The War of 1812: Remember the Raisin!
The war's battle cry, along with almost everything else about it, has been forgotten for far too long
- By Tony Horwitz
- Smithsonian magazine, June 2012, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 5)
“In the fight for memory, we’re like a few guys with flintlocks going up against Robert E. Lee’s army,” says Daniel Downing, chief of interpretation at the River Raisin Battlefield.
The Civil War’s superior firepower in national lore isn’t the only source of 1812’s obscurity. Here’s another: The 200-year-old war was mostly a debacle, with unsettling parallels to our own era. Eighteen-twelve was a war of choice rather than necessity; it was undertaken with naïve expectations of American success; and it concluded with the nation failing to achieve any of its stated aims.
“The war was so ill conceived and ineptly run that the government wanted to forget the whole embarrassment almost from the moment it ended,” says Gordon Wood, a leading historian of the early United States. He believes this willful amnesia, and the illusions that fueled the War of 1812, reflect a strain in the nation’s character that has surfaced many times, right down to Afghanistan and Iraq. “History should teach humility and prudence, but America doesn’t seem to learn. I’ve never seen a virgin who loses her innocence so often.”
In 1812, at least, the U.S. had the excuse of being very young and insecure. The Constitution wasn’t yet 25 years old, the nation remained a shaky experiment and Britain still behaved in a neo-colonial fashion. Desperate to defeat Napoleon, Britain restricted U.S. trade with Europe and “impressed,” or seized, sailors on American ships for service in the Royal Navy. To President James Madison and “War Hawks” in Congress, these acts violated U.S. sovereignty and represented an affront to the nation’s newly won independence. “There’s a sense that America’s identity is at stake,” says Wood, who calls 1812 “an ideological war.”
It was also extremely unpopular. The vote to declare war was the closest in U.S. history, and Congress failed to adequately fund the nation’s tiny, ill-prepared military. Some states withheld their militia. And critics decried “Mr. Madison’s War” as a reckless adventure, motivated less by maritime grievances than by lust for land.
Indeed, the U.S. war plan began with a land invasion—of Canada. By occupying land north of the border, Hawks sought to secure the nation’s flank, sever British aid to Indians in the upper Midwest and acquire new territory. Americans also believed that settlers in British-held Canada would welcome the invaders with open arms. Conquering present-day Ontario, Thomas Jefferson predicted, would “be a mere matter of marching.”
Instead, the first U.S. Army to march into Canada was so badly led that it promptly retreated and then surrendered, ceding Michigan to the British. Two later invasions of Canada likewise failed. The U.S. did have success at sea, stunning the British Navy by winning frigate duels early in the war. But in 1814, following Napoleon’s exile to Elba, the British brought much greater might to bear on the American theater.
After seizing eastern Maine and ravaging the New England coast, British troops invaded the Chesapeake, causing a frantic U.S. retreat in Maryland that was dubbed “the Bladensburg races.” The British then marched into Washington, which American officials had hastily abandoned, leaving behind a formal dinner set at the White House. British troops devoured the victuals and wine before burning the White House, Congress and other buildings. When Congress reconvened, in temporary quarters, it narrowly voted down a proposal to relocate the capital rather than rebuild. The beleaguered U.S. government also defaulted on the national debt.
These inglorious episodes are little heralded today, apart from Dolley Madison’s rescue of George Washington’s portrait from the White House (which still bears scorch marks from its 1814 burning). One exception is an annual event in the Connecticut town of Essex; the cheekily titled “Loser’s Day Parade” marks the British raid and burning of its harbor.
The River Raisin Battlefield has also tried to lighten its image by adopting a furry and cartoonish mascot called “Major Muskrat.” The rodent, common to southeastern Michigan, helped early European settlers ward off starvation during the lean years of the War of 1812. And muskrat remains a local delicacy. Typically, it’s parboiled with vegetables, cut in half and then fried with onions, as it was at an all-you-can-eat muskrat and spaghetti dinner preceding the Lacroix Company’s winter drill.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (22)
+ View All Comments
I love it because is so cool about the civil war.
Posted by on March 11,2013 | 10:15 AM
Good summation of the War of 1812. This needs to be read by all high school students. We teach very little about this war aside the burning of Washington and the Star Spangle Banner.
