First Invasion: The War of 1812

I enjoyed this docudrama. I am now 80 and went to universities for my degrees back in the 1940/50 era. At that time we had more class coverage in history of the early days of the US. I do remember the War of 1812 being covered, but not as much as given in this presentation. Now as I read the comments of the Canadian, it is apparent that his emotions are getting the best of his judgment and feelings for understanding the realities. Of note is the attrition of the forces in the line charging and slaughter of the front rows as they advance. Modern armies would never do that sort of charging, at least not since the British tried charging the German lines that way, almost, in the Great War (known today as World War I). Historical events are now past, emotions for the most part are healed. Taking sides to belittle any part in the events past is ridiculous and will never change what happened.

I cannot understand why the current rating for this is so mediocre. Perhaps it's because the war itself wasn't much of a war--but this is all the more reason to love and appreciate this long and extremely rich documentary. That's because VERY FEW films have ever talked about this war--so few that I would venture to say that a huge percentage of Americans know absolutely nothing about it.

Using the usual great narration, photos, recreations and music, the film spins a fine tale. It also re-frames the story as not just a war between an upstart America and a world-class super-power (Britain), but goes so far as to say it was like a second war for independence. I loved this film from start to finish but particularly admired how one long gunman (whose identity is cloaked with the ages) who actually turned the tide after the horrible loss of Washinton, DC to the Brits. Well worth seeing--and well worth seeing again.

What a pack of lies. No mention of the Battle of Lake Erie and nothing about the impact that Jean LaFitte and his men and ammunition had on the Battle of New Orleans.

I find the Canadian reviews far more interesting than the documentary. Its interesting that all Canadian reviews find it inaccurate and the rest including this one are responding to their comments. I work with many Canadians (French and English) and didn't realize that the War of 1812 is viewed by Canadians the way Americans view the American Revolutionary War.

At the time of the War of 1812 current Canada was British North America, part of the British Empire. The Dominion of Canada did not become a nation until 1867 (as a result of the U.S. Civil War) and even to this day retains the British Crown. The War of 1812 was between the United States and British Empire. British North America at the time offered a convenient (if unsuccessful) point to attack the British Empire. U.S. expansionism was a motivation but as you all point out invasions to the north were very unsuccessful and not well manned or prepared. Regardless the U.S. attempted to invaded a British territory, not another country. I am unaware of any U.S. military invasion of Canada since 1867 and in fact the two countries share the longest unguarded border in the world.

I want to respond to the points raised by jcp-9.

1) After American independence Britain didn't recognize naturalized American citizenship, and treated anyone born a British subject as still "British" — as a result, the Royal Navy impressed over 9,000 sailors who claimed to be American citizens. Impressment was not abolished by the British until 1814. Impressment of a nation's citizens by another nation is an act of war.

2) British forces certainly invaded Chesapeake Bay and New Orleans. They were not invited. Yes the U.S. did declare war on the British Empire and this was in response to impressment as well as other grievances.

3) The United States was fighting the British Empire. The U.S. at the time was clearly the underdog. Again at the time Canada did not exist as a nation but as British North America.

4) Regarding the Battle of New Orleans, if the war was over why were the British invading? Communications were slow and neither side was aware of the Treaty of Ghent.

Another point from Erik Kaufman, "Condemned to Rootlessness: The Loyalist Origins of Canada's Identity Crisis", Nationalism and Ethnic Politics: "Already, the War was being turned to mythical ends in Upper Canada: Britain had defended her colonies and Providence had ensured the 'Triumph of virtue over vice, of a good cause over a bad one...Together, Upper Canadians came to believe, they had vanquished the forces of tyranny and oppression. Out of the war there arose a sense of community, an awareness of being Upper Canadian, which encompassed all settlers. The War of 1812 came to be considered by many as the colony's rite of passage into young adulthood.'"

This "documentary" is closer to propaganda. It paints a picture of patriotism and American success. I'm retired from the military (USAF 20 yrs) and extremely patriotic, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of rewriting history. The war of 1812 was a lesson on how NOT to fight a war. We had severe internal strife between the Federalists and the Republicans (no, not those Republicans), we had poorly trained officers some of which were more in favor of seeing the British win rather than the Republicans under Maddison and we had very few "regulars" with which to fight. We lost far more battles than we won, were terrified of the Indians supporting the Brits, and our logistics were a disgrace. Soldiers didn't have food, weren't paid for months, and resorted to destroying and pillaging local farms and orchards to feed themselves. Which didn't exactly endear them to the locals on either side of the border. We didn't have a clear goal to achieve, and goals we did have were poorly communicated to the generals fighting the war. We were lucky that the Brits were so consumed and focused on France and Napoleon for most of the war. Had the Brits not been worriedaboutwar with France or actuallyfightingthe French and focused all their attentionon us we'd be speaking English today...but with a funny accent. By the time we entered into peace talks in Gent we had less bargaining power than we did at the beginning of the war. If it hadn't been for issues going on at the Congress of Vienna and another potential war with France (ultimately the 100 days war under Napoleon again) we would have lost our shirt. Yes we won a big battle in New Orleans but that actually occurred after the peace treaty had been agreed to...although not yet ratified. That final battle led by Andrew Jackson left a far more positive spin on the war than I think it deserved. In most respects, it was a monumental failure.