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

by Alan Taylor

In this deeply researched and clearly written book, the Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Alan Taylor tells the riveting story of a war that redefined North America. During the early nineteenth century, Britons and Americans renewed their struggle over the legacy of the American Revolution. Soldiers, immigrants, settlers, and Indians fought in a northern borderland to determine the fate of a continent. Would revolutionary republicanism sweep the British from Canada? Or would the British empire contain, divide, and ruin the shaky American republic?

In a world of double identities, slippery allegiances, and porous boundaries, the leaders of the republic and of the empire struggled to control their own diverse peoples. The border divided Americans—former Loyalists and Patriots—who fought on both sides in the new war, as did native peoples defending their homelands. Serving in both armies, Irish immigrants battled one another, reaping charges of rebellion and treason. And dissident Americans flirted with secession while aiding the British as smugglers and spies.

During the war, both sides struggled to sustain armies in a northern land of immense forests, vast lakes, and stark seasonal swings in the weather. In that environment, many soldiers panicked as they fought their own vivid imaginations, which cast Indians as bloodthirsty savages. After fighting each other to a standstill, the Americans and the British concluded that they could safely share the continent along a border that favored the United States at the expense of Canadians and Indians. Both sides then celebrated victory by forgetting their losses and by betraying the native peoples.

A vivid narrative of an often brutal (and sometimes comic) war that reveals much about the tangled origins of the United States and Canada.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, Military History, War, American, Canada

623 pages, Hardcover

First published October 12, 2010

About the author

Alan Shaw Taylor is a historian specializing in early American history. He is the author of a number of books about colonial America, the American Revolution, and the Early American Republic. He has won a Pulitzer Prize and the Bancroft Prize for his work.

Taylor graduated from Colby College, in Waterville, Maine, in 1977 and earned his Ph.D. from Brandeis University in 1986. Currently a professor of history at the University of California, Davis, he will join the faculty of the Corcoran Department of History at the University of Virginia in 2014.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The postwar culture [of the War of 1812] generated distinct, national histories on both sides of the border. To bolster patriotism within, the historians made foils of the people on the other side of a newly significant border. Those histories subtly distorted the war by imposing on the past the nationalism spawned after that conflict and because of it. By writing of the Americans fighting the British as distinct nations, each united, the patriotic historians obscured the civil war waged for the future of the empire and of the continent, a civil war that had divided Americans, Indians, and the Irish during a lingering age of revolution.”
- Alan Taylor, The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies


The War of 1812, pitting the empire of Great Britain against the fledgling republic of the United States, holds an odd place in American history. On the one hand, it is extremely vital to our national identity, contributing hugely symbolic moments such as the defense of Fort McHenry (which spawned the Star Spangled Banner) and the one-sided victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans (which spawned Andrew Jackson).

Despite these iconic moments, though, it is largely forgotten, possibly owing to the fact that (like the also semi-obscure Korean War) the war ended with a reversion to the status quo ante bellum.

When I first came upon Alan Taylor’s The Civil War of 1812, way back in 2011, I was looking for a general history of the war, to fill in the gaps of my knowledge, since all I knew was that it started with the impressment of sailors, featured the burning of the White House, and ended with Old Hickory slaughtering the forces of the bungling Edward Packenham.

The first thing I realized, eight years ago, was that this is decidedly not a general history of the War of 1812. Even with that awareness (starkly laid out in Taylor's introduction), I plunged onward, figuring I could make sense of it all. Having little experience with the outlines of the war, however, I found myself swimming in water over my head.

In the years since I first tackled The Civil War of 1812, I’ve often considered rereading it, for the simple fact that my initial reaction did not come close to matching Taylor’s fantastic reputation as an author and historian.

In the midst of a deep-dive into early American history, I finally got around to giving this another try. Having a better understanding of the time period, and a much better understanding of Taylor’s intentions, I found this to be an exceptional book.

Having said all that, it’s probably helpful to outline the The Civil War of 1812’s coverage. Like I said above, this is not a chronological narrative or a military history. There is very little about battles or tactics. Most pertinently, Taylor defines the scope of his work geographically, keeping his eye on the borderlands between the United States and Canada. According to Taylor, this area was a fascinating moral gray zone, populated by spies, turncoats, smugglers, profiteers, and a whole bunch of fence-sitters, waiting for the fighting to be done.

Across this border surged two armies: the well-trained and relatively well-led British redcoats, fresh off whipping Napoleon but hampered by America’s massive population advantage; and the poorly-led, poorly-trained, poorly-functioning American army, consisting of a tiny nucleus of regulars, bolstered by indifferent militia, and commanded by a succession of fools such as William Hull and James Wilkinson. Orbiting these armies was a complex conglomeration of patriotic Americans, patriotic Canadians, Loyalists, Late Loyalists, Indians, and the Irish (and lets not even start with the differing religions).

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this conflict is why Great Britain and American went to war in the first place. Taylor lists three contributing factors: the British Orders in Council, which allowed the Royal Navy to fiddle with America’s maritime trade; the impressment of American sailors (to bolster ranks thinned by the Napoleonic Wars); and the British alliance with Indian allies within the U.S. border.

The Orders in Council were actually rescinded around the time that a Republican (early 19th century version) Congress declared war (despite being woefully unprepared, and willfully reticent to pay for an army). Thus, Taylor focuses more on impressment and Indian alliances, both of which dovetail with his overall theme of civil war.

The War of 1812 pivoted on the contentious boundary between the king’s subject and the republic’s citizen. In the republic, an immigrant chose citizenship – in stark contrast to a British subject, whose status remained defined by birth. That distinction derived from the American Revolution, when the rebelling colonists became republican citizens by rejecting their past as subjects. An immigrant reenacted that revolution by seeking citizenship and forsaking the status of a monarch’s subject. But the British denied that the Americans could convert a subject into a citizen by naturalization. By seizing supposed subjects from merchant ships, the Royal Navy threatened to reduce American sailors and commerce to quasi-colonial status, for every British impressment was an act of counterrevolution. By resisting impressment and declaring war, the Americans defended their revolution.