Posted by Ron Lewis on November 11,2012 | 05:20 PM
I'm shocked that such propaganda and lies have been included in this article from a supposed American. Obviously, it was not done by a patriot, rather just another hater of America. I'll bet my 27 year career in the army the writer never served a day SERVING this country! Sergeant-Major Thomas Cole (retired)
Posted by thom cole on September 19,2012 | 10:23 AM
Editor, Smithsonian - Sorry for the delay, but this was sent on 5-29-12 in reply to the paper article. "Thank you for Tony Horwitz' fine article "Remember the Raisin !" To a Canadian and American who grew up in England it seems reasonably objective despite its brevity. I shall have to re-read Pierre Berton's much longer The Invasion of Canada, Penguin Canada, 1988 to compare points of view. Incidentally, I wish someone could explain to me what prompts this wish to re-enact past battles." Red Wetherill
Posted by Ewart A. Wetherill on September 1,2012 | 03:00 PM
This is a great story, but the area surrounding the park is in great disarray. A new subdivision was but just on the edge with no regard for any spillage of the battle into the current neighborhoods. Plus the knockdown of the paper plant appears to have been done with the same regard. I would have liked to seen more care done with the building that occurred and more archeology done before stuff got ‘covered’ with progress. I live a mere 4 blocks from that area, and it battlefield area looks pretty good now.
Posted by mike on August 3,2012 | 11:31 AM
I'd like an explanation of how the Washington portrait bears scorch marks. My understanding is that Dolley Madison left the White House before it was torched; ergo, the Washington portrait couldn't bear scorch marks from that particular incident.
Posted by Marguerite Horn on July 12,2012 | 12:01 PM
Contrary to Tony Horwitz's conclusion that the War of 1812 is the Forgotten War, a great many Americans and Canadians know its history, and honor the fallen with memorials. On Memorial Day, May 28, 2012, an impressive ceremony was held jointly by the American Navy, and Canadian Forces honoring U.S. POWs who died in prison in Halifax and were buried on Deadman's Island. Cannon firing, a rifle volley, large contingents from the U.S. Navy and Canadian Forces, Nova Scotia's Lt. Governor, representatives from the U.S. Embassy, and a crowd of interested Canadian and Americans were present as the National President of the Daughters of 1812 unveiled a plaque commemorating the U.S. servicemen who died here. U.S. Army and militiamen, captured on the Niagara Frontier and other battlefields were marched to Montreal, placed on transports and brought to Halifax, where thousands were held in Melville Prison. Of these, 195 died of diseases such as smallpox, dysentery and typhus. Deadman's Island now is a protected historical park, as a result of joint efforts by American and Canadian groups interested in preserving our joint history - and symbolizing the two nations' changed relationship from war to peace. [Attached photo of Flag Guards from U.S. Navy and Canadian Forces] Maida Follini (Apr 310, 154 Willowdale Drive, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2V 2W4 Canada - phone 902-435-3784) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Maida Follini on July 11,2012 | 09:08 PM
"The beleaguered U.S. government also defaulted on the national debt." Though there have been other defaults, depending upon the definition of default, I was unaware that there was a default during or immediately after the War of 1812. Was the article checked for accuracy? Can the magazine share some details about this dfault?
Posted by St George Pinckney on July 6,2012 | 02:26 PM
“It was also extremely unpopular.” It has been said by some historians that democracies tend to be warlike. Whether true or not, it is amazing how often a skeptical majority of Americans get dragged into an ill-conceived war, and then, after-the-fact, are placed in a position where they understandably rally around the flag and their brave troops. All this is still taking place, but, at least in recent decades, with the bizarre twist that pro-war political elites show little interest in defending their own nation’s borders, while, ironically, that would be at least one show of greater force that would be, according to all polling data, wildly popular with the American majority.
