S Folinsky

My US History classes often spanned two semesters. The first being from settlement to the Compromise of 1850. The second semester picked up at Reconstruction. Go figure.

My recollection of the War of 1812 teaching was on the causes and the US didn't lose. The Battle of New Orleans was taught as being after the Treaty of Ghent. It may have cemented the victory. But otherwise, the War of 1812 was almost an afterthought.

Rete

I was responding to your post above.

Fair enough.

scrubbedexpat091

I don't remember much from history classes in high school but there was only 1 history requirement.

I took US history in 12th grade for 2 semesters.

Didn't really learn anything since the teacher was not well versed in history. We mostly watched movies.

Only other history like class was 1 semester of world cultures in 9th grade.

If you were smart and in AP or IB classes there was a lot more history with proper teachers but I wasn't smart enough for such high level classes.

Most of what I know about history is self taught.

dc koop

It was a draw.

City of York, Canada torched by American troops 1812.... 10 points to the USA
White House torched by British troops in 1814.................10 points to Britain

Seriously we know who the losers were, the Native Americans. Several treaties made with them in 1811 were rescinded in 1815

kimilseung

i listened to a BBC "In our time" from the anniversary. One point that was made was that for many Americans, the news of the victory at New Orleans coincided with news of the treaty, possible leaving many to see a correlation between the two events. This may have been the genesis of the American victory idea.

caretaker

Johnny Horton did more to perpetuate the myth than anyone else.

morpeth

Since the war resulted in a return to the status quo, hard to see winners or loser- yet it contributed to the sentiment of national identity in both America and Canada.

I studied history in Australia, then in an international American school, while concurrently taking an A level in history. The American teaching of history was in a far amount of detail but heavily geared towards an ideological bent for he early years. For example American students generally receive a heavy dose of stories about being oppressed by the British prior to the revolution- yet John Adams remarked at the time of the revolution 1/3 of Americans were loyalists, 1/3 apathetic and neutral, and only about 1/3 ( especially those in colonial elite who had direct interest in lower taxes) supportive of the revolution- if I quote this to American students I have found most are they are dumbfounded.

I don't know how History taught in Britain in children these days, but generally our experience in three states each high school had a US History class, but with fairly simplistic textbooks. Certainly far below the standards of A level course I took, and even lower than the courses I took in Australia for the leaving certificate.

dc koop

[QUOTE=morpeth;12407576]Since the war resulted in a return to the status quo, hard to see winners or loser- yet it contributed to the sentiment of national identity in both America and Canada.

I studied history in Australia, then in an international American school, while concurrently taking an A level in history. The American teaching of history was in a far amount of detail but heavily geared towards an ideological bent for he early years. For example American students generally receive a heavy dose of stories about being oppressed by the British prior to the revolution- yet John Adams remarked at the time of the revolution 1/3 of Americans were loyalists, 1/3 apathetic and neutral, and only about 1/3 ( especially those in colonial elite who had direct interest in lower taxes) supportive of the revolution- if I quote this to American students I have found most are they are dumbfounded.

After the French-Indian war the British treasury was almost broke and there was also the financial burden of keeping a large British Army in the 13 colonies. The cost of defeating the French and saving the colonies from French domination had to be recovered somehow so any taxes imposed on the colonists were not unreasonable. On the other hand the colonists had a valid point of their own that taxation without representation were unlawful.

The so called British oppression did not exist prior to the revolution, The colonists were very much left alone to run their own affairs. One of the issues that rankled the colonial leaders was the ban placed by the British on any further expansion of settlements into Indian territory.

I've explained this to couple of my grandkids and it seemed to have surprised them

Too often in the teaching of history there's always an element of myth and propaganda that seems to be part of it.

carcajou

I am in Australia now and I disagree about the rigour here. The curriculum changed massively last decade and I think both the expectations and quality of work is far below that in the US and Britain. When you look at Australia in comparative education rankings - the country has absolutely nosedived since those changes were made. The Certificates of Education in the Australian states don't mean a whole lot to me because I know how the sausage behind it gets made now, and how easy it is to get one these days.

I did go to high school in the US - my textbook series for US history in high school was about 700 pages so don't know where "simplistic" comes in - even in middle school I had a gargantuan 500 page book that covered all of these things in detail, including the busting of the British treasury due to the French and Indian War, and that the Battle of New Orleans happened weeks after the treaty, had no impact or influence on the war, and was just a propaganda victory.