Of course, as Taylor demonstrates, the War of 1812 also began because people wanted it to begin. Here, Taylor focuses on now-obscure figures on both sides of the border, who wished to continue the struggle that ended at Yorktown. For instance, Taylor devotes a lot of space to the prewar lieutenant governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe, who hoped that Great Britain would once again absorb the United States. Many Americans were equally determined to conquer Canada. Just as they did in the Revolution, one of the first American acts was to launch an ill-conceived invasion.

Taylor writes with admirable clarity when discussing his concepts. Though he is not one for literary flair, he does have a certain dry wit. Oftentimes, history books make big promises on their front covers, only to fail to deliver in abject fashion. That is not the case here. As Taylor unfolds this tale, he manages to prove his points without being overly-argumentative or pedantic. Especially noteworthy are his excellent thematic chapters on spies and prisoners-of-war.

Because he avoids some of the dramatic high points (I think there is one sentence to encompass the entire saga of the burning of Washington, D.C.), The Civil War of 1812 requires a bit of patience. (It was this patience I lacked eight years ago). An overall understanding of the ebb and flow of the War of 1812 is also helpful, since Taylor does not really provide one.

The War of 1812 was, in many ways, a humiliation for the United States. She lost most of the major battles, some in utterly catastrophic fashion. Part of the reason we remember the high points so well is because Republicans worked overtime on their marketing game, while mostly ignoring their adequately-supplying-the-military game. (Taylor does a great job pointing out how Republicans turned many defeats into propaganda victories by highlighting British and/or Indian atrocities).

Ultimately, the War of 1812 feels like a needless waste of lives and resources. It did not need to start, and when it ended, everyone was right back at the beginning. Taylor, though, makes a strong case that it was an important – perhaps even necessary – epilogue to the movement begun in the American Revolution.

[Barry Sierer · Rating 5 out of 5]

A newly independent country emerges with a struggling treasury, a dysfunctional military that cannot effectively wage war, and a faction ridden government that contains one side with a patriotism that is almost irrational, and another with conduct that borders on, (and sometimes crosses the line into) outright treason. Its Army preaches high ideals but is prone to drunkenness and plundering civilians. Its government taxes its people more onerously than its former colonial master did, and yet still cannot pay to properly equip its army for the victory that it demands.

This was not a newly independent country that drove out its colonial master in Asia or Africa after World War II, it is the United States of America during the War of 1812, and it makes this reader far more circumspect about judging the problems facing newly independent countries.

The focus of the book, and most of the military activity of this war, was centered on what is now the US/Canadian border from Detroit to Maine. Alan Taylor does a thorough job of analyzing the issues that drove the conflict between the newly independent United States and British controlled Canada. In many ways “The Civil War of 1812” is a catalog of ridiculous mistakes by both the American and British peoples (and their governments). I suspect that this is why this conflict is not a well-covered topic in US history.

I would say that this is the story of two countries that had yet to coalesce into nations. Taylor presents a detailed and humbling tale of US and Canadian history. I heartily recommend it for American history buffs who made need a more nuanced view of what makes up the national identity of the United States.

[Colleen Browne · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are to read only one book on the War of 1812, you cannot go wrong with this book. As he always does, Taylor has thoroughly researched this book, delving into corners in American history that are often overlooked.

I must admit that my knowledge of this war was rather restricted. I was aware that there was a great deal of smuggling to Britain done by Federalists in the Northern part of the country. What I had not realized, that their actions went well beyond smuggling. I cannot imagine a situation where their behavior could be described as anything short of treason. To be fair, the Republicans behaved despicably as well, initially by starting the war under the mistaken belief that Upper Canadians would rush to abandon the British government to join the Union. It has always been taught that the primary purpose for the war was British impressment. That was certainly a cause but there was so much more.

This is a well written, enlightening book, a welcome addition the an accurate picture of America's early history, and I highly recommend it.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Intriguing subject matter on a comparatively obscure angle of history, quite revelatory, but the history itself is somewhat repetitive in the telling. It's not a failure of the book, it's a quality of the story being told. But it is a very enlightening examination of the surprising facts behind a war most Americans think they know a little about, but know less than they realize.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

In July 1812, the Western District of the British province of Upper Canada was inundated with pamphlets heralding the impending arrival of an invasion force from the United States. Issued by General William Hull, the governor of Michigan Territory and the commander of American forces preparing to take the district, the pamphlets promised that the Americans came not as conquerors, but as liberators. Though they sought the neutrality of the locals, they welcomed their aid, and promised that anyone helping the British – particularly alongside any of their Native American allies – would receive the harshest possible treatment.

While intended to minimize local resistance to his intended occupation of the district, Hull’s pamphlet also reflected the view that many Americans held of Canada as a last remnant on the continent of the oppressive empire whose yoke they had recently thrown off, populated by discontented colonists yearning for the same freedom. This view convinced many that conquering Canada in the recently-declared war between the United States and Britain would require only a modest effort. As Alan Taylor demonstrates in this nuanced and perceptive study, such beliefs were shaped by the many commonalities between the settlers in the region and the porous nature of the border between the U.S. and Canada, which combined to create a loose and fluid community in the region. Yet Americans built upon this several untenable assumptions that shaped their agenda during the war, assumptions which were proven false by years of bloodshed that transformed the region permanently.

