Who Won the War of 1812?

In 1783, Britain formally recognized the United States of America with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Despite the end of the war and the newly signed treaty, tensions remained between the two nations. The situation was not improved by Britain’s troubles with other European powers. By 1806, the British were locked into an acrimonious struggle with France.

Fighting at sea and the imposition of trade restrictions by the British and the French in an attempt to cause a weakening of each other’s economies did little to strengthen relations with the newly independent United States. In the early 19^th century, Britain was a naval superpower. Seeking to remain in control and maintain a strong force, the British began searching neutral ships for British seamen that had deserted from duty. President Thomas Jefferson became increasingly concerned with the issue of impressment-the taking of American sailors and claiming that they were British deserters. Jefferson determined that James Monroe and William Pinckney would serve as joint commissioners to Great Britain in order to establish a new treaty with the British to avoid further conflict.  The treaty was to serve as a renewal of the Jay Treaty that was signed in 1795. Finding the treaty unfavorable, it was rejected by President Jefferson and never ratified by the Americans.

Britain continued to be preoccupied with the Napoleonic Wars and felt that they could not afford to lose their sailors to American merchant ships. With the treaty abandoned, tensions did not improve over the coming years. The Napoleonic War caused various blockades that denied neutrality of the seas to traders such as the United States. Along with the issue of impressment and the presence of Canadian fur traders south of the Great Lakes, American resentment grew.

In 1807, Jefferson imposed a trade embargo that incited anger amongst American congressmen from the Western states. Known as War Hawks, they believed that Native American resistance led by the Shawnee chief Tecumseh was supported by the British and Canadian settlers. With Britain continuously engaged in war with Napoleon and his French forces, the American public urged President James Madison to declare war.

On June 1^st, 1812, James Madison appealed to the United States Congress with a list of grievances against the British and requested a declaration of war. Two days before the United States declared war, the British had repealed impressment in order to establish better relations with America. The United States unfortunately did not receive the message for another three weeks. Having spent the years since the American Revolution battling poor diplomatic relations and continued annoyance with British activities, the United States pressed on with the war.

The war lasted until 1814 when the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by both sides. Having failed to invade each other or gain any new territory the British and American forces signed a treaty for peace. By February 15^th of 1815 all parties had agreed to affix their signatures to it. In total, casualties topped about 15,000 including Americans and British but excluding Native Americans and Canadian militiamen.

Despite two hundred years having passed since the war, Americans and Canadians (and Brits) still find themselves arguing over who won the war and who was to blame for causing it. American students learn very little about the War of 1812 in school. Rather, a great deal of focus is given to the American Revolution and the American Civil War. Canada, having been involved in fewer wars historically, spends more time studying the causes and effects of the War of 1812.

British North America became the Dominion of Canada after Confederation in 1867. Loyalists viewed the War of 1812 as an overwhelming victory.  Canadians to this day remain proud of stopping American forces from completing a successful invasion of their territory. They are also proud of having burned Washington; including the White House and Treasury buildings.

Americans also view the War of 1812 as their victory. Andrew Jackson became a beloved general and many people became clamoring for him to run for President of the United States after a successful fight against the British at the Battle of New Orleans.

Historians themselves remain divided when it comes to dissecting the war. Most do agree with the fact that of all those involved, the Native Americans or First Nations peoples were the definitive losers of the conflict. Some hold firm that the war was a stalemate, others that it was militarily won by the Americans, but strategically and politically a victory by the British/Canadian forces.

Richard III: Man, Myth, and a Parking Lot

Put Up a Parking Lot and Buried a King

UPDATE: 2/4/13- The remains have since been confirmed as those of King Richard III, last of the Plantagenet rulers.

Oh Richard III! History views you as a treacherous villain.

Who were you really?

Shakespeare certainly had no qualms about painting the last of the Plantagenet monarchs as an evil character  of the worst kind. He described the King as a twisted hunchback with a  shriveled arm, responsible for the deaths of Henry VI and Edward of Lancaster, poisoning his wife to pursue his niece, and most famously the mysterious deaths of the two young princes in the Tower.

