The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies (review)

Abstract

The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies. By Alan Taylor. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Pp. 620. Cloth, $35.00.)Reviewed by Donald R. HickeyThe narrative framework for histories of War of 1812 has been pretty well set for last half century. They start by charting causes of war, then chronicle military and naval campaigns (the heart of study), and then conclude with final battles, Hartford Convention, and restoration of peace. The great strength of these works is that they present a clear chronology anchored by battles and campaigns. The great weakness is that they usually slight domestic or diplomatic events and treat war as a self-contained event detached from past and future. This framework, which was forged by military historians, has met with some criticism. At SHEAR meeting in Buffalo in 2000, John Stagg, author of a fine study of domestic history of war, suggested that we needed to find a way to break standard campaign mold and offer a new synthesis, one that linked wartime themes of American unity and expansion to nation's postwar history. Alan Taylor's new book may be kind of study that Stagg called for.Taylor's treatment of causes and conclusion of war, as well as military and naval campaigns, is perfunctory. He focuses instead on people, soldiers and civilians alike, who were on frontier between Detroit and Montreal. In keeping with modern conventions, he discounts importance of international boundary and treats region as a contested borderland where individuals interacted and cultures clashed. Because most people living there shared a common language and a similar culture, border was porous and loyalties flexible. Those who were unhappy with their options on one side of border could simply relocate to other side and seek a new life.Taylor contends that war was really a multifaceted civil war, one in which fought brother in a borderland of mixed peoples (7). It was not simply a war that pitted Britain's former colonists south of border against her current subjects to north. Most Federalists in United States opposed war and were sympathetic to British, and many Late Loyalists (Americans who had moved to Canada after 1792 to take advantage of free land and low taxes) remained loyal to their native land. In addition, large numbers on both sides just wanted to be left alone. Indians were also part of mix. Most natives sided with British, and their warfare could be ferocious. Kentuckians, who were a breed apart from other Americans, responded in kind. The Irish played a central role as well. As British subjects, they were impressed into Royal warships and enlisted in British army. But large numbers also immigrated to United States and Canada, and many harbored a bitter hatred toward Great Britain.Taylor argues that few people on either side thought that and republic could long coexist on continent. Like revolution, he tells us, the War of 1812 was a civil war between competing visions of America: one still loyal to and other defined by its republican revolution against that empire (12). The British expected republic to collapse, while Americans were sure that Canada would become part of United States. But if some Americans actively sought annexation of Canada, few British were interested in recolonizing America. John Graves Simcoe, an early governor of Upper Canada, had visions of leading an army into American heartland, but it is hard to find any other British subject who shared his fantasy. Taylor suggests that dispatch of a British spy to New England in 1808 constituted a revival of Simcoe's dream, but this is a stretch (130). By contrast, Taylor is certainly right to suggest that burning, looting, and atrocities served to drive people apart, so that by time war ended, both sides had a better sense of who they were and frontier was now much more of a true boundary. …