations formed an "army" clandestinely supported by the U.S. government and aided at times by U.S. army and naval forces. The invading "army" styled themselves "Patriots" and even had their own crudely-designed flag. They took the town of Fernandina without a shot being fired. They laid siege to St. Augustine, but were repulsed by the Spanish military forces and militia. Part of the impetus for this invasion was the exasperation of southern U.S. slave owners with the habit of slaves to run away to Spanish Florida where the regulations regarding slavery were not as draconian as in the U.S., and slaves had access to courts, could sue, could buy their freedom, and could accumulate assets. This conflict is known in Florida history as the Patriot War. Alas, most Floridians do not know about it at all, for it is not taught in school history classes. For more information, see James G. Cusick, _The Other War of 1812: The Patriot War and the American Invasion of Spanish East Florida. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2007)
Posted by Karen Rhodes on June 17,2012 | 01:41 PM
At the start of Point 9 the following statement is made: "Few Americans celebrate the War of 1812, ... But the same isn’t true in Canada, where memory of the war and pride in its outcome runs deep." Ah, if only it were true. In fact there is only one person in the entire land, that I am aware off, that seems to remember the war of 1812 and that's our Prime Minister, Mr. Harper.Possibly because he lived through it, but that's pure conjecture on my behalf. There can be no other explanation as to why he is now hell bent on spending considerable sums of money, in recessionary times (we are talking multi millions of $ - albeit Canadian $) on a war (of all things!) that no one remembers nor, sadly, cares about.
Posted by Patrikc M Kavanagh on June 12,2012 | 03:06 PM
Actually, Canada was not an independent nation in the 1800's. It still is under the rule of the Queen of England as Canada belongs to the Commonwealth. The US commander at Fort Detroit surrendered without a shot. Had Major-General Brock not been recalled, the British most likely would have held Michigan. Michiganders tend to be rather well versed in the War of 1812. If only the orignial surveyors reports that all of Michigan was swamp land were true, we would have been Canadians because the US government would not have cared.
Posted by Shelley Jeltema on June 10,2012 | 11:17 PM
Highly informative. I learned many things about history that I was never taught. Well done! Thank you.
Posted by Dr. Fred wasserman on June 8,2012 | 08:02 AM
10 things we STILL don't know about the war: 1. "Without the victory at Horseshoe Bend in 1814, who can say that Andrew Jackson would have ever been at New Orleans, and without that victory, who can say that he ever might have been President?" 2. The last battle of the war was won by the British at Ft. Bowyers giving them a potential easy back door entry into the city of New Orleans. 3. Tecumseh, was killed in battle; soldiers desecrated his body so badly that they had to verify his identity by a blue tooth he was known to have. 4. Jackson was down to approximately 75 starving men at Ft. Strother before being resupplied by the 39th Infantry who had orders to proceed to New Orleans where it is likely they would have been placed in charge. 5. The 39th then was made to execute a wrongly-accused 18 yo militiaman, John Wood, after they had asked Jackson in a petition the night before for leniency. 6. Maj. Lemuel Montgomery of the 39th was honored for being the highest-ranking officer killed at HSB; the only entry in the Jackson papers from him was that he was ordered to tell the General that Lt. Col. Benton said of Jackson that "he was a hollow-hearted scoundrel." 7. the 39th, the finest-trained soldiers in the southwest, were held in reserve at Mobile and not used at New Orleans. 8. Militiaman Davy Crockett described a battle with the Creeks at Tallushatchee in which they burned a building with many Indians inside, then went back the next day and ate potatos that had been stewed in the ground under the building; he said he felt a little badly about it. 9. Sam Houston was NOT one of Jackson's soldiers; he was a First Lt. of the 39th under the command of Col. John Williams; if he was such a great military tactician in Texas, he learned it from Col. Wms. 10. Because of the resignation of Wm Henry Harrison, General Jackson went from state militia general to Major General of the U.S. Army within about sixty days; a feat never before nor since accomplished.
Posted by Alex Brandau III on June 7,2012 | 11:46 PM
I can answer Jean Laffite's question. The biography I read - many years ago - shows that Jean and his brother played a big role, harrassing the British troop ships as they progressed toward New Orleans. For Matt Flawn, the Canadians (or the British in Canada) also burned Lewiston, across the river and a little upstream from Newark (now Niagara-on-the-Lake). Maybe twice.
