The War of 1812

As a follower of history, with particular interest in American History, I question the bona fides of the one of the featured historians, Andrew Lambert of King's College, in London. In the film, (at 7:08) he made a surprisingly inept comment for a supposedly learned scholarly historian. He said, "War was pushed by the Republican Party based in the center and south." The Republican Party was not in existence until 1854. Always beware viewers of history. Despite their seemingly scholarly credentials some "historians" might not know the history they profess to know.

Best not to view for historical accuracy.

Careless editing, especially in the pictoruals and maps, one that stood out is an inclusion of the George Washington Monument in a map and pictorial depiction of Washington DC during the war of 1812. The monument was not built until 1848.

At the end of the film the narrator says "the US had gained nothing" by the end of the war. That statement alone gives reason to question the viewpoint and motives of this documentary. This film is pure and utter revisionist trash. Save two hours of your life and skip this "documentary"

I just read Pierre Burton's 800+ page The War of 1812 and wanted a quick synopsis of the events. This movie does a good job in doing so. As Pierre Burton points out the artifacts and written documentation of this wars are not intensely partisan or national. Many groups characterize this war as important milestone in their history. Future Canadians, Indians, Britons, Americans, Kentuckians, Slaves, etc. The reality of the motivation for this war and it's outcome is very complex. The movie does an outstanding job in narrating the event. Of course you cannot expect an in depth analysis in just two hours. Seems to me the subject would be prime material for a Ken Burns sequel.

Quick Google facts: 1) Canada didn't declare independence until July 1st,1867, more than fifty years after the War Of 1812. Canada was a colony of Great Britain and therefore its citizens were British subjects, not citizens of a nation named Canada that didn't exist yet. Conclusion: the militia that fought alongside were no more professional soldiers than the United States militia they faced on the battlefield. 2) In 1931 Canada was granted "full autonomy" (internal and external), along with Australia, by Great Britain by the Statute Of Westminster. BUT Great Britain's Parliament retained the ability to modify the Canadian Constitution. 3) The Canada Act Of 1982 passed by Parliament removed their own ability to modify Canada's Constitution.

1982 was 36 years ago at the time of this writing: A statistically 45% of the people reading this were alive when Canada became a full fledged member of the international community of sovereign nations. This has been some background into some easily researchable FACTS: Like virtually all of Holt, Garey, and Chowder's work, this film is also revisionist and slanted for some goal known only to them. A truly remarkable lack of QUALIFIED experts marks this work as well; individuals with their doctorates are VERY VERY happy to share their knowledge for such shows; let's be honest, history is neither sexy nor particularly engaging for those of us destined to repeat it. How come they couldn't find and QUALIFIED experts? Not one doctorate: This is virtually unheard of in the world of documentary infotainment. Every "expert" they interviewed had several well recognized counterparts they would have been happy for their 15 minutes of fame! (Spoiler: Documentarians with an agenda rarely use qualified, recognized experts. Such experts generally are emotionally neutral and stick to facts without emotional overtones. This makes it hard to slant the bits of the interview they use for their programs.) CONCLUSION: IF YOU HAVE THE BRAIN POWER (AND ACCESS TO THE INTERNET) WATCH THIS SHOW FOR THE TIMELINE OF THIS LITTLE KNOWN CONFLICT, BUT DON'T GET SUCKED IN MY THE RHETORIC. DO A LITTLE RESEARCH OF YOU OWN AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND THAT LIKE ALL ARMED CONFLICTS, WAR AND DEATH SUCK.