Taylor begins by detailing the origins of this divided community in the aftermath of the American Revolution. With Britain’s concession of independence to the thirteen colonies, Canada received an influx of Loyalists who had been turned into refugees in the process. Many of them settled in the ample borderlands adjacent to the United States, where they nurtured their resentments towards their neighbor while rebuilding their lives. They were aided by British policies intended to maintain their remaining colonies in North America. Low taxes and generous land grants made Canada an attractive destination for many Americans, where the cost of war had driven up both taxes and the cost of land. The price of this generosity, however, was a government in which power was firmly concentrated in a conservative elite, which drove some Canadians to seek greater freedoms south of the border. This fluidity continued into the early 1800s, as settlers to the region frequently shopped around to find the balance of conditions that they preferred.

For all of their remoteness, however, the inhabitants of the region could not escape the political conflicts further east. As war in Europe between Britain and France contributed to political polarization in the United States, and influx of Irish emigrants disaffected by their failure of their revolution in 1798 fueled hostility towards the British. This was exacerbated by the pursuit of deserters from the British armed forces, which led to frequent incidents that challenged concepts of citizenship and national identity. When combined with the American lust for lands in the region occupied by Native Americans, the parameters of the war were set. The conflict Taylor describes is one in which identities were often clouded, allies in previous causes found themselves on opposite sides, and people often switched allegiances given the circumstances. While his labeling of this as a “civil war” may stretch the term further than it is traditionally defined, he demonstrates convincingly the internecine dimension of the conflict.

The majority of Taylor’s book recounts the War of 1812 as it was waged on the front between Detroit and Montreal. He describes a conflict in which relatively small groups of men clashed across vast amounts of territory. Though Hull’s pamphlets succeeded in depleting the forces of the Canadian militia, the Americans soon discovered that the Canadians were far from welcoming, a reception to which their own actions soon contributed. Taylor shows how the subsequent looting and assaults by the invading forces, often by men acting contrary to the orders of their superiors, turned indifferent Canadians against their ostensible liberators. Throughout the war, such behavior exacerbated the differences between the two sides, strengthening an identity among Canadians that undermined the goals of the war for American leaders. While Americans succeeded in winning a victory at the negotiating table that they could not win on the battlefield, they ended the war having alienated the very people whose allegiance they believed they were liberating.

In this way, the War of 1812 consummated the divorce begun with the American Revolution, and on terms that proved beneficial to British goals. By fitting the war into the larger context of the history of the American-Canadian borderlands, Taylor provides an extremely valuable study of the conflict and its impact on the history of both countries. His focus on individuals often overlooked contribute to the value of his work, demonstrating its impact not just on political and international history, but on communities throughout the region. Though the text suffers from minor errors, this in no way detracts from the value of his work as a study of the War of 1812 in the borderlands and its legacy for both countries. It is a book that is necessary reading for anyone interested in the war and its legacy for both countries.

[William Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

I can only imagine the years around the Napoleonic War. There you are, an Irishman, sitting in a pub in a port. You get sloppy drunk because some sailors were buying the rounds. You step outside to take a leak, get bopped on the head with a sap and the next thing you know, you wake up in the middle of the Atlantic ocean with a headache, now a part of the British navy. Against your will, you're a soldier trapped at sea.

The War of 1812 is one of the most overlooked periods in American history. It is often misunderstood, and glossed over in grade and high school history books as a period of time when Republicans thirsted for British blood as "war hawks". And that's really all they ever have to say about that. But it wasn't a Republican war made of bloodthirsty rhetoric. It was a gradual build up to a war that diplomacy failed to stop, and that British aggression on the high seas fueled. It was a war of hesitancy, slowly moldering in American wounds for more than a decade. The Republicans showed no love for the British, this is true. But they loved their country and countrymen. They still loved their revolutionary ideals and hesitated to levy the necessary taxes on citizens in order to wage a proper maritime war.

And here this author comes along and only adds to the confusion of the period. The War of 1812 was a 'civil war'? In what regard? He never fully explains himself and never proves his own thesis (what little of it there is). He contradicts himself in a number of ways and has no true stance or hypothesis about the war that is in any way original. This isn't so much an original interpretation of the war as it is a very richly and deeply researched book that deals with mainly primary source documents. It's no wonder that there are so many contradictions in thought throughout the book. It's author has filled the pages to the brim with quotes and journal entries and letters and other source documents from 1790-1812. Why such an expansive period of time? I'm still not quite clear on that point. However, he did manage to localize his research to a minimal area of land, mainly the upper states and Upper Canada.

So it's a popular history book by a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and leaves out it's own analysis for the most part. With no true intellectual analysis of the information the book is nothing more than a pile of facts, dates, battles and source documents. It does one thing for the reader (but nothing for a true historian), and that is allow them to see some of the smaller battles, the large amount of minutiae that comprised the reasons for war and the battles during. But all of the minor information blends together and becomes one large story instead of having any actual distinguishing features of their own.