Posted by Robert Ewalt on June 7,2012 | 04:53 PM
Another great article on the war. Thanks. Do you have any more information on the Society of 1812? BTW the Militia Department of the Canadian Government was looking for veterans of the war so they could be given a pension. In 1875!
Posted by Ernest Payne on June 7,2012 | 09:17 AM
Hunter Stires wrote: "The burning of York, Canada by American invaders was never used as justification for the burning of Washington, DC until way after the war." Well, on Nov. 8, 1814, the Prince Regent made an address to the combined houses of Parliament about course of the war. In a debate which followed in the House of Commons, Chancellor of the Exchequer Nicholas Vansittart stated that the burning of government buildings in Washington was a retaliatory act for the destruction of the "house of the governor" and parliament buildings in York. Also, in an address to the Parliament of Lower Canada on Jan. 24, 1815, Governor General Sir George Prevost said that " as a just retribution, the proud capital at Washington has experienced a similar fate to that inflicted by an American force on the seat of government in Upper Canada." Meanwhile, in York, Reverend John Strachan wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated Jan. 25, 1815 in which he stated that the destruction of Washington "was a small retaliation after redress had been refused for burnings and depredations, not only of public but private property." The war officially ended on Feb. 16, 1815. Hunter also wrote: "No British commanders involved in the burning of Washington made reference to the earlier American action in Canada at the time of the attack." According to Congressman Charles J. Ingersoll, Major General Robert Ross, who oversaw the destruction of Washington, "continually deplored the tragedy which he said he had to perform, occasioned, he added, by the American burning of the British capital in Canada." Furthermore, Ross insisted that private property was to be left alone, and that only public buildings were to be torched - as the Americans did at York. Ingersoll was not in Washington at the time, but he wrote his 'Historical Sketch of the Second War between the United States of America and Great Britain' based on eyewitness accounts. Thruppence, EK
Posted by Ewan Wardle on June 6,2012 | 02:29 PM
The US fought Great Britain during this war. Saying that Canada won would be like saying Scotland or Wales won.
Posted by Bob Bob on June 5,2012 | 03:24 PM
The reference to Federalist politicians claiming that there were "just a few hundred" Americans impressed is the weakest part of this article. The Federalists had political and in some cases financial reasons for denying that many Americans had been impressed. Up to 1812 the British had released almost 2,000 men who had been impressed and they admitted were American citizens. That figured would of course not include the many Americans who were simply unable to provide evidence that was acceptable to the British, had been killed, escaped on their own, accepted the King's bounty (money), or had been married to a Briton at the time of impressment. After the war the British released 1,800 Americans who had been impressed but refused to fight against their country and were imprisoned. The actual figure for impressed Americans will never be known. As for the ratification date it was on February 17 since that was the date when the instruments of ratifications were actually exchanged between the US and Britain. It is the exchange that constitutes formal ratification.
Posted by Harry Anderson on May 31,2012 | 11:46 PM
I agree with Matt Flawn; Canada won. Consider this: In the spring of 1812, President Madison recommended invading Canada, the US congress and senate approved and a common sentiment at the time was that capturing Canada would be "a mere matter of marching." A lovely alliteration, that! But in retrospect, pure baloney. The US failed in it's objective; in balance, I think it's abundantly clear that Canada won and the US lost.
Posted by Bob Campbell on May 31,2012 | 07:44 AM
A few notes that ought to be pointed out: 1. While the actual cases of impressment were likely a bit fewer than Madison's claim of 6,000, each case was a blatant violation of American sovereignty. Nowadays, if just one American citizen were kidnapped from one of our ships by another nation or group of pirates, we would immediately dispatch lots of ships and use all diplomatic channels to get him back (remember the captain of Maersk Alabama in 2009). I don't think that calling repeated violations of national sovereignty can be called "trumped up." 2. The burning of York, Canada by American invaders was never used as justification for the burning of Washington, DC until way after the war. No British commanders involved in the burning of Washington made reference to the earlier American action in Canada at the time of the attack. It sounds like this article was written by a British apologist, and he should probably take a look at some more substantial sources and make a few edits...
Posted by Hunter Stires on May 29,2012 | 06:58 PM
President Madison ratified the Treaty of Ghent on February 17, 1815. Please correct in the article. Ronda Bernstein Museum Coordinator The Octagon Museum Washington, DC www.theoctagon.org
Posted by Ronda Bernstein on May 26,2012 | 08:34 PM
+ View All Comments