Born almost exactly 560 years ago, Richard III was only king for a short two years. He died in 1485 during the Battle of Bosworth Field.

He was the last King of York. His defeat and subsequent death is known as the  end of the Wars of the Roses. The Wars of the Roses was a series of battles by the two rivaling branches of the Plantagenet line; the House of York and the House of Lancaster. The term Wars of the Roses derives from the heraldic symbols of the two branches of the family. A red rose was the symbol of Lancaster while a white rose was the symbol of York.

When Richard’s brother Edward IV died, he was made the Lord Protector of his two young nephews, King Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. They were lodged in the Tower of London while arrangements were to be made for young Edward’s coronation.

Before the coronation was to occur, the marriage between Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalidated publicly; making Edward V and his brother illegitimate heirs and bastards. After the claims were endorsed by the House of Lords, Richard III was crowned King of England.

After the summer of 1483, the two princes were never seen in public again, giving rise to the popular legend of the Princes in the Tower. No record of a funeral has ever been found and it is commonly believed that their uncle was responsible for their fates; whatever they may be.

A rebellion was fomented in 1483 (also known as Buckingham’s Rebellion) led by unhappy members of the gentry or aristocracy.

Henry Stafford, the 2nd Duke of Buckingham led the conspiracy and was a former ally of Richard III. The original plan consisted of deposing Richard and placing the young King Edward V on the throne.

When it could not be confirmed that either of the young princes were still alive, Buckingham turned to Henry Tudor. He constructed a plot to bring Tudor back from exile, overtake the throne and then marry the surviving older sister of the princes, Elizabeth of York.

Buckingham raises armies from his lands in order to support his intent to crown Henry Tudor the new King.  Serious storms caused trouble for the rebellion and despite a disguise being employed, Buckingham was captured, convicted of treason, and beheaded.

Interestingly, Buckingham’s widow went on to marry Jasper Tudor who helped Henry plan another rebellion.

Richard III was ultimately defeated at the Battle of Bosworth Field on  August 22, 1485. His army of an estimated 8,000 faced the rebellious army of Henry Tudor thought to be numbered at 5,000 men.  Few of Henry’s men were even Englishmen. Many are thought of to have been Welsh, Scottish, and French, and recent deserters from Richard’s forces.

Supposed allies of Richard III, the Stanley’s were instrumental in his loss. When they saw that the battle was turning in favor of Henry Tudor, Lord Stanley sent his men into the fray to fight at the side of Henry Tudor.  The King’s men were surrounded and backed up against a marsh.  Overwhelmed by spearmen and lacking his horse, the last of the Plantagenet kings was killed on the battlefield in Leicestershire.

It is well accepted that Richard III fought until his last breath. Rather than calling out Shakespeare’s famous lines, ‘A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!’ nearly contemporary chronicles mark his last words as being cries of either ‘Treason! Treason!’ or ‘Treachery, treachery, treachery!’.

Henry Tudor therefore, was crowned Henry VII on Crown Hill with Richard’s own circlet. The circlet was supposedly handed to Henry by Lord Stanley himself.

When Henry became king he ended the Wars of the Roses and adapted a  badge depicting a rose conjoining the red of the House of Lancaster and the white of the House of York. His marriage to Elizabeth of York and his heraldry was meant to signify all of the factions joining together.

Richard III was not immediately laid to rest after his death. His corpse was stripped naked and strapped to a horse and publicly exhibited to prove his defeat. After a few days, his body was thought to have been interred in a plain, unmarked, grave within the Franciscan  Church of the Greyfriars. It is likely that a low key and simple tomb far from areas with strong support for Richard III was necessary to prevent people from flocking to his resting place and making him political martyr.

Until last month, the location of Richard’s tomb remained uncertain after centuries of debate.  Archaeologists from the University of Leicester broke ground at a city parking lot on August 24, 2012. They began by building two trenches. Their aim was to uncover medieval walls from the former church. After several weeks of excavation, a church and garden was unearthed-and two sets of human remains. One set female, one male.