[David Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Forgotten War

I sought out Taylor's historical analysis in my quest to learn something about the War of 1812. Other than knowing that the "Star Spangled Banner" was penned during this conflict I was largely ignorant of the events and causes surrounding this renewed conflict between ourselves & Great Britain. One caveat: if you read this book with the hope of gaining a comprehensive overview of the entire war, then this is not the book for you. The title clearly communicates that the purpose of the research is not to address the re-telling of the conflict's salient issues; rather, as the title indicates, this is a story about America's 1st Civil War. It is a tale of two Americas, one reflective of Jefferson's "Republican" ideology mixed with a smattering of expansionist zeal vs. the "Federalists" who yearned for closer bonds with their former colonial masters and a more centralized government. Taylor's saga also addresses our volatile relationship with America's indigenous people - the Indian's whose land we coveted and claimed, regardless of their legitimate ownership. Finally, Taylor's treatise is a flamboyant exposure of folly, exhibited in equal doses from all who were engaged in this bloody and eventually, defining escapade. I highly recommend this entirely entertaining analysis to all who wish to better understand how our Founding Fathers defined our national nature and set a path for our future evolution as an expansionist, hungry power.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alan Taylor's The Civil War of 1812 reexamines that often-forgotten conflict within a unique, revisionist framework: specifically, that it was as much a continental civil war between different nations and groups competing for space in North America. Hence, rather than revisiting the familiar arguments about westward expansion and impressing sailors, Taylor focuses on how the war reopened wounds from the American Revolution: American delusions that Canada was merely an unconquered frontier rather than a distinct nation with its own people (and how Canadian nationalist developed in direct response to this attitude), unsettled conflicts with Native Americans and Loyalist refugees, the political and regional tensions which often rendered American units more likely to fight each other than the enemy. The book has a much stronger narrative thrust than Taylor's usual work, enhancing both its readability and power, showing why the War of 1812 made America stronger as a continental power while also enhancing its deep-hewn divisions.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alan Taylor's "The Civil War of 1812" is without a doubt a five-star book despite the fact that his logic is highly faulty and that he fails utterly in his nominal objective to show that the War of 1812 between Britain and the United States was a civil war. The two great strengths of the book are the remarkable depth of the research and Taylor's ability to look at the facts in a new way. What he does show is that at the outset America's political classes badly understand how to govern during a war but learned much over the following two two years.
The war was the project of the Republican Party based primarily in the South and opposed by the Federalists who were based primarily in the North. The Republicans appointed incompetents to lead their army because as politicians their first instinct was to give desirable positions to political friends. They also understood that if they gave the key positions in the army to Federalists, the glory of the victory would help Federalists in the next elections. Thus the appointments went to loyal Republicans who got themselves thoroughly thrashed. By 1814, the Federalists were appointing better men in the top positions and the performance of the American army improved dramatically. Andrew Jackson would win the largest battle of the war at New Orleans in the dying weeks of the war.
The problems created by the initial bungling however made it impossible for the US to actually win the war. Seeing the problems that the Americans were having, the Indians rallied to the British. The vast majority of the people living in the Upper Canada (now Ontario) were first or second generation immigrants from the US. Had the initial invasion been conducted in a more competent fashion, the expatriate Americans might have supported the American invaders. Instead their sympathies shifted to the British because they realized that the only hope for an end to the fighting was that the more competent British would win quickly.
Taylor's book then is a great tale of Republican hubris and ineptitude. The Republican survived the war of 1812 but in so doing they launched the political career of Andrew Jackson who would go on to found the modern Democratic party.
Taylor is as insightful about the Canadian as the American issues. He shows that the lesson that the British took from the war was that American settlers constituted a threat to their ability to maintain their hold on Canada. Thus the British closed the door to American farmers wishing to come to Canada and promoted immigration from the British Isles. At the same time the Brtish adopted measures to ensure that members of the Church of England (i.e. Anglicans) obtain all positions in government and the civil service. This ensured that Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, and Dissenters would unite together politically in the Liberal Party in opposition to Anglican Tories. This political alliance has essentially survived into the 21st Century.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alan Taylor lowkey goated when historical writing is the vibe

[Gordon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another in my journey down early US history. And being Canadian myself, this one struck me as particularly good and interesting. Satisfying my ongoing curiosity of how Canada became and remained Canada while the US came and remained the US among people that were for the most part friends, family, and neighbors throughout this early period. And this book hits the nail on the head in recognizing that the war of 1812 was not a war, as we might have come to believe from our school history lessons, between Canada and the United States. This was but the first truly civil war between a curious muddled mix of British subjects, former revolutionary loyalists, new loyalists emigrating from the young United States to gain some cheap land and low taxes in Canada, British regulars, French Canadians, true, but young American citizen republicans, their obstructionist federalists, a slew of traitors, smugglers, spies, deserters, newly immigrated Irish, Scottish and British to either one camp or the other, a few families who fought for one side for a while, deserted and fought for the other, and finally the native tribes of the region caught between two rival parties vying for their support, only to be robbed of their own virtue and lands in the end. Today’s nations barely existed at the time, but this war, perhaps the most un-just, ill conceived and poorly executed ever contrived, managed to do more to solidify the boundary and the identity for this space to be better defined as the nations they are today.

Yes this book is dense and thorough and mind blowing with context, nuance, and details. I am taking away one star, solely because of this density - perhaps overly rich in name dropping anecdotal details - so much so that it tends to get bogged down in those details that no one is ever going to make use of. But the supporting evidence from all corners is there.

Part way through I opened up some maps of both current and historic period to familiarize myself with the places discussed. And after that familiarization, enjoyed the further reading much more, having a better sense of where we were, where the battles took place, … definitely recommend some time getting to know the Great Lakes and the Saint Lawrence River region before diving into this book!

I did also appreciate the unbiased tense in the entire narrative. This is not an American worrying American history, nor a Canadian writing Canadian history. It takes a balanced look at all sides, showing their victories and defeats, along with the wretched barbarous moral failings in both sides. This is not a history written by the Victor … or perhaps it is, since, in the end it worked out alright for both sides … except of course, the native people!

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

When the British navy began to stop American ships, both merchant and navy, and impress naturalized American sailors under the belief that once a British subject, always a British subject, the American government sent ships to fight, right? Of course not. They invaded Canada. ???

You see, the Americans had no real navy so in order to punish the British, they needed to start a land war. The War of 1812 was an odd one in more ways than this and would be laughable if it were not for the many real lives that were lost.

Some examples of the bizarre and sometimes depressing nature of some of the war.

1. The Republican government, afraid to alienate voters, refused to raise taxes to fund the war or to draft soldiers. So the soldiers, deficient in numbers, went hungry and poorly dressed into war.
2. Because they needed to borrow money to fight the war they wouldn't raise taxes for, they invaded strategically unimportant areas of Canada rather than the areas that would have made the most sense. Why? Because a very wealthy (and Federalist) landowner loaned them a lot of money to get them to avoid damaging his tenants and property--which happened to be where they would need to move through to get to that strategically important area of Canada.
3. Soldiers from the British army deserted to the America because they were so poorly paid and their leaders so draconian. Soldiers from the American army deserted to the British because they were going cold and hungry.

