The War of 1812

by Donald R Hickey

  Myth and Memory

  The Battle of New Orleans, though fought after Great Britain had signed and ratified the peace treaty, played a particularly important role in forging the myth of American victory. The news of Jackson’s great triumph reached the nation’s capital on February 4, followed ten days later by the peace treaty. The sequence was similar elsewhere and helped create the impression that Jackson’s victory had influenced the terms of peace. Even before the peace terms were known, Republicans were touting this battle as a decisive turning point in the war. “The terms of the treaty are yet unknown to us,” said Congressman Charles J. Ingersoll in early 1815. “But the victory at Orleans has rendered them glorious and honorable, be they what they may. . . . Who is not proud to feel himself an American—our wrongs revenged—our rights recognized!”57

  Republicans boasted of how they had defeated “the heroes of Wellington,” “Wellington’s invincibles,” and “the conquerors of the conquerors of Europe.”58 “We have unqueened the self-stiled Queen of the Ocean,” crowed the Boston Yankee, and “we have beaten at every opportunity, Wellington’s Veterans!”59 The myth of American victory continued to grow so that by 1816 Niles’ Register could unabashedly claim that “we did virtually dictate the treaty of Ghent.”60 Several months later a Republican congressman declaimed on the nation’s triumph. “The glorious achievements of the late war,” said Henry Southard of New Jersey, “have sealed the destinies of this country, perhaps for centuries to come, and the Treaty of Ghent has secured our liberties, and established our national independence, and placed this nation on high and honorable ground.”61

  As the years slipped by, most people forgot the causes of the war. They forgot the defeats on land and sea and lost sight of how close the nation had come to a military rout and financial collapse. According to the emerging myth, the United States had won the war as well as the peace. Thus the War of 1812 passed into history not as a futile and costly struggle in which the United States had barely escaped defeat and disunion, but as a glorious triumph in which the nation had single-handedly defeated the conqueror of Napoleon and the Mistress of the Seas.

  A Note on Sources

  The best starting point for any research on the War of 1812 is still the comprehensive bibliography compiled by John C. Fredriksen, Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights: A Bibliography of the War of 1812 (1985). Although replete with errors and marred by an index that is difficult to use, this work is indispensable for identifying the principal published sources on any aspect of the war. Also useful is Dwight L. Smith, The War of 1812: An Annotated Bibliography (1985), and the bibliography at the end of John K. Mahon’s study, The War of 1812 (1972). For British and Canadian sources, the best place to begin is J. Mackay Hitsman, The Incredible War of 1812: A Military History, updated by Donald E. Graves (1999). For an assessment of the work done during the late 1980s and the 1990s, see my article “The War of 1812: Still a Forgotten Conflict?” Journal of Military History 65 (July, 2001), 741–69.

  There is no book-length study of the historiography of the war that shows how perceptions of the conflict have changed over time, but I tried to lay the groundwork in “Historiography of the War of 1812,” in Spencer C. Tucker, ed., The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812: A Political, Social, and Military History, forthcoming. I also tried to identify the top books and articles and explain why I thought they were distinctive in “The Top 25 Books on the War of 1812,” War of 1812 Magazine 2 (September, 2007) at http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2007/Issue7/c_top25books.html, and “The Top 25 Articles on the War of 1812,” War of 1812 Magazine, 3 (May, 2008) at http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2008/Issue9/c_top25articles.html.

  Primary Sources

  The primary sources available for the study of this war are voluminous. Fortunately, most have been published or are available in microform or online. Especially valuable is the congressional record: U.S. Congress, Annals of Congress: Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, 1789–1824, 42 vols. (1834–56). Compiled retrospectively from newspapers and official sources, this work is far from complete. Most speeches delivered in the Senate were never recorded, and many House speeches were lost, too. Nevertheless, this work is indispensable for tracing the history of bills, fathoming the intentions of the government, and understanding the opposition. In the course of the debates, congressmen also revealed a great deal about the times in which they lived and the problems they were trying to solve. The index is not entirely reliable because members sometimes talked about one issue during the debate on another. Hence, I found that the best policy was to read the entire record for the war sessions. The Library of Congress has put the Annals online in an eminently usable format.