The male remains make a strong case for being those of Richard III. The skull shows trauma that is consistent to wounds from battle, as well as an arrowhead in the vertebrae. While not showing evidence of a  true “hunchback” there does seem to be curvature to the spine consistent with the condition of scoliosis. Such a deformity would have led to the appearance of one shoulder being slightly higher than the other.

DNA analysis will be conducted comparing the remains with the last known ancestors of Richard III, a descendant of Richard’s sister, Anne of York.

If the remains prove to be those of the late king, there is already talk of a state funeral being planned for him. Leicester South MP Jon Ashworth, feels that such a funeral would be appropriate for a former monarch of England and the last king to have died on a battlefield.

It is also thought that as Richard III was a Catholic and was found in consecrated ground his reburial should reflect that. The Bishop of Leicester said:

“If this proves to be the body of Richard III, the obvious place would be the cathedral grounds.

“There’s been a memorial to Richard III in the cathedral for a long time, referring to his burial in the church of Greyfriars and that’s turned out to be, as far as we can see, an accurate account.  (“Richard III Dig: MP Calls for State Funeral.” BBC News. BBC, 02 Oct. 2012. Web. 03)

DNA results confirming whether or not Richard III has been found are expected in December.

Sources:

“History of the Monarchy The Yorkists Richard III.” History of the Monarchy The Yorkists Richard III. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2012.

“King Richard III’s Body Found Under Parking Lot?” History.com. A&E Television Networks, 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 03 Oct. 2012.

Meyer, G. J. The Tudors: The Complete Story of England’s Most Notorious Dynasty. New York: Delacorte, 2010. Print.

“Richard III (1452-1485).” BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2012.

“Richard III Dig: MP Calls for State Funeral.” BBC News. BBC, 02 Oct. 2012. Web. 03

“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche!”

Or in English: “Let them eat cake!”

Such an infamous phrase but do most of us really even understand its origin or know who uttered those damning words?

It was not Marie Antoinette. The often maligned queen is most commonly thought of to have said it while completely oblivious to the rising cost of bread in France.

The sentence first rose to popularity in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s work Confessions in the year 1765. Marie Antoinette was nine years of age at the time and still living in the Holy Roman Empire.

According to Antonia Fraser, a leading biographer of the Queen states in her work Marie Antoinette, pp. 284–285: “[Let them eat cake] was said 100 years before her by Marie-Thérèse, the wife of Louis XIV. It was a callous and ignorant statement and she, Marie Antoinette, was neither.”

So, then we must question why people were so ready to believe that the French Queen would say such a thing in the first place.

During the course of her lifetime Marie Antoinette became known by many names.

Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna, Archduchess of Austria. Dauphine of France. Queen of France and Navarre. The Austrian Whore. L’Autre-chienne, Madame Deficit, Madame Veto….

To her family, she was simply Antonia.

Both fascinating and appalling, Marie Antoinette has captured imaginations for over two hundred years.

She came to France at 14 as the beloved Dauphine- a new hope for France with her marriage to Louis XVI.

She died by the guillotine; reviled and hated.

There are so many things I could write about her life and I am sure I will write more on her in the future but for those interested I suggest doing further in depth reading to really get a feel for a very misunderstood woman.

For a fantastic biography I would highly recommend reading Antonia Fraser’s work listed above. Also, Evelyne Lever’s English translated biography Marie Antoinette: Last Queen of France is very well researched.  For great historical fiction that vividly portrays the time period and stays true to history I would recommend Michelle Moran’s novel Madame Tussaud and the Marie Antoinette Trilogy by Juliet Grey. The first two books are out now: Becoming Marie Antoinette and Days of Splendor Days of Sorrow.

I would highly discourage watching Kirsten Dunst’s awful movie that was advertised as being based on Fraser’s work. It was terribly inaccurate and insipid.

The American Revolution and French Toast

The American Revolution and French Toast

A friend of mind sent me this link the other day. I found it truly fascinating. It is amazing what a trained eye can pick up in a painting. There are so many little unnoticed details that are actually crucial to the purpose of the artwork.

Seeing this link made me want to further look into where French Toast originated and if it really was hastily invented during the American Revolution.