It goes on and on. The only reason that the Americans agreed to sign for peace is because the British had defeated Napoleon and they knew that the British could now bring thousands of troops over from Europe. The only reason the British agreed to sign for peace is because they felt the re-stirrings of war in Europe and didn't want to be fighting again on two fronts.

the only thing the war of 1812 succeeded in doing is in creating a real sense of national identity in Canada because of those nasty Americans who had ravaged their country...

[John Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book tells the story of the conflict in the wilderness along the border between the United States and Canada during the War of 1812. It is an interesting book, but subject to several deep flaws. The author argues that the wilderness front as the determinative front of the war, while the larger battles that took place in more central locations were mere diversions. This is not historically accurate. The author also speaks often in terms of ethnic identity, which seems somewhat anachronistic.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the years before the War of 1812, British policy in Canada encouraged American migration to its more underpopulated provinces, as Britain actively sought to create an alternate vision of North America that would appeal to residents in what many thought would be a short-lived republican experiment in the United States. Britain offered free land to American settlers of Upper Canada, but offered a more restricted press and more tightly controlled government. When war came, many of the newest settlers actively rebelled against the British government, contrary to later popular Canadian myth. The United States eventually cold-heartedly sacrificed these rebels to their fate.

The United States had many problems including severe internal political divisions between Federalists and Republicans that prevented the republic from fighting an effective war against the British. The author presents lots of evidence of local Federalist betrayal of the war effort and slip shod management by the governing Republicans. It has always been a mystery to me why the United States strategic direction of the war was so flawed - repeatedly, the Americans attacked western Upper Canada and seemed fixated on the Niagara region which was of little strategic value compared to the St. Lawrence River valley. The author shows how political considerations dictated the strategy of the war.

Limited in scope, the book includes information on several other internal conflicts in the border region. Britain, Canada and the United States each have both their bright and shameful moments in the tale. Many of these will surprise students of more general histories of this war. Native American policies are discussed at length, as are Irish immigration and the use of Irish soldiers on both sides, impressment, the causes and reaction to desertion by both sides, the treatment of prisoners and how that affected the war, hostages, relationships between civilians and the military, and the struggle over food supplies in the wilderness. The relation of each of these topics to the adoption of military strategies and tactics by both sides are described effectively.

Taylor explores the shifting allegiances that frequently clouded the line between the British empire and the American republic. Americans were divided on the war issue, Indians were divided on how to maintain their territorial integrity, and the British were divided by their own internal ethnic and political problems. Taylor does a great job making sense out of the chaos and complexity of the time period. He explores the politically charged atmosphere of the war itself, a war that trapped Americans between their republican ideals and their military needs.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

So, maybe the US wasn't so good at fighting wars as we think. And maaaaybe, we aren't quite so fearless. Taylor's "The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies" is by far the most telling book I've ever read on this forgotten war that forged national identities for both Canada and the United States.

The author doesn't go into great depth on the battles - Perry's victory on Lake Erie, the British punishment raids along the Eastern seaboard, and Jackson's crushing success at New Orleans are barely mentioned - but he doesn't need to do so. The political and social aspect that drove the war on both sides is what he investigates. His sources are impeccable and draw evenly from British, Canadian, and American archives.

Taylor does introduce periodic minor errors (one I remember is that Little Crow was a Dakota chief, not Lakota.) These don't detract from the overall thesis: that neither the United States nor Great Britain could afford a North American war, that war could have been avoided but was pressed by people far from the battle lines, that the United States consistently avoided a killing strike on Lower Canada and the St. Lawrence because of severe internal disagreement and unpreparedness, and that this war forged a strong Canadian identity where little existed prior to 1812.

Would recommend to any historian interested in American, Canadian, British, Irish, or Native American history.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I struggled over whether to give this three or four stars. The writing is excellent and the research is exhaustive and impressive. This book is not a full picture of the War of 1812; it alludes to (but does not explore in depth) most naval battles, the southern theater of war (Andrew Jackson and various Native American wars) or the Napoleonic Wars. I did eventually need to consult wikipedia in order to grasp the full picture. However, I greatly enjoyed the book's point of view that the war settled the issue American independence and its northeastern borders, and helped to forge a Canadian identity in a manner similar to how the French & Indian War did with the U.S. I took great interest in the superiority of British troops over the Americans, a reversal of the War of Independence. I also enjoyed reading about Tecumseh's great leadership and appreciate being introduced to Isaac Brock, a great military leader who possessed the ability to adapt, strategize and cooperate with his allies. However, the book was overlong for my more casual interest. But I believe that this book will satisfy a good many people with its breadth and detail. For those people, this will definitely be a five star book.

[Greatredwarrior · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read the whole book, but I generally rate things harsher than the average user. Mostly 3s.

This was awful. First of all, it bounced around, between chronological progression and thematic rabbit trails. It was hard to develop any kind of feel for the progression of the war as a whole at all. The focus was exclusively on the Canadian/USA frontier, which mostly makes sense, but ignores the larger conflict to it's detriment. The abandonment of the naval war, the raid on the Chesapeake, and the operations in the south (against the Creek, West Florida, and finally New Orleans), is a little perplexing because the thematic segways are about "American" and "Imperial" attitudes and opinions, but ignores almost half of the conflict. The one thing that was well done was the coverage of the Indians.

I felt like I learned nothing and what I knew is now confused by a disjointed narrative and clumsy political observations.

[Margaret Skrivseth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Allen Taylor is one of my favorite contemporary historians. This book continues his style of making historical events easy to relate to.

The War of 1812 is often overlooked. The causes leading up to it were a lot more involved than I had realized. Taylor explains the principal parties and the reasons and actions that ultimately lead to the conflict.