One thing that did get covered, that I haven't seen mentioned here, was the British impressing US soldiers into the Royal Navy.

As well - no, the 13 colonies did not unanimously agree on independence because they were just too stupid to see how full of awesome the British Government was. There were real problems with how they treated the colonists - yes, including oppression - that caused a lot of resentment and agitation. Nor was the French and Indian War fought out of altruism for the colonists as the British Government tried to claim in getting the colonists to try and pay for it - the colonial governments rightly saw right through that and knew it was fought for London priorities and objectives against the French.

robin1234

I'm afraid, too, there was a darker motivation for the one-third who decided to be so-called "Patriots." (And I say so-called, because presumably Loyalists could have been just as patriotic as the "Patriots" were. Just patriotic for a different vision of America.)

That darker motivation would be stealing, or acquiring on very favourable terms, the businesses, houses and lands of Loyalists who had to leave in a hurry. This is a common motivation in all civil wars.

morpeth

[QUOTE=dc koop;12407699] I am unaware that the charters that were granted to establish the various colonies contained legal provisions that precluded the taxation that was imposed, and the colonists generally moved voluntarily to the colonies under those conditions, so I am unsure how taxation without representation was "illegal".

However , having been brought up under British , by then, traditions of some degree of representation in such matters, one can understand the desire for representation- unless simply a matter of resentment of taxes imposed from far away.

The idea of colonists being "oppressed" perhaps requires a definition of oppression considering the context of the times and a comparative view of how colonists of other European nations were treated. Considering the degree of local governance, representation and freedoms, in comparison to the Spanish colonies hardly were the American colonies oppressed. Considering the times, and the greater freedom in day to day living away from the mother country or even local capitals, I find it difficult to state the colonists were particularly oppressed. Yet certainly a desire arose amongst some for a relaxation of British oversight- part of this desire was a return to the situation of a few decades before the Revolution as British regulation and taxation had increased significantly in the last few decades of British rule. Perhaps the teaching of more Canadian history in the US would provide on a comparative basis a more balanced approach.

However the elements of myth in the overall narrative perhaps have contributed to building an American identity and common bond where a lack of a binding central culture and history required such an identity to be constructed.

All is well that ends well I guess, in the end when the chips are down America can rely on Britain, and Britain can rely on America,

carcajou

Ultimately, who cares? This was over 200 years ago.

morpeth

I am unsure why the British government did not have the right to impose taxes considering its budgetary needs, however much in the end it caused discontent. I often wonder considering that British capital throughout the 18th century funded a significant economic growth in America ( and Britain was the largest foreign investor in America throughout the 19th and 2th century) whether the Revolution perhaps in economic terms was actually a benefit to Britain. Considering the amount of investment, since the returns justified capital that was invested in America compared to many British colonies, it would be interesting a study comparing America and Canada and the returns earned by the UK.

I was referring to Australia of several decades ago, I do not know situation today. For American high schools I can say my experience of several decades ago, compared to what I have seen in three states with our children, what history is now taught it has declined in quality and breadth and is rather simplistic. My mother had happened to keep my old textbooks and even some homework/essays- comparing these to what my children were taught, what I learnt was more comprehensive and in depth. The textbooks used today in the schools our children attended , good schools by American standards, contained so many "pop-ups" designed to mimic how information is presented on the internet, the inclusion of information mainly for conventional ideological concerns, the expansion of multiple choice tests above essays, poor geography knowledge, I simply found quite a decline from when I went to school ( and even more so in English literature knowledge let alone European literate).

robin1234

Lots of different answers to your question. In my case I'm (very selectively) interested in history for its own sake. Public history, local & regional history etc... and in northern New York State, I live near places where battles were fought and people are still passionately interested in the war. Many of them have ancestors who fought in the war, and certainly many have family on both sides of the border.

robin1234

The colonists were asserting their rights & privileges as Englishmen. It had been an established principle in England for hundreds of years that taxation could only be granted by parliament. American colonists had no representation in the English (later, British) Parliament. So, the logical constitutional principal was that taxes could only be imposed by the various colonial assemblies. Thus, no taxation without representation.