• Smithsonian
    Institution
  • Travel
    With Us
  • Smithsonian
    Store
  • Smithsonian
    Channel
  • goSmithsonian
    Visitors Guide
  • Air & Space
    magazine

Smithsonian.com

  • Subscribe
  • History & Archaeology
  • Science
  • Ideas & Innovations
  • Arts & Culture
  • Travel & Food
  • At the Smithsonian
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Games
  • Shop
  • Archaeology
  • U.S. History
  • World History
  • Today in History
  • Document Deep Dives
  • The Jetsons
  • National Treasures
  • Paleofuture
  • History & Archaeology

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?

| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email |
  • By Tony Horwitz and Brian Wolly
  • Smithsonian.com, May 22, 2012, Subscribe
View More Photos »
Washington DC burning
Washingtonians fleeing the city during the burning of the White House and the Capitol by the British on August 24, 1814. (The Granger Collection, NYC)

Photo Gallery (1/4)

Hartford Convention cartoon

Explore more photos from the story


Video Gallery

The Funeral Parade for the Last Veteran of the War of 1812

More from Smithsonian.com

  • How Canada Celebrates the War of 1812
  • The War of 1812: 200 Years Later
  • The War of 1812: Remember the Raisin!

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.


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.

3. The Rockets Really Did Have Red Glare

Francis Scott Key famously saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry amid the “rockets’ red glare” and “bombs bursting in air.” He wasn’t being metaphoric. The rockets were British missiles called Congreves and looked a bit like giant bottle rockets. Imagine a long stick that spins around in the air, attached to a cylindrical canister filled with gunpowder, tar and shrapnel. Congreves were inaccurate but intimidating, an 1814 version of “shock and awe.” The “bombs bursting in air” were 200 pound cannonballs, designed to explode above their target. The British fired about 1500 bombs and rockets at Fort McHenry from ships in Baltimore Harbor and only succeeded in killing four of the fort’s defenders.

4. Uncle Sam Came From the War Effort

The Star-Spangled Banner isn’t the only patriotic icon that dates to the War of 1812. It’s believed that “Uncle Sam” does, too. In Troy, New York, a military supplier named Sam Wilson packed meat rations in barrels labeled U.S. According to local lore, a soldier was told the initials stood for “Uncle Sam” Wilson, who was feeding the army. The name endured as shorthand for the U.S. government. However, the image of Uncle Sam as a white-bearded recruiter didn’t appear for another century, during World War I.

5. The Burning of Washington was Capital Payback

To Americans, the burning of Washington by British troops was a shocking act by barbaric invaders. But the burning was payback for a similar torching by American forces the year before. After defeating British troops at York (today’s Toronto), then the capital of Upper Canada, U.S. soldiers plundered the town and burned its parliament. The British exacted revenge in Aug. 1814 when they burned the White House, Congress, and other buildings.

Long-term, this may have been a blessing for the U.S. capital. The combustible “President’s House” (as it was then known) was rebuilt in sturdier form, with elegant furnishings and white paint replacing the earlier whitewash. The books burned at Congress’s library were replaced by Thomas Jefferson, whose wide-ranging collection became the foundation for today’s comprehensive Library of Congress.

6. Native Americans Were the War’s Biggest Losers

The United States declared war over what it saw as British violations of American sovereignty at sea. But the war resulted in a tremendous loss of Native American sovereignty, on land. Much of the combat occurred along the frontier, where Andrew Jackson battled Creeks in the South and William Henry Harrison fought Indians allied with the British in the “Old Northwest.” This culminated in the killing of the Shawnee warrior, Tecumseh, who had led pan-Indian resistance to American expansion. His death, other losses during the war, and Britain’s abandonment of their native allies after it, destroyed Indians’ defense of their lands east of the Mississippi, opening the way for waves of American settlers and “Indian Removal” to the west.

7. The Ill-Fated General Custer Had His Start in the War

In 1813, by the River Raisin in Michigan, the British and their Native American allies dealt the U.S. its most stinging defeat in the War of 1812, and the battle was followed by an Indian attack on wounded prisoners. This incident sparked an American battle cry, “Remember the Raisin!” 

William Henry Harrison, who later led the U.S. to victory in battle against the British and Indians, is remembered on his tomb as “Avenger of the Massacre of the River Raisin.”

George Armstrong Custer remembered the Raisin, too. He spent much of his youth in Monroe, the city that grew up along the Raisin, and in 1871, he was photographed with War of 1812 veterans beside a monument to Americans slaughtered during and after the battle. Five years later, Custer also died fighting Indians, in one of the most lopsided defeats for U.S. forces since the River Raisin battle 63 years before.

8. There Was Almost a United States of New England

The political tension persisted as the war progressed, culminating with the Hartford Convention, a meeting of New England dissidents who seriously flirted with the idea of seceding from the United States. They rarely used the terms “secession” or “disunion,” however, as they viewed it as merely a separation of two sovereign states.

For much of the preceding 15 years, Federalist plans for disunion ebbed and flowed with their party’s political fortunes. After their rival Thomas Jefferson won the presidency in 1800, they grumbled sporadically about seceding, but mostly when Jefferson took actions they didn’t appreciate (and, worse, when the electorate agreed with him). The Louisiana Purchase, they protested, was unconstitutional; the Embargo Act of 1807, they said, devastated the New England shipping industry. Electoral victories in 1808 silenced chatter of disunion, but the War of 1812 reignited those passions.

