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 4 of 5)
“This is the feel-good side of the War of 1812,” says Vince Vaise, Fort McHenry’s chief interpreter. “We won the battle here, we don’t hate the British anymore, and the flag and national anthem have positive connotations for most people.”
Many Americans, however, have a shaky grasp of the history behind this patriotic tale. Tourists often confuse McHenry’s flag with Betsy Ross’, or think Francis Scott Key witnessed the bombardment of a fort called Sumter. “It’s all history in a blender,” Vaise says.
The fort’s museum sets this history straight—and strips away some of its mythic gloss. Key, who poetically extolled “the land of the free,” was himself a prominent slaveholder. The British, by contrast, offered liberty to fleeing slaves and enlisted 200 of them in the fight to take Fort McHenry. Key’s original verse was so venomous—celebrating British blood spilled over their “foul footsteps pollution”—that much of it was deleted from the national anthem.
The museum also upends the blurry, rather blithe notions that visitors have about the War of 1812 as a whole. While Americans may dimly recall Key, the naval heroics of “Old Ironsides,” or Jackson’s triumph at the Battle of New Orleans, they’re generally unaware that most of the war occurred along the Canadian border and went badly for the home team. Jackson’s victory (two weeks after the signing of a peace treaty) also created an enduring myth that the U.S. won the war. In reality, it ended in stalemate, and the peace treaty simply re-established the pre-war status quo—without mentioning the maritime issues that led Congress to declare war in the first place.
“It’s not exactly ‘Mission Accomplished’ for the U.S.,” Vaise observes. “It’s more like a kid who gets a bloody nose from a bully who then goes home.” In fact, the U.S. was lucky to avoid losing territory to the British, who were eager to conclude what they regarded as an irksome sideshow to the Napoleonic conflict.
Though the War of 1812 ended without a military victor, the clear losers were Native Americans. Ravaged by war, and abandoned after it by the British, tribes east of the Mississippi could no longer resist American expansion. This sad history is also told at Fort McHenry, which offers visitors a chance to vote on a computer monitor, stating whether they would have declared war in 1812 or not.
“Some days the vote is 50-50,” Vaise says. “Other days, almost everyone’s a hawk. Maybe they’re in a bad mood.”
More seriously, he suspects that visitors view 1812 through the prism of current events. Then, as now, many Americans opposed military ventures. The political climate during the War of 1812 grew so ugly that New Englanders flirted with secession. And almost everyone became disenchanted with government.
“It’s easy to be down on the present because we romanticize the past,” Vaise says. “But I’d say what we’re living through now is the norm rather than the exception.”
For all its sobering lessons, the War of 1812 also offers cause for celebration apart from “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Americans, having fought a mighty foe to a draw—and even bested the fearsome British Navy in several engagements—emerged newly secure about their country’s status as a free nation. Never again would the U.S. make war on Britain, which in time became a close ally.
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