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

I now have a much better understanding of why the war of 1812 happened. Also, this book puts a much more human, everyday face on those who fought in the war.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Skimmed and skiped a bit in the latter half, but this was still a good read.

[Finn · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fact that America survived the War of 1812 could possibly be described as a miracle; in fact, if it wasn’t for the British policies of reconciliation and their focus on strictly defensive measures there might not have been a United States anymore.

The War of 1812 is a fairly obscure war in the national consciousness, known mostly for generating the National Anthem, the Battle of New Orleans, and the burning of the White House. But Taylor explains with a thorough, well-researched account that it was instrumental in defining the national identity of not only America but Canada as well. Although the war was waged rather unjustly and provocatively by the Americans, it should be seen as the United States’ finishing its revolution against Britain by asserting its citizens’ rights and its sole authority over its territory, both of which the British attempted to defy in various ways, most notably through impressment and cross-border Indian alliances.

Before reading I knew little of the general course of the war, and after reading I still don’t. But this book doesn’t claim to be a broad overview of the War of 1812, but rather an exploration of how it could be described as a civil war. It was a civil war between Americans: Federalists and Republicans both jockeyed for the power to shape the United States according to radically different visions; military leaders pitted themselves against each other to deny responsibility for failure after failure and to secure the good graces of Washington; Americans across both sides of the border routinely ratted out suspected traitors and routinely gave strategic secrets away to the rival governments for economic and political reasons. It was also a civil war amongst the native tribes who were courted by both governments for their fear-inducing prowess in battle.

In summary, if you want a history that focuses on the complex dynamics between politics, patriotism, and money that existed during the War of 1812, you can’t go wrong with this book.

[Max Shachar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another book that deflates my American patriotism. Not in the sense that this country was built on genocide, human trafficking, racism, land theft, slavery, etc. (although Taylor does touch on these topics). Rather I’m ashamed of my country’s inability to complete what should have been a simple task, conquering Canada. Taylor details the incompetence, overconfidence, and hypocrisy of American politicians and entrepreneurs running this country during the early 19th century that led to repeated military and diplomatic blunders during the War of 1812.

Going into this book, which I randomly pulled from my Grandpas shelf, I knew absolutely nothing about the war of 1812. After reading this I can say that the early 19th century has become one of the most interesting periods of American history for me. I really enjoyed all of the firsthand accounts of commoners and elites alike living through this weird and wacky war. I do wish there were more Indigenous perspectives and accounts highlighted in this book. As Taylor points out, Native Americans living in the Great Lakes region did most of the fighting for British Canadians and had the most to lose in the case of American victory. I may check out “Tecumseh and the Prophet” to learn more about the Native American experience during this period of time.

While this book can be hard to follow at times and doesn’t present a clear timeline of the war, I would still highly recommend it to anyone interested in early American and Canadian history. Taylor explains really well, aided with firsthand accounts, how clear American and Canadian identities were formed and a pan-North American colonist identity was disassembled because of the Civil War of 1812.

[Aaron Blankenship · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book really highlights a war that is incredibly misrepresented in American textbooks and collective memory. Often conflating the victory at New Orleans and the Treaty of Ghent, Americans imagine this win of joyful defiance of British Tyranny, rather than the largest military snafu in American history. Idiotic officers, undisciplined troops, Native American stereotypes (that actually aided Native Americans), lack of war aims, and political division are just a few of the reasons this war was such a hot mess, and also a real page turner. This book is written incredibly well and would be great even if you aren't a historian.

First book I read during the great pandemic of 2020

[Jeff Bobin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent look at the War of 1812, the people and the battles that took place.

There is good information on the challenges, mistakes and signs of greatness throughout the book.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every year, a little south of London, Ontario, military re-enacters act out the Battle of the Thames in which William Henry Harrison led American troops in a defeat of the British forces during which the legendary Indian chief, Tecumseh died. Harrison's troops' battle cry was "Remember the Raisin" (not the fruit silly,...the River). The River Raisin is not far from where my ancestor, Daniel Freeman had a farm in the Michigan territory (it wouldn't become a state until later). At the battle on the Raisin River the British defeated the Americans and despite assurances that wounded prisoners would be protected they were left to the 'mercies' of England's Indian allies. The British withdrew and the prisoners were tortured to death over several days. It was this atrocity that so impassioned Harrison's forces who, after the defeat of the British at Longwoods pursued them up the Thames river valley only breaking off after brief skirmish on a hill in what is now Byron in southwest London. The British commander, Procter, was later court martialed, not for allowing atrocities to prisoners, but for battlefield incompetence.

Now we all know that the U.S. won the war of 1812 because Johnny Horton told us so ("we took a little bacon and we took a little beans/ and we whupped the bloody British at the Battle of New Orleans"). Of course he didn't mention that the battle was after a peace treaty had been signed a peace treaty that didn't alter the boundary lines between the U.S. and the British colonies strung along the northern border in both Lower and Upper Canada.

Taylor's book is serious history and in marked distinction from Pierre Berton's Flames Across the Border. He sets the stage for the outbreak of hostilities by describing life on both sides of the border. Before and in fact during the war, people living near the border were accustomed to traveling back and forth and had many cross-border familial and business relations-hence the title referring to Civil War.

I was interested to learn that there were many skirmishes up and down the Thames River valley aside from the one major battle. THe Britishe used their Indian allies as guerrilla fighters and the American troops were terrified of them because they knew they were fierce fighters and to be taken prisoner by them was a fate worse than death. Indian atrocities need to be placed in the context of the times however. The British penalty for treason at the time was hanging, drawing and quartering (Hang the man but bring him down before he dies; cut open the abdomen while he is still alive so his intestines spill out before him; then either pull or cut off his four limbs before finally beheading him and displaying the head on a pole). this penalty was enacted several times during this war. Irish who fled Ireland to the U.S. were deemed to be British citizens when captured fighting for the Americans and charged with treason.