  Members of the cabinet periodically wrote reports that were submitted to Congress. Most of these were published in U.S. Congress, American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, 38 vols. (1832–61). Many of these reports, as well as a number of other government documents, have been published by Scholarly Resources in a collection under the general editorship of Thomas C. Cochran: The New American State Papers, 205 vols. (1972–81). These two collections are loaded with information on government operations for the period. The Library of Congress has put the original American State Papers online. Many reports issued by later congresses (including some bearing on the War of 1812) were published in the U.S. Serial Set. The Library of Congress has put select volumes online, and the NewsBank’s Readex Division has put the entire run online, although to gain access one needs to find a research library that subscribes to Readex’s service.

  Many of the official cabinet records are available on microfilm at regional depositories of the National Archives, and there is an excellent guide: National Archives and Records Service, Catalog of National Archives Microfilm Publications (1974). The National Archives also has more detailed guides for each of its series. I used the War and Navy Department records to trace the military and naval history, to understand the system of supply, and to follow the flow of money. I used the Treasury Department records to explore the wartime restrictive system and the State Department records to trace the diplomacy of the war.

  I found the following War Department records most useful: Letters Sent by the Secretary of War Relating to Military Affairs, 1800–1889 (M6); Confidential and Unofficial Letters Sent by the Secretary of War, 1814–1847 (M7); Letters Received by the Secretary of War, Registered Series, 1801–1870 (M221); and Letters Received by the Secretary of War, Unregistered Series, 1789–1861 (M222). The most valuable Navy Department Records were the following: Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy: Captains’ Letters, 1805–1885 (M125); Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy from Commanders, 1804–1886 (M147); and Letters Sent by the Secretary of the Navy to Officers, 1798–1868 (M149). The Treasury Department records I found most useful were the following: Letters Sent by the Secretary of the Treasury to Collectors of Customs at All Ports (1789–1847) and at Small Ports (1789–1847) (M175); and Correspondence of the Secretary of the Treasury with Collectors of Customs, 1789–1833 (M178). I used the following State Department records: Records of Negotiations Connected with the Treaty of Ghent, 1813–1815 (M36); Diplomatic Instructions to All Countries, 1801–1906 (M77); and War of 1812 Papers, 1789–1815 (M588).

  I found the correspondence of contemporaries—Republicans and Federalists alike—essential for understanding many aspects of the war. The best guide to collections available on microfilm is still Richard W. Hale, Guide to Photocopied Historical Materials in the United States and Canada (1961). Another useful guide is National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Historical Documentary Editions (2000). For other manuscript collections, the best guide is still Philip Hamer, ed., A Guide to Archives and Manuscripts in the United States (1961).

  I have indicated in the notes which collections I examined on film by appending a reel number. The most valuable were the papers of James Madison (
LC), James Monroe (LC), Thomas Jefferson (LC), Andrew Jackson (LC), William Plumer (LC), Timothy Pickering (MHS), Robert Goodloe Harper (MdHS), William Gaston (UNC), Albert Gallatin (SR), and Richard Rush (SR). I also examined a microfilm edition of the papers of James Monroe (NYPL), but there were no reel numbers.

  I consulted many other collections in manuscript form, the most valuable of which were the papers of Harrison Gray Otis (MHS), Henry D. Sedgwick (MHS), Jonathan Russell (BU), Jonathan Roberts (HSP), William Jones (HSP), Alexander Dallas (HSP), Charles J. Ingersoll (HSP), Joseph H. Nicholson (LC), Thomas Jesup (LC), Jacob Brown (LC), Wilson Cary Nicholas (UVA), and Timothy Pitkin (HL). I also profited from the Galloway-Maxcy-Markoe Papers (LC).