Posted by Thomas Michael Andres on June 22,2012 | 10:59 PM
Regarding Horwitz’s “…U.S. troops exacted revenge in a victory over the British and Indians that resulted in the killing and skinning of the great Shawnee warrior Tecumseh,” Tecumseh was apparently killed during the battle, but there were many conflicting reports as to where and how he was killed and what happened to the body. Harrison, one of the few who had met Tecumseh, could not identify the body as that of the Indian leader and made no mention of any skinning. The late Pierre Berton, noted Canadian author, popular historian, and journalist, believed that Tecumseh’s body was retrieved by his followers and buried in an unmarked grave. Andrew Clarke, a dying British participant, claimed to have seen Tecumseh’s body carried away, according to “God Gave Us This Country: Tekamthi [Tecumseh] by Bill Gilbert.. There are as many variations in the tales of the death of Tecumseh and the disposition of the body as there are books that touch on the subject. There may be some truth to the tale of a few Kentuckians cutting some strips of skin from an Indian corpse, but Indians did that to live human beings. Given the uncertainty as to whether the corpse found and allegedly “skinned” was that of Tecumseh it takes either an agenda unrestrained by conflicting accounts or great credulity to unequivocally claim, “U.S. troops” skinned “the great Shawnee warrior Tecumseh.” That Tecumseh did not survive the battle is certain, the rest is conjecture. The need to overplay “moral equivalence,” by dragging in unnamed atrocities by Kentucky frontiersmen and a disputed claim of the “skinning of the great Shawnee warrior Tecumseh,” is as bad as suggesting that some Marines pulling gold teeth from Japanese corpses in the Pacific in WWII rises to the Japanese butchery of American POWs in the Bataan Death March and elsewhere. One side’s practice was occasional and limited to the few; the other side’s conduct was commonplace and widely practiced.
Posted by Glenn Merritt on June 13,2012 | 04:55 PM
Thank you all for your comments and your eagle eyes. According to National Park Service officials, River Raisin is the only national battlefield park related to 1812 because all the others are state sites, national monuments (Lafitte, Fort McHenry), national historic parks, and so on. While some of these are administered by the National Park Service, none were created by the NPS as battlefield parks, and generally inherited from other bodies. Best, Brian Wolly Digital Editor, Smithsonian.com
Posted by Brian Wolly on June 11,2012 | 07:38 PM
With the emergence of a post-1960s politically-correct overlay on American History it has increasingly become necessary for some to append to every massacre by “Native Americans” a vague claim of a causal atrocity by frontier whites. So it is with Horwitz’s “Remember the Raisin” that “the most notorious incident at River Raisin occurred after the battle, when Indians attacked 65 wounded American prisoners, in apparent reprisal for atrocities the Kentuckians had committed against natives.” In surrender negotiations, the American commander stated to the British commander, Henry Proctor, “it has been customary for the Indians to massacre the wounded and prisoners after a surrender” and appealed for protection or else the fight would continue. Proctor agreed to the condition and marched off the bulk of the captured Americans. Promised protection but subsequently abandoned by the British, the remaining wounded American prisoners in makeshift hospitals were not just “attacked” but were tomahawked and scalped by the Indians. Some of the more ambulatory wounded were taken for future ransom and forced to travel with the homeward-bound Indians though many, weakened by their wounds, faltered and were summarily killed and scalped. For their lethal marksmanship, the Kentuckians were hated by the Indians who never turned down an opportunity to butcher the vulnerable and the incapacitated. Later that year, another 40 unarmed American prisoners at Fort Meigs in central Ohio were murdered by Indians. The depiction of “a drunken massacre and scalping by Indian ‘Savages,’ abetted by their British allies” has more historical fact behind it than does the author’s claim of unspecified atrocities by Kentuckians. Historical perspective has been subverted by the liberal tenets of moral equivalency and the victim culture, aided and abetted by politically-correct writers perhaps seeking absolution for the real and imagined transgressions of our European ancestors.
Posted by Glenn Merritt on June 9,2012 | 12:19 PM
When an egregious omission is made, the venerable newspaper The New York TImes attaches a correction addendum to the article. From that time on, the addendum is attached permanently to the web link. The Smithsonian magazine should do the same. Here is the U. S. government link to the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve (a national park opened in 1864): http://www.nps.gov/jela/index.htm
Posted by Joseph LoCicero on June 8,2012 | 09:05 AM
FYI, regarding comments below on River Raisin's status, the article is in fact correct. There are other 1812 sites in the state and national park system, but it is the only one designated a national battlefield park. Smithsonian, I believe, will be posting details on this soon.
Posted by Tony Horwitz on June 7,2012 | 12:43 PM
+ View All Comments