Growing up I had heard a rumor that French Toast was only called that because it was created during the Second World War and no one wanted to eat “German Toast”.

The origins of this favorite breakfast dish are actually ancient. A recipe called “Pan Dulcis” can be found in a 4th Century Roman collection of recipes by Apicius. He wrote:  “Another sweet dish: Break [slice] fine white bread, crust removed, into rather large pieces which soak in milk [and beaten eggs] Fry in oil, cover with honey and serve.”

During medieval times in Europe it was very common to take stale or moldy bread and re-purpose it by moistening it with milk or eggs and then heating it over a fire. It would have been unthinkable for the poor to waste the food they had available to them. The wealthy also enjoyed what in France was called “pain perdu” or “lost bread” but they made it with fresh, white bread which was a luxury only those of high status could afford.

Interestingly, before the the French called it “pain perdu” they called it “pain a la Romaine” or “Roman Bread”.

Lafayette, being from France would have been well aware of “pain perdu” and in this instance the link is quite accurate. I feel however that it implies that the Revolution is where French Toast originated as a whole whereas what is more likely is that the instance of Washington’s men starving during the winter of 1776 and making use of the salvaged soft tack is how French Toast was broadly introduced to North America.

Artwork, especially paintings are one of our best uses of primary source documentation in learning more about a time period or event. More than just a pretty picture, art is a narrative into our history.

The Civil War and Medicine

The American Civil War was a bloody war that spanned four years and split a nation into two. By the end of the war over 620,000 people were dead.

I recently read a fascinating novel that was a superb example of well researched historical fiction. It was called My Name is Mary Sutter by Robin Oliveira. It is an incredible account of a woman  who sets out to become a surgeon during the onset of the Civil War.

Originally trained as a highly skilled and sought after midwife, Mary had aspirations for learning more and becoming a medical doctor. Turned away from medical school, she sought to apprentice with a surgeon and learn anatomy and physiology.

Finding no doctor willing to teach a woman, she took advantage of the opportunity the war was providing and answered an ad placed by Dorothea Dix, then Superintendent of Army Nurses. Once again rejected, she traveled to the Union Hotel  and becomes a nurse.

The Union Hotel did in fact become a hospital and was known for lacking provisions for bathing, being filthy, having damp cellars, no ventilation, and a high rate of death. Interestingly, Louisa May Alcott served as a nurse there for three months before contracting typhoid pneumonia and cutting her duties short. She wrote a semi-fictionalized account of her experiences there entitled Hospital Sketches.

My Name is Mary Sutter was an intelligent and thought provoking read. I will provide a disclaimer and warn that many of the descriptions of wounds are at times quite graphic. I had a few nightmares the night I finished the novel. However, I think that the  nightmares are somewhat appropriate when considering the deplorable nature of the war. With this year marking the start of the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War I think it is important to take advantage of the books, films, and museum opportunities. It is a unique chance to learn more about a crucial aspect of American history.

You can begin  by reading this book. I also recommend the classic Michael Shaara book Killer Angels about the Battle of Gettysburg. As for viewing options, Ken Burns’ epic documentary The Civil War has been streaming on Netflix and is poignant and extremely well done.

Here are a few facts in order to briefly sum up what life was like medically in the early 1860’s.

• There was no concept of keeping conditions sanitary, antiseptics were not utilized, germs were not thought of.  A nurse or surgeon would use a sole bucket and sponge to clean wounds on multiple soldiers. For example: John Doe would have a gunshot wound  full of pus and needing cleaning; they dip the sponge in the water and “clean” the wound and then would move on with the same sponge and water to the next soldier that needed a wound cleaned or dressed.
• Hands were not washed. Discovering the need to wash hands between patients and procedures would later save many lives, stop rampant disease, and improve the birth rate.
• At the time of declaration of war, there were only forty medical schools in the United States.
• A significant amount of doctors and surgeons did not attend medical school but apprenticed with another doctor who may or may not have gone to school.
• Desperate for recruits, men were allowed to enlist despite serious physical defects and diseases.
• 2/3 of deaths in the Civil War were caused by disease and not battle.
• 100,000 horses perished.
• There was a lack of clean drinking water and thousands died of diarrhea and dysentery.
• Small pox, measles,  malaria, pneumonia, and camp itch were  seriously rampant among the troops .
• Most surgeries that were performed were the amputation of limbs- something that is written about extensively in My Name is Mary Sutter
• There was not much by way of anesthetics. Ether and Chloroform were hard to come by and many doctors did not understand how to use them. Whiskey was commonly given to those in shock or undergoing painful procedures.
• I suggest reading up on Dorothea Dix and the Sanitary Commission
• During this time Clara Barton nursed soldiers for Union Army and a few years later  would establish the  American Red Cross.
• Jonathan Letterman revolutionized ambulance service. Both Letterman and Barton are mentioned in Oliveira’s book.

