morpeth

Quite agree colonists wanted rights as Englishmen ( though universal suffrage was not present in either UK or America at the time) , but my comment related to use of the word "illegal" : the colonies generally were formed by charters, and the taxes surely were legal under the charters, or in cases where charters may have been revoked or modified. Of course it may have been a prudent move to grant some representation in parliament for the colonists.

robin1234

Universal suffrage is not really a relevant concept at that time. In England, a commoner was represented by a member of parliament for his county, or his borough. He was represented in parliament - the fact that he himself probably didn't have a vote is neither here nor there.

i don't know much about colonial history, but I assume that prior to the 1760s - 1770s, taxation was imposed by colonial assemblies, not by Westminster? So the Patriots were justified in calling this a new and illegitimate imposition?

S Folinsky

On British history: Sink The Bismarck.

morpeth

Well until universal suffrage I do think a bit debatable how people were represented, but I see your point.

Part of the problem there were some laws on taxation for the colonies but were very loosely enforced, when they became better enforced, then there was more objection. Just a few years after the Revolutionary war, here was the Whiskey Rebellion, also against taxation that Washington dealt forcefully with.

Then again the tax burden today is far higher than in the 18th or 19th century.

Leslie

The people who care, that's who.

I love this thread and, even if it's just a handful that "care", I think we should have more history threads.

To the OP:

I've been trying to remember the War of 1812 as it was taught to me in high school, some 35 years ago, rather than how I understand it now.

The War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War simply weren't covered to the same extent the Revolutionary War and Civil War were. The teachers weren't expected to cover them with the same intensity and the students weren't really expected to remember too much about them. As I can best recall, the War of 1812 was framed as an attempt by the British to get back at the US for the Revolution. The burning of Washington was the proof of that. I don't remember it being taught as a huge US victory but rather that the Brits didn't get what they wanted and went home.

And, just in case somebody wants to debate on the factual merits, I realize that it wasn't quite that simple ... so don't kill the messenger.

kimilseung

Maybe I have been unfair in my expectations that American justification for claiming victory (by those that claim victory) should be reflected in the initial reasons for declaring war. Wars success criteria change as the situation changes. The British still claim victory in World War II, despite, Poland, the immediate reason for war, not being an independent nation at the end of the war, as one example close to home.

kimilseung

I have always viewed the Revolutionary War as a Bourgeois Revolution, led by the middle class, wanting more control over business, although in this case, heavily weighted by lawyers. Wasn't the Boston Tea Party against a lowering of the tax? The local businesses and smugglers unable to compete against the endorsed suppliers. I wonder what the thoughts were of the average colonist in the High Street, seeing all that cheaper tea, with its lower tax, being dumped in the harbor.

dc koop

I'm sure that the successful defence of Fort McHenry against a large British invasion force must give some Americans the idea that the war of 1812 went in America's favour.
Added to that the inspiring words written by Francis Scott Keyes( who it was said witnessed the battle for the fort) to later become known as " The Star spangled banner"

But then the Americans went and nicked an old English drinking song to put the words to.

robin1234

.. witnessed the battle as a guest of the Royal Navy ....

Hiro11

What a bizarre topic for a thread. First, this is not a topic that I've ever heard come up in conversation. Second, the OP seems to be taking mild offense at a perceived slight, that's strange.

Here's what I remember actually being taught in an American high school:
1. The "war" was started by Madison and a bunch of "Hawks" in Congress over dubious grievances. "Manifest Destiny", European/Native American relations, newfound American nationalism, a desire to tweak British noses, French/British proxy war and a poor understanding of Canadian sentiment were all involved.
2. The "war" was unpopular at the time and caused great debate.
3. The fighting was began as naval fighting. Land fighting was sporadic, small scale even for the time and inconclusive. DC burned, the Americans got kicked out of Canada, small skirmishes happened in upstate New York, Baltimore and Ohio etc.
4. The largest engagement actually took place in 1815 at the Battle of New Orleans, which is largely interesting because the US used guerrilla warfare tactics which were seen as "dishonorable" at the time.

I could be completely wrong with the above, going from memory.

dc koop

Should have been tossed in the brig ! Seditious writings

Rete

He was a guest. First came aboard to dine and negotiate the release and/or exchange of prisoners and then forced to remain as he, by the end of the evening, knew the strength and strategy of the British Navy. While on board he witnessed the Ft. McHenry fight and the next day wrote a poem.

"Back in Baltimore and inspired, Key wrote a poem about his experience, "Defence of Fort M'Henry", which was soon published in William Pechin's American and Commercial Daily Advertiser on September 21, 1814. He took it to Thomas Carr, a music publisher, who adapted it to the rhythms of composer John Stafford Smith's "To Anacreon in Heaven", a popular tune Key had already used as a setting for his 1805-song "When the Warrior Returns", celebrating U.S. heroes of the First Barbary War...More than a century after its first publication, the song was adopted as the American national anthem, first by an Executive Order from President Woodrow Wilson in 1916 (which had little effect beyond requiring military bands to play what became known as the "Service Version") and then by a Congressional resolution in 1931, signed by President Herbert Hoover."

morpeth

For me one of the most interesting aspects were what followed : the relationship between the US and the UK got stronger and stronger as time went on : cooperation in ending slave trade and then slavery, huge and continuing amounts of UK capital that flowed into America ( I think a lot more than ever invested in India), more and more closeness in diplomatic, intelligence services and the armed forces of both countries. Ups and downs in relationship but somehow seems in a strange way the war cleared the way for better relations in the long run especially after the Treaty of 1818 dealt with various issues such as fishing rights and the Oregon territory.

RoadWarriorFromLP

I'm pretty sure that you'll find that the average US textbook teaches that the war was a stalemate and that the average American knows nothing about it aside from the fact that it was a war waged in 1812. It's one of those conflicts, along with the Spanish-American and Korean Wars, that most Americans couldn't tell you a damn thing about.

If anyone cares about it, it's the Canadians who seem to be convinced that they won it and are fond of taking credit for burning down the White House. (The fact that Canada was British territory and wasn't yet a country doesn't seem to deter them.)

caretaker

The Harper government seemed intent on pushing that version during the bicentennial, but I always thought they didn't destroy the White House but merely damaged it heavily, and that it was the Capitol building that was actually burned down, but I could be wrong. As a Canadian I take pride in our war being settled diplomatically, that's our way.