Led by Senator Thomas Pickering, disaffected politicians sent delegates to Hartford in 1814 as the first step in a series to sever ties with the United States. “I do not believe in the practicality of a long-continual union,” wrote Pickering to convention chairman George Cabot. The North and South’s “mutual wants would render a friendly and commercial intercourse inevitable.”

Cabot and other moderates in the party, however, quashed the secessionist sentiment. Their dissatisfaction with “Mr. Madison’s War,” they believed, was merely a consequence of belonging to a federation of states. Cabot wrote back to Pickering: “I greatly fear that a separation would be no remedy because the source of them is in the political theories of our country and in ourselves.... I hold democracy in its natural operation to be the government of the worst.”

9. Canadians Know More About the War Than You Do

Few Americans celebrate the War of 1812, or recall the fact that the U.S. invaded its northern neighbor three times in the course of the conflict. But the same isn’t true in Canada, where memory of the war and pride in its outcome runs deep.

In 1812, American “War Hawks” believed the conquest of what is today Ontario would be easy, and that settlers in the British-held territory would gladly become part of the U.S. But each of the American invasions was repelled. Canadians regard the war as a heroic defense against their much larger neighbor, and a formative moment in their country’s emergence as an independent nation.  While the War of 1812 bicentennial is a muted affair in the U.S., Canada is reveling in the anniversary and celebrating heroes such as Isaac Brock and Laura Secord, little known south of the border.

“Every time Canada beats the Americans in hockey, everybody’s tremendously pleased,” says Canadian historian Allan Greer. “It’s like the big brother, you have to savor your few victories over him and this was one.”

10. The Last Veteran

Amazingly, some Americans living today were born when the last veteran of the War of 1812 was still alive. In 1905, a grand parade was held to celebrate the life of Hiram Silas Cronk, who died on April 29, two weeks after his 105th birthday.

Cronk “cast his first vote for Andrew Jackson and his last for Grover Cleveland,” according to a newspaper account from 1901.

After nearly a century of obscurity as a farmer in New York State, he became something of a celebrity the closer he came to dying. Stories about his life filled newspaper columns, and the New York City Board of Aldermen began planning Cronk’s funeral months before he died.

When he did, they marked the event with due ceremony. “As the funeral cortege moved from the Grand Central Station to the City Hall it afforded an imposing and unusual spectacle,” reported the Evening Press of Grand Rapids, Michigan. “Led by a police escort of mounted officers, a detachment from the United States regular Army, the Society of 1812 and the Old Guard in uniform, came the hearse bearing the old warrior’s body. Around it, in hollow square formation, marched the members of the U.S. Grant Post, G.A.R. Then followed the Washington Continental Guard from Washington, D.C., the Army and Navy Union, and carriages with members of the Cronk family. Carriages with Mayor McClellan and members of the city government brought up the rear.”


Single Page 1 2 3 4 Next »

    Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.


Related topics: American History War of 1812


| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email |
 

Add New Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

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



Advertisement


Most Popular

  • Viewed
  • Emailed
  • Commented
  1. Myths of the American Revolution
  2. For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact, Unaware of WWII
  3. Seven Famous People Who Missed the Titanic
  4. Women Spies of the Civil War
  5. A Brief History of the Salem Witch Trials
  6. The History of the Short-Lived Independent Republic of Florida
  7. Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?
  8. We Had No Idea What Alexander Graham Bell Sounded Like. Until Now
  9. Tattoos
  10. The True Story of the Battle of Bunker Hill
  1. The Space Race
  2. Seven Famous People Who Missed the Titanic
  3. New Light on Stonehenge
  4. The Women Who Fought in the Civil War
  5. Document Deep Dive: The Heartfelt Friendship Between Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey
  6. Abandoned Ship: the Mary Celeste
  7. Looking at the Battle of Gettysburg Through Robert E. Lee’s Eyes
  8. Women Spies of the Civil War
  9. Uncovering Secrets of the Sphinx
  10. The Great New England Vampire Panic

View All Most Popular »

Advertisement

Follow Us

Smithsonian Magazine
@SmithsonianMag
Follow Smithsonian Magazine on Twitter

Sign up for regular email updates from Smithsonian.com, including daily newsletters and special offers.

In The Magazine

May 2013

  • Patriot Games
  • The Next Revolution
  • Blowing Up The Art World
  • The Body Eclectic
  • Microbe Hunters

View Table of Contents »






First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State   Zip
Email


Travel with Smithsonian




Smithsonian Store

Stars and Stripes Throw

Our exclusive Stars and Stripes Throw is a three-layer adaption of the 1861 “Stars and Stripes” quilt... $65



View full archiveRecent Issues


  • May 2013


  • Apr 2013


  • Mar 2013

Newsletter

Sign up for regular email updates from Smithsonian magazine, including free newsletters, special offers and current news updates.

Subscribe Now

About Us

Smithsonian.com expands on Smithsonian magazine's in-depth coverage of history, science, nature, the arts, travel, world culture and technology. Join us regularly as we take a dynamic and interactive approach to exploring modern and historic perspectives on the arts, sciences, nature, world culture and travel, including videos, blogs and a reader forum.

Explore our Brands

  • goSmithsonian.com
  • Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
  • Smithsonian Student Travel
  • Smithsonian Catalogue
  • Smithsonian Journeys
  • Smithsonian Channel
  • About Smithsonian
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Subscribe
  • RSS
  • Topics
  • Member Services
  • Copyright
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy
  • Ad Choices

Smithsonian Institution