All That Jazz

I’ve been listening to a lot of jazz recently. I think it all started with the death of Amy Winehouse. I pulled out Back to Black and started musing about how similar her sound quality was to the great Billie Holiday.

Thinking of Billie Holiday led me to pulling out my old jazz albums. My parents were like night and day as far as their musical tastes went. I grew up listening to everything from Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals to Billie, Etta, and Ella, Led Zeppelin, Simon & Garfunkel and Rachmaninoff piano concertos.

Lately though, it’s been all about the jazz. The soul, the instruments, the lyrics. There is really nothing like it. It’s the perfect music for dancing, singing, and thinking.

While listening to Billie, the song “Strange Fruit” came on. I can think of no other song so achingly heartbreaking. The beauty of Billie  Holiday’s voice cannot mask the pain and despair of the lyrics.  Written originally as a poem by a Jewish teacher named Abel Meeropol it condemned racism against African Americans and the terrible tradition of lynchings.

I remember vividly the first time I ever heard the song. I was seventeen and I was sitting in my AP American History class. My teacher was an accomplished musician and singer and often used music in our lessons. We were talking about the United States in the early twentieth century and had previously watched clips of Funny Girl. We went from the fun of the Ziegfeld follies to haunting photographs of lynch mobs, the KKK, and Billie Holiday’s resonant singing of “Strange Fruit”. I had read To Kill a Mockingbird multiple times, as well as I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. We had studied Jim Crow, sit ins, and Martin Luther King Jr. I was not prepared for Billie Holiday.

Sometimes when looking at history there is a disconnect. We cannot put ourselves in the shoes of those long dead. We forget that we feel the same emotions and desires as  those that came before us. I grew up white, upper middle class, and of Canadian background. What do I know about the suffering of African Americans? Nothing. However, I will never forget sitting in that class looking at the images of men swinging from trees while picnickers looked on in some sort of macabre tableau. I wept at that moment. Tears for what I could never understand, for lives unjustly cut short.

Although my experiences were vastly different from the men in those images; in my soul I felt pain, disbelief and outrage. If there is anything we can learn from history let it be empathy. Let us remember that whether men walked thousands of years before us or walk with us now, we all feel.

I read a quote recently by Peter S. Stearns in an essay about the importance of studying history. He stated that history should be studied because it ‘harbours beauty.’ Many may take pause at that quote and wonder how that is possible. When one thinks of history, images of war, famine, and cruelty may play through the mind.

However, it is often great tribulation that leads to marvelous works of art, breathtaking music, superb books, and the exchange of ideas that lead to necessary change.

Despite uncertainty, cruelty, and a lack of booze (prohibition anyone?) the Jazz Age emerged.  The vagaries of history led to a harbour of beauty. Incredible music, the books of Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Zora Neale Hurston, and the art of Picasso and Dali.

A harbour is defined as a sheltered part of a body of water that allows for ships to  anchor. History at large is like the vast and unrelenting sea. It is full of uncertainty, confusion, and treacherous storms. It is those pockets of calm however, the harbours and the inlets, that allow beauty to flourish and provide relief from the crashing waves.

It is my hope that this blog will be a forum for an exchange of ideas and musings about history,books, and current events. History is not meant to be a plethora of facts to memorize but a study of ourselves.

As George Santayana said, ‘Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.’