Philadelphia Inquirer – June 18, 2012
We don’t refer to the Civil War as the “War of 1861” or the Revolutionary War as the “War of 1776.” So what’s with the War of 1812? The name doesn’t even accurately reflect the war’s timing. If you count the Battle of New Orleans, which was fought after the peace treaty was signed, the war lasted until early 1815.
The same cannot be said for “War of 1812.” It’s a lousy label, and we should grasp the opportunity offered by the 200th anniversary of the conflict to adopt a better one.
British challenges to American sovereignty at sea and on the frontier led Congress to declare war on England in June 18, 1812. The United States was completely unprepared, however, and as things went from bad to worse, the label “Mr. Madison’s War” became popular, especially in the New England newspapers. The president’s humiliation peaked in August 1814, when the British marched into Washington, chased the locals (including Madison and his wife, Dolley) into the countryside, and burned the Capitol and the White House.
Philadelphians were in a panic, afraid that their city would be next. Thousands of volunteers began building a huge defensive earthwork along the Schuylkill. Fortunately, that attack never came.
Naming the war after the president would be an improvement, but it probably won’t get much support from the current chief executive, who might be loath to set such a precedent.
My students came up with some good alternatives, including the “Revolutionary War, Take Two,” “British-American Imbroglio,” and “Anglo-American War for Sovereignty.” In the end, they settled on a name that has been suggested before: the “Second War of Independence.”
Adopting this name would suggest that the war that began in 1776 was the “First War of Independence.” Since Americans like abbreviations, and given the analogy of World Wars I and II, we would then have a WI1 and a WI2, appropriately emphasizing their connectedness.
As a high school student, I remember hearing my teacher use the term “War of Independence” instead of “Revolutionary War,” and it made sense to me right away. Americans issued a Declaration of Independence in 1776. They weren’t interested in toppling the British monarchy; they just wanted to separate themselves from it.
The Second War of Independence, beginning in 1812, was certainly no revolution, but it did seem to settle the issue of American sovereignty as far as the English were concerned. And the persistence of anti-British feeling in parts of the United States did not prevent the steady improvement of relations between the two nations after WI2. In fact, a number of agreements beneficial to the United States followed during the next decade.
Congress should declare June “Second War of Independence Month” and officially rename the conflict. In this contentious election year, perhaps both sides of the aisle could agree on a war — or at least a better name for one.
I did come out with a hmph! at your closing statement “In this contentious election year, perhaps both sides of the aisle could agree on a war — or at least a better name for one.” Wouldn’t THAT be nice! You have a better grasp on US history than I do, but has there ever historically been a time when the government was as deadlocked as it is now? It just feels like all one party does is try to discredit the other, or dismantle whatever the other set up. I love history, but do not love politics…
With respect to partisan politics, I think there have been equally and in some cases far more divisive periods in the past.
The profound political divisions during the fifties and sixties over civil rights.
The battle between Wilson and the Senate over the League of Nations in 1919.
Various times before and after the Civil War.
The election of John Quincy Adams in 1825 by congressional vote. The Congress voted for Adams even though Jackson had received more electoral and popular votes than any other candidate. Jackson and his supporters were furious.
And speaking of the Second War for Independence, New England issued scarcely veiled threats of secession they were so unhappy with the administration’s handling of the war.
Rename the War of 1812 as “Second War of Independence”, and ten years ftom now, no high school graduate will know the year it started. I suggest we better leave it alone.
You have a point, but calling it the Second War for Independence does place it somewhere in that broad time period – after the Constitution was ratified and before the Civil War.
The exercise of considering better names for the War of 1812 has certainly fixed the events of 1812 to 1815 in my students’ minds. Learning the several other names used for the Civil War has also been a surprisingly useful way for them to remember what it was about and the importance of perspective in looking back at these conflicts.
Excellent exhibition on the War of 1812 in Washington DC at the National Portrait Gallery.
How many knew that we invaded Canada then with the goal of taking over the country?
Canada was still part of the British Empire in 1812, but it’s true that Americans had had designs on it for years. Some still do.
The Articles of Confederation (1777) includes an invitation to Canada to become the 14th colony and join in declaring its independence.
i believe there are 11 southern states which have already fought the “Second war of independence”.
I see your point but chronologically speaking that would make the Civil War the Third War of Independence.