There were stupid mistakes on both sides leading up to the war... a war that no one wanted. WEll, that isn't quite true. People who called themselves republicans (the Republican party came later) wanted to continue the Revolution and perhaps take the Canadian territories from Britain. These republicans principally came from the south and were opposed by the Federalists who were more in the north. The northern states carried on trade with Britain and war and embargoes hurt business. This divide played out over and over again. The republicans did not want to fund a standing army for historical and financial reasons and instead relied on militia forces. This proved to be insufficient as the militia were basically undertrained, without discipline and usually commanded by men who obtained their commissions through political connections. This arrangement proved time and again to be no match for British troops seasoned by fighting in Europe. The republican/federalist divide was of course to go on festering and break out again in 1860 and, some would say, continues in a different way even today.

[Mikey B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book gives us the social and political history of the war of 1812 between Canada (mostly Upper Canada) and the United States. It was settled by the Treaty of Ghent in the Netherlands in December 1814.

Page 411 (my book)

In June 1812 a combination of three causes had impelled the Republican Congress [U.S.] to declare war: The British Orders in Council which empowered the Royal Navy to interfere with American maritime commerce; the impressment of sailors from American ships; and the British alliance with native peoples dwelling within the American border. When the British promptly rescinded the Orders in Council, the Americans kept fighting a war for frontier expansion and for sailor’s rights.

“Sailor’s rights” meant that British ships could board an American ship and impress (kidnap) a British born, but now an American sailor or citizen, to serve in the Royal Navy. At this time there was a manpower shortage in the Royal Navy, which was fighting France, and they were desperate for sailors.

The U.S. was hoping for a quick war, thinking, optimistically, that the people of Upper Canada would welcome them as liberators. Most of the war was fought on the Niagara River and the Detroit River, with at times American troops and militia ranging into Upper Canada. There were also naval bases of both countries on Lake Ontario.

In many ways, this war was an extension of the American war for Independence. The Americans still feared the British presence in North America.

The United States at the time was divided into Republican and Federalists. Republicans were for a decentralized government with less taxation and what is now referred to as “state’s rights”. They were very anti-English and somewhat pro-French. The Federalists wanted a stronger federal presence with taxation to support their centralized government. They were more sympathetic to England and opposed war with Canada. They were considered “Tories” by the Republican opposition.

It must also be remembered that there was extensive commerce and trade between these two countries – which the war disrupted or attempted to do.

Page 291 Lord Bathurst – August 1814

“Two-thirds of the army of Canada are at this moment eating beef provided by American contractors drawn principally from the States of Vermont and New York”. The smuggling doubly dammed the American war effort, for while supplying the enemy, the diverted supplies increased the costs of feeding American troops.

Page 291

Thousands preferred to smuggle rather than enlist in the army.

The above alludes to only some of the corruption on the American side. There was a great deal of bungling by the American military. The government was dominated by the Republicans, and although they wanted the war – they wanted to fight war on the cheap – and paid the price! They talked loudly, and gave military promotions to their pals. Although they usually outnumbered the Canadian/British forces they encountered, they were usually roundly defeated. When they did win, they rampaged uncontrollably over the countryside and villages of Upper Canada – stealing, destroying property, and killing – eliminating any hopes that the population would be swayed to join the American Republic. Many in Upper Canada came to despise the invaders.

The British had their professional army in Upper Canada (as well as Lower Canada), plus they recruited militias from the local population. They were also allied with Indian tribes in the region. Without this alliance, it is doubtful that Upper Canada could have withstood this invasion.

American troops were poorly paid, poorly trained, and undernourished. In the winter months many died of disease in their base camps.

Page 325 recruits in the U.S. Army

When a sober laborer could earn ten to twelve dollars a month, why get shot at for half that pay?

Page 322 U.S. Army

By leaving their troops behind for the winter [to lobby for promotion in Washington DC], the furloughed officers lost a golden opportunity to train their men, who resented their own inability to return home.

Their officers were inept and could not control their troops. On military bases, soldiers would frequently shoot off their rifles for no reason. Drunkenness was common. Looting during an invasion was the general rule. Americans brought their decentralized (libertarian) ideals to the military, but a military cannot function in that way.

Page 347

The army lost at least five thousand men to desertion, about 13 percent of the recruits. By comparison, only 3 percent of the American troops died in combat and 8 percent died of disease.

The Republican government was adept at spinning loses into victories. By 1814 the war’s original objectives had not been met. All was at a standstill. The government was hardly paying the army and much of Upper Canadian farmland had been devastated. It was time to end this needless confrontation. For this, the native people paid the highest price. The Treaty of Ghent gave the American side carte blanche to subdue Indian tribes.

Page 414 Henry Goulburn, 1814

“I had … no idea of the fixed determination which prevails in the breast of every American to extirpate the Indians and appropriate their territory.”

Page 428

Although the Americans lost the northern war to conquer Canada, they won the western war to subdue Indian resistance.

After 1814 there has never been any military confrontation between the two countries who share the planets longest border, have extensive trade agreements, and a common language.

Page 439

The new confidence in the republic enabled Americans to accept the persistence of British Canada as innocuous… The ultimate legacy of the war was that the empire and the republic would share the continent along a clearly defined border more generous to Americans and more confining to the British – but most ominous to the Indians.

Canadians also came to share a commonality among themselves. They had withstood the Americans – and for a time there lingered a unifying hatred of the invaders and the destruction they had wrought on their homeland.

Through this book we also come to understand the differences between Americans and Canadians which persist to this day. Canadians, much more than Americans, believe in their government. Americans in 1812 feared and were suspicious of a centralized government. Canadians appear more orderly – even in religion. After 1814 evangelicals from the U.S. were prohibited from entering Canada – so that the “orderly” Anglican Church in Upper Canada and the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada remained dominant. Americans espoused with fervor their motto “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” whereas Canadians simply wanted what they came to call in 1867 “peace, order, and good government”.

