1812: War and the Passions of Patriotism

Early American Studies

by Nicole Eustace

As military campaigns go, the War of 1812 was a disaster. By the time it ended in 1815, Washington, D.C., had been burned to the ground, the national debt had nearly tripled, and territorial gains were negligible. Yet the war gained so much popular support that it ushered in what is known as the "era of good feelings," a period of relative partisan harmony and strengthened national identity. Historian Nicole Eustace's cultural history of the war tells the story of how an expensive, unproductive campaign won over a young nation—largely by appealing to the heart. 1812 looks at the way each major event of the war became an opportunity to capture the American from the first attempt at invading Canada, intended as the grand opening of the war; to the battle of Lake Erie, where Oliver Perry hoisted the flag famously inscribed with "Don't Give Up the Ship"; to the burning of the Capitol by the British. Presidential speeches and political cartoons, tavern songs and treatises appealed to the emotions, painting war as an adventure that could expand the land and improve opportunities for American families. The general population, mostly shielded from the worst elements of the war, could imagine themselves participants in a great national movement without much sacrifice. Bolstered with compelling images of heroic fighting men and the loyal women who bore children for the nation, war supporters played on romantic notions of familial love to espouse population expansion and territorial aggression while maintaining limitations on citizenship. 1812 demonstrates the significance of this conflict in American the war that inspired "The Star-Spangled Banner" laid the groundwork for a patriotism that still reverberates today.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History

336 pages, Hardcover

First published May 17, 2012

About the author

Nicole Eustace is Professor of History at New York University.

Reviews

[Jeannette Dilouie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Reading through the preface and chapter 1, I was initially amused by Eustace's sophomorically biased word choices, where she describes historical figures as expressing "perversely tailored" opinions and using "insidious logic." But my lighthearted opinion officially changed on page 28.

Up until that point, she had devoted most of her focus to a Hezekiah Niles, a Democrat-Republican who admittedly sounded like an awfully close-minded individual, as being representative of every single pro-war Democrat-Republican of the time. It isn't until page 28 that Eustace writes:

"In 1812, Hezekiah Niles was still an upstart young printer trying to make his name and fortune with the newspaper he called the Weekly Register. Whoever his readers were, they probably did not include many of the highest levels of U.S. policy."

In other words, he was a relative nobody, a fact that any academic or professional worth their salt would have stated in the beginning instead of basing an entire chapter's premise on. Yet Eustace goes on to do little but preach her narrow-minded focus the whole rest of the book. "War and the Passions of Patriotism" is entirely agenda-driven and makes its author come across as an unreliable bigot, much like the Mr. Niles she despises so much.

I enjoy reading different perspectives, but not when they're so arrogantly and self-righteously presented.

[Rapidreader · Rating 1 out of 5]

Academic writing at its worst. I tried and tried to like this book, because the War of 1812 is such a fascinating subject. But it was too agenda-driven, evidence-twisting to swallow. The author seemed to have developed a thesis, hunted for a period in American history to prove it, and then somehow fumble onto the War of 1812 of all subjects. I get that the author thinks too much of the history of this era is dominated by white, wealthy men, but then the author turns around primarily uses evidence from those same white, wealthy men! After complaining about the lack of inclusion of Native American narratives, one would expect to see a comprehensive treatment of the subject, but, alas, no. The prose seems pretentious and purposely difficult. Give this one a miss. There are plenty of other better books that get away from the traditional War of 1812 military focus (if that is what you are wanting).

[Pi · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this for a history seminar on the early American Republic. I gave up after a few chapters. The style is hard to read, and it seemed in a tone that was talking down to the reader, which I found grating after awhile. The author also seemed more interested it proving a point than describing the evidence found and building and argument around that. Might be more interesting to someone whose read every other book on the War of 1812 out there.

[Rob Kranski · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm reading up on the War of 1812 and this found its way onto my list as a social/cultural history of the war. Not much by the way of this out there, so I was excited for something new. Very disappointed. It reads like the author has an agenda that won't stand in the way of the facts--evidence is sparse, annoyingly exaggerated/selectively interpreted. The writing style is also hard to engage with far too many tangents and asides. It's also incredibly narrow. The title would suggest a broad view of the war, but really this is all about the USA--never mind the fact that the war was fought by all sorts of people and had implications for their patriotism, too (hello Canada?). Ugh! Oh well, maybe there is another social history further down my list.

[Travis · Rating 1 out of 5]

Agree with most of the other reviews here. Difficult to read, seemed to want to complicate a simple idea with lots of unnecessary jargon. Author seemed to have a thesis and selectively picked evidence to support it rather than building an argument around the evidence. This was assigned in a class, and reading it almost made we want to drop the course.