  Newspapers are another invaluable source—one that scholars of this period still have not fully exploited. According to Niles’ Register, 1 (October 19, 1811), 116, there were 345 newspapers in the United States on the eve of the war, and this does not count country editions of city papers. The vast majority were weeklies, though there were 25 dailies and another 49 that came out two or three times a week. Although only four pages long, most papers devoted considerable space to printing government documents and excerpts from the debates and proceedings of Congress—which suggests that the reading public was remarkably well informed about public affairs. Most papers also published editorials, news from home and abroad, long-winded essays, bits of local gossip, literary pieces, poetry, humor, and advertisements. Some also carried reports from correspondents in Washington or at battle fronts, providing information about important events not available elsewhere.

  The papers in the big coastal cities usually had the largest budgets, the widest circulation, and the best access to information. As the Boston Yankee (January 3, 1812), put it: “Our cities have more of that floating intelligence called news than our country towns. They are the eyes through which we perceive what is going on abroad.” Articles and editorials from the city papers were often reprinted in other papers. In fact, the number of times a paper’s material was reprinted was a measure of its influence.

  The standard guide to early American newspapers is still Clarence S. Brigham, History and Bibliography of American Newspapers, 1690–1820, 2 vols. (1947). The best guide to papers available in microform is U.S. Library of Congress, Newspapers in Microform: United States, 1948–1983, 2 vols. (1984). NewsBank’s Readex Division, which put most available newspapers published before 1820 on microform, has now made them available online, but the entire collection is available only at libraries that subscribe to the service. Fortunately, NewsBank offers individuals access to all newspapers published since 1800 for a reasonable monthly or annual subscription fee. Since newspapers often underwent minor title changes, I have cited all uniformly with the city in roman type followed by the title in italics.

  I profited most from the following Republican papers (which are listed roughly in order of their importance and influence): Washington National Intelligencer (which was the semi-official organ of the government), Philadelphia Aurora (which was hostile to the administration), Boston Independent Chronicle, New York National Advocate, Lexington Reporter (the most important paper in the West), Richmond Enquirer, Baltimore Whig (which was anti-administration), Worcester National Aegis, Boston Yankee, Trenton True American, Salem Essex Register, Concord New-Hampshire Patriot, and Hartford American Mercury. I also mined Niles’ Register, a Republican magazine that specialized in publishing government documents, statistical data, and articles from other magazines and newspapers.

  The following are the Federalist papers I profited most from (again listed roughly in order of their importance and influence): Boston Columbian Centinel, New York Evening Post (founded by Alexander Hamilton), Philadelphia United States’ Gazette (the original court paper of the Federalists in the 1790s), Baltimore/Georgetown Federal Republican (target of the riots in 1812), Boston New England-Palladium, Hartford Connecticut Courant (the oldest newspaper still in publication), Alexandria Gazette, Charleston Courier, Raleigh Minerva, Boston Gazette, Trenton Federalist, Salem Gazette, Keene Newhampshire Sentinel, Pittsburgh Gazette, and Chillicothe Supporter.

  There are a number of good documentary collections devoted to the military and naval history of the war. The standard collection of American documents, which has long been in need of updating, is John Brannan, ed., Official Letters of the Military and Naval Officers of the United States, during the War with Great Britain in the Years 1812, 13, 14, & 15 (1823). There is a four-volume documentary history of the war on the lakes and at sea in progress: William S. Dudley and Michael J. Crawford, eds., The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History, 4 vols. (1985-). This work, edited to the highest standard, includes British as well as American material and is a gold mine of information.

  For the British side of the story, I used William Wood, ed., Select British Documents of the Canadian War of 1812, 3 vols. (1920–28), a superb collection of military documents edited to a high standard. In addition, I used the documentary collections (which contain American material, too) edited by the dean of Canadian 1812 scholars, Ernest A. Cruikshank. The most important of these is The Documentary History of the Campaign on the Niagara Frontier, 9 vols. ([1896]–1908). Cruikshank took some liberties with his transcriptions, but his work is still indispensable.