This is the third book I have read by this author (“American Colonies” and “American Revolutions” being the previous two) on North American history. I find his writing and presentation excellent and he ranges well between several issues. He does not look at historical changes in isolation but examines the overall geographical interactions between areas and peoples.

This book spoke to me on a personal level because I live near the Great Lakes (more so Lake Erie, Lake Huron, and Lake Ontario). I have been to many of the places cited in this book like Niagara Falls, Toronto, Detroit, Kingston. I now live in London, ON which is the heart of what use to be Upper Canada. And I also lived for decades in Montreal on the St. Lawrence River.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book about the War of 1812 which is very specific about which parts of the war to cover. I liked that about this book. I thought I was getting a book about the whole war, but I discovered that I didn't want that. Forget about all the boat stuff, it is rather boring. Taylor is concentrating here on invasions, raids, spies across the Niagara River, people defecting from one country to the other and back again, all kinds of juicy material.
The main thesis here is (as the title would indicate) that this war was not simply Britain against the United States, but rather a civil war among all kinds of people. Loyalists who left during the Revolution, Americans who moved to Canada for farmland, Canadians who defected to America for better jobs, Indians allied with Brits, Indians allied with the U.S., Irish fleeing from British oppression to America only to fight against the British again, Irish recruited by the British in Ireland to come to Canada to fight against the aforementioned Irish who were fighting for the United States, and so on. This is exactly the area of history in which I am most interested right now: that period after the Revolution when nobody really knew what was going to happen, when the U.S. could have fallen apart, or the U.S. could have conquered Canada, or Canada could have ended up much larger...some people even thought that Napoleon would somehow sail over and conquer the whole thing himself. Such a fascinating time.
Taylor spends a lot of time on a fundamental difference between the Brits and the Americans of that time- the Americans claimed that a British person could choose to become an American and at that point would simply cease to be British. The Brits said no, if you are born a British subject than you always will be one, and if we can grab you we can take you back and force you into the Navy. Obviously, that will not fly, as it implies that the Americans did not win anything substantial in the Revolution.
There were a few dull chapters, because since Taylor is not covering anything except the border warfare of the Great Lakes area he covers every little skirmish in that area, some of which are more interesting than others. Still, you can skim those parts. This is still a fascinating look at a major turning point in North American history.

[Tascha Folsoi · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is very detailed, but so David Simon's The Wire.

I read this book with my spouse, and we spent a lot of time talking about the War of 1812 and what makes Alan Taylor's approach to it (and all the subjects he undertakes) unique. You can kind of bumble along in life and think about things like war, gangs, drugs and have a very shadowy understanding of what is at play. By covering in detail the experiences of the soldiers, the power brokers, those vying for influence, and the struggling and thriving civilians, Taylor gives you a really complete picture of how ambitions, hopes, desperation, and ideologies combine to make a chaotic and explosive brew. In this book, Taylor shifts perspectives in the way that The Wire does, and he does so rather dispassionately (without loyalty to a particular group). However, he does it in a way that is so clear it allows the readers to experience all the passion and pathos of/for our society themselves. Like The Wire, this book shows how things work, and you think, Of course that's the way it is...that's exactly how people are and how the excesses of power and passion alike affect us today. This book makes you take a second look at the world -not in a way that makes you change all of your values, but in a way that causes you to revaluate and temper how you want to react to events in our time. Back to The Wire, it's not like watching The Wire made me feel differently about drug dealers and and cops and politicians, but it made me see how all factions -both those I am more inclined to oppose and those I feel an affinity for- include players who range from sympathetic to outright cynical. This gives you a much more complex understanding of the spectrum of forces and motives acting on a society. When an author gives you that, it's really a gift. This book, like all Taylor's books I have read so far, achieves that for the War of 1812. If you haven't read any of his books, start at the beginning with Colonies and Revolutions. As an educator, I would make both The Wire and his complete works mandatory if I were in charge of the world.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

As others have written, this book is not meant to be a comprehensive history of the War of 1812 (though it is thoroughly documented while remaining readable). Instead, it advances a particular thesis that focuses upon the fact that, at the time, the U.S. and Canada reflected roughly similar population groups but were divided ideologically between the citizenship in the republic of the U.S. and the Britain's idea of people as permanent subjects. In other words, can people choose their country of loyalty, and does power reside in a monarch (and/or centralized government), or with the people? Though grounded on various historical causes, the War of 1812 was both a continuation of the Revolutionary War fought on these grounds and a sort of "civil war" between similar people with differing ideas.

Taylor's writing is persuasive, and though his frequent summations can feel pedantic, they are actually quite helpful in such a long work. Most interestingly, he focuses upon the War as being as much a "propaganda war" as a conventional war, detailing how each side spun events in their efforts to control public opinion. Further, Taylor gives quite thorough and interesting discussions of some of the lesser-discussed aspects of war: logistics, prisoners, corporal punishment, provisions, etc. In addition, there are many fascinating sidenotes in the book, such as areas of the U.S. that brokered a separate peace with Britain and how close the U.S. came to fracturing by the end of the war.

Definitely recommended...

[David R. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Students are generally taught that the now-obscure War of 1812 was a clearly deliniated conflict between the young United States and the British Empire, if not a Second American Revolution. But as Professor Taylor points out, it was much more complex than that. His work examines the many external and internal divisions and such blocs as pro-British Americans, pro-American (pro-Republican) Canadians, American emigrants to Upper Canada, Native Americans on both sides, Irish immigrants on both sides, and more. These groups respond in critical ways to the lines of battle, and Taylor documents the imbecility of political generals and the Madison Admininistration. Even for me, a longtime student of the early American republic, this work was a significant eye-opener. I highly recommend the work.