# War of 1812: Violence, glory and a new Canadian-ness



## ModlrMike (19 Jun 2012)

A relatively well written article on the War of 1812

War of 1812: Violence, glory and a new Canadian-ness

Canada today is seen as a harmonious nation of hockey, mounties and maple leaves, in peaceful contrast to its often fractious and noisy neighbour to the south. But Canadian-ness itself was born amid the blood, gunpowder and glory of the War of 1812, writes Grant Stoddard.

Read the rest at: BBC News


----------



## jeffb (19 Jun 2012)

Overall not a bad read but it suffers from one of the most enduring myths of the War of 1812. Namely, the militia myth. The Battle of Chateauguay is one of the only examples of the war in which British regulars were not only present but did much of the heavy lifting. While there were several important "Canadian" militia and Fencible units in the conflict, Lundy's Lane, Fort George, Queenston Heights, Sackett's Harbor, Stony Creek, Detroit, Seige of Fort Megis,  the Battle for the Great Lakes, New Orleans, Washington, etc were conducted mainly by British regulars, supported by British artillery and led by British officers. Yes, there were militia and native forces at many at these battles and in some cases played a pivotal role such as during the capture of Detroit in 1812. For a good example, take a look at the battle honours of the 41st Regiment of Foot. (A unit the future Duke of Wellington served with 30 years prior) This British regular regiment's honours reads like a timeline of the conflict in Upper Canada. They seemed to have detachments everywhere and in every battle. 

What is most amazing to me is that garrisons of Upper and Lower Canada were hardly Britain's A team. That army was fighting with Arthur Wellesley, the later Duke of Wellington, in the Peninsula while the B team was in India and defending Britain against attack. It was only later in the war following the defeat of Napoleon that significant numbers of Penisular War veterans were freed up. 

The militia myth is one that has been pervasive in the interpretation of the War of 1812 and for a good reason. Much of the early writing on the war was done by militia officers 40 - 50 years after the fact. For a variety of reasons, they tended to "massage" the facts, and in some cases flat out lie, in order to use the war as justification as to why Canada should focus its defense on a militia model rather then an expensive permanent force.


----------



## cupper (19 Jun 2012)

This kinda ties into something I was listening to on NPR yesterday while driving home.

They compared how the War of 1812 is taught in the US and in Canada.

The US teacher presents a 2 day module on the subject, where as the Canadian teacher spends 3 to 4 weeks on the subject.

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/18/155308632/teaching-the-war-of-1812-different-in-u-s-canada

And I know from living down here the past 10 years, outside of "The Star Spangled Banner" and some other minor exhibits in the Smithsonian, you hear very little about it.


----------



## Webgear (19 Jun 2012)

JeffB

I think you might like this link on the 41st Regt of Foot. There is a lot of good history to be found here: 

     http://www.fortyfirst.org/

I know several of the researchers they have spent a great deal of time understanding the regiment in all aspects of it's time here in Canada and during the war.

If I remember correctly the 41st spent a better part of 20 years in Upper Canada and were one of two British Regiments to be stationed in Canada the whole entire length of the war.


----------



## Greymatters (21 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> This kinda ties into something I was listening to on NPR yesterday while driving home.
> 
> They compared how the War of 1812 is taught in the US and in Canada.
> 
> ...



When you consider it percentage-wise, as in number of wars the country was involved in versus the amount of time available for teaching about each conflict, its seems logical that Candaian would spend more time on it than the USA.  Especially since it had a great influence on the future of the Dominion, as opposed to no signficant impact on the USA as a whole.  Well, other than the burning of the White House, but apparently they dont tend to talk about that part much...


----------