  I consulted several British periodicals as well: the London Times, a ministerial paper that published many government documents; the London Morning Chronicle, an anti-ministerial print; the Annual Register, which summarized events and opinion for each year; and the Naval Chronicle, a treasure trove of British naval lore and documents. The Naval Chronicle (which was remarkably moderate on the American war) provided a public forum for debating the naval issues of the day, and considerable space was devoted to letters seeking to explain (or explain away) the American victories at sea. Scholars should avoid the modern truncated reprint, which omits far too much valuable material.

  To understand British foreign policy, I used the Foreign Office Papers (PRO). There are transcripts of 5/88, 5/101, and 5/102 in the Library of Congress. I also used the papers of Henry Goulburn (UM), a superb collection that contains most of the pertinent British documents on the peace negotiations. For public debate on the war, I consulted T. C. Hansard, ed., The Parliamentary Debates from the year 1803 to the Present Time, [First Series], 41 vols. (1803–20). I also used various documentary collections, the most useful of which was Duke of Wellington, ed., Dispatches, Correspondence, and Memoranda of Field Marshall Arthur, Duke of Wellington, 15 vols. (1858–72). I found several British memoirs indispensable, most notably George R. Gleig’s A Narrative of the Campaigns of the British Army at Washington, Baltimore, and New Orleans (1821) and A Subatlern in America, Comprising His Narrative of the Campaigns of the British Army . . . during the Late War (1833); and James Scott’s, Recollections of a Naval Life, 3 vols. (1834).

  There are a great many publications bearing on the war from the nineteenth century: memoirs, diaries, histories, and life-and-letters biographies. Readex microfilmed those published up to 1820 and now has them available online at subscribing libraries. In an ongoing program to put most of the world’s 130,000,000 books online, Google as of August 2010 had scanned more than 12,000,000 out-of-copyright titles. This has made a host of rare 1812 imprints readily accessible. Some very fine memoirs, diaries, and autobiographies are readily accessible in modern printed editions. John C. Fredriksen has collected some American sources in The War of 1812 in Person: Fifteen Accounts by United States Army Regulars, Volunteers and Militiamen (2010); Donald E. Graves has edited a junior British officer’s contribution in Merry Hearts Make Light Days: The War of 1812 Journal of Lieutenant John Le Couteur, 104th Foot, (1993); and Carl F. Klinck and James J. Talman have edited the journal of a key Mohawk leader in The Journal of John Norton, 1816 (1970).

  Secondary Sources

  There are several good military histories of the war. Of the older works, the best are John K. Mahon, War of 1812 (1972), which is the most detailed, and Reginald
Horsman, The War of 1812 (1969), which is the most balanced and accurate. James R. Jacobs and Glenn Tucker, The War of 1812: A Compact History (1969), is a good popular account with a valuable appendix that explains ordnance, tactics, uniforms, and nautical terminology. Glenn Tucker wrote a longer popular study that is also valuable: Poltroons and Patriots: A Popular Account of the War of 1812, 2 vols. (1954). Of the more recent popular accounts, the best is Walter R. Borneman, 1812: The War That Forged a Nation (2004). In a category by itself is the classic study by Benson J. Lossing, The Pictorial Field-Book of the War of 1812 (1868). Lossing traveled 10,000 miles in the 1850s and 1860s, visiting battle sites and interviewing survivors. His work is a compendium of fascinating detail that includes songs, poems, battle maps, and illustrations. Robert S. Quimby, The U.S. Army in the War of 1812: An Operational and Command Study, 2 vols. (1997), is a thorough study of the war’s land operations.

  For the Canadian side of the story, J. Mackay Hitsman’s work, The Incredible War of 1812 (1965) is still the best, but the updated version (1999) prepared by Donald E. Graves and a group of Canadian scholars supersedes the original edition. Graves and his colleagues left the original text mostly intact but added notes and a number of valuable appendices. For the Canadian perspective, scholars should also consult George F. G. Stanley, The War of 1812: Land Operations (1983), which has a particularly good set of maps. Morris Zaslow has compiled an excellent collection of Canadian articles in The Defended Border: Upper Canada and the War of 1812 (1964), although the documentation has been omitted.