[Jim Gulley · Rating 2 out of 5]

The conventional wisdom among many historians is that the War of 1812 was of scant consequence because no borders changed and there were few casualties as a result of it. Eustace argues that to assess the impact and importance of the war fully, it should be considered as much a cultural event as a military one. The United States formally declared war on Great Britain for the purpose of annexing Canada; in the end, no boundaries were moved, the national debt tripled, over two thousand soldiers were killed, and Washington DC had been razed; yet Americans celebrated as if it had achieved a glorious victory and James Madison’s hand-picked successor won a landslide victory a year after the war ended. This book attempts to explain the inexplicable.

1812 actually begins in 1811, analyzing the culture of America just prior to the outbreak of the war. She develops her narrative in chronological order by analyzing cultural implications in the context of significant episodes of the conflict, such as the disastrous campaign in Detroit, the burning of the capital, and Jackson’s triumph in New Orleans. This is not a military or political history, the author provides little detail of the events themselves and assumes that her reader has a detailed understanding of the war and the era. She deploys a variety of primary sources such as newspaper articles, personal correspondence and diaries, popular culture (plays, songs), speeches, and ephemera to advance her argument.

Eustace’s literary skills and methodology are impressive; however, her cultural arguments are bootstrapped and marginal to the historiography. For example, she seems to defend Hull’s actions during the siege of Detroit and that Cass’s assertion that the Americans had enough “ardent emotion” to prevail was used against Hull in his court-martial. Her argument discounts esprit-de-corps in combat, ignores the fact all of Hull’s subordinates advised against surrender, and fails to account for Hull’s intelligence failure as his force outnumbered the British and Indian combatants. She weaves a convoluted argument around population growth, romantic marital love, patriotic love of country, and procreation. In her example of the aftermath of Perry’s naval victory in Lake Erie, the militia fails to exploit the military advantage because of mass desertions to protect their homes. Her example reveals the conflict between marital and patriotic love, but her argument seems to conflate the two.

Dr. Nicole Eustace earned her PhD from the University of Pennsylvania and is currently a Professor of History at New York University. She has written three books, two of which concern the War of 1812. She won the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for History for Covered with Night: A Story of Murder and Indigenous Justice in Early America.

[The White Tiger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thesis: Despite its many military failings, the war of 1812 was a cultural event for the fledgling United States. Journalists, artists, soldiers, civilians, and politicians employed a unique mixture of patriotic and romantic language to create and sustain public morale throughout the period.

Thoughts: Eustace has created a unique blend of intellectual, cultural, and military history. The military history aspect is just enough to provide context for the intellectual and cultural analysis. For those interested in learning about the military and geopolitical aspects of the war, it is best to look elsewhere.

[Janus · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very few strongly argued points, incredibly grating, sardonic, and presentist. So many qualms about the writing. So many.

[QOH · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the best books I've ever struggled to finish, mainly because it's all useful information, and while short, it's dense.

It's a marvelous look at 1812 propaganda through the lenses of gender, race, and sex, but it's more than that. It's a good look at how views of the population were changed by the propaganda, but it's more than that, too. I've been reading histories of the era around the War of 1812 (not "forgotten" given the extensive publications it generated), and this is the first time I've seen these subjects treated in any detail.

If you have an interest in life during these years--especially for understanding the fundamental differences in how "ordinary" federalists and republicans viewed the war--it's a great place to start, with references to primary sources.

Some quibbles: I don't know if this book could have been better organized, or if the diverse nature of the material makes it impossible. The theme is roughly about "love/passion" vis-a-vis the war, but that holds true for only part of the book. It bothered me the author relies heavily on one secondary source for military history; if you like this source, that's fine, but when writing about the war (and it's in your title), I'd have liked to have seen her consult a larger array of sources. There is scant attention paid to the blue water navy, aside from the issue of impressment, and if ever there is a subject ripe for romanticization, that's the one.

Caveats: I purchased a used review copy from Powell's, so I had no index to work from, and since I read this over a long period of time, it's possible I've forgotten key points and I'm not giving the author all the credit she's due.

That said, it's a very valuable resource, well cited, and the author takes bold positions (and explains the alternatives in the notes, primarily).

[Jay Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

While her sources are heavily weighted in the Northeast, I find her insights helpful. The development of a strong support for early marriage and procreation being an expression of patriotism being a central theme. Her conclusions are well founded and this was an enjoyable foray into a little studied part of American History. I must agree that historians typically lump this period into the Ante-bellum era often neglecting the developmental importance of this period. This is a scholarly work and not history made for the masses