In this bicentennial year of the War of 1812, the StarSpangledBaltimore.com website tells us:
"The
War of 1812 represents what many see as the definitive end of the
American Revolution. A new nation, widely regarded as an upstart,
successfully defended itself against the largest, most powerful navy in
the world during the maritime assault on Baltimore and Maryland.
America's victory over Great Britain confirmed the legitimacy of the
Revolution."
But the revolution had ended three decades before
1812, and the choice to launch a new war was made by the U.S. government
in Washington, D.C.
In the lead-up to the War of 1812, the
British and Americans exchanged attacks along the Canadian border and in
the open seas. Native Americans also exchanged attacks with U.S.
settlers, although who was invading whom is a question we've never
wanted to face. But the choice to launch a full-scale war was not made
by the "largest, most powerful navy in the world"; it was made by the
national government that we now depict as fighting defensively in
Baltimore.
Maritime offenses, skirmishes, and trade
disagreements can be resolved diplomatically, continued at the same low
level, or expanded into much more massive killing and destruction.
These are options our government still faces today. In 1812, the choice
of war resulted in the burning of our national capital, the death in
action of some 3,800 U.S. and British fighters, and the death of 20,000
U.S. and British from all causes, including disease. About 76 were
killed in the Battle of Baltimore, plus another 450 wounded. Nowadays
an incident in Baltimore that resulted in that kind of carnage would be
described with words other than "exciting," "glorious," and
"successful."
And what was gained that could balance out the damage done? Absolutely nothing.
The
forgotten goal of the most passionate promoters of launching the War of
1812 had nothing to do with defending Baltimore. The goal was the
conquest of Canada. Congressman Samuel Taggart (F., Mass.), in protest
of a closed-door congressional debate, published a speech in the
Alexandria Gazette on June 24, 1812, in which he remarked:
"The
conquest of Canada has been represented to be so easy as to be little
more than a party of pleasure. We have, it has been said, nothing to do
but to march an army into the country and display the standard of the
United States, and the Canadians will immediately flock to it and place
themselves under our protection. They have been represented as ripe for
revolt, panting for emancipation from a tyrannical Government, and
longing to enjoy the sweets of liberty under the fostering hand of the
United States."
Taggart went on to present reasons why such a
result was by no means to be expected, and of course he was right. But
being right is of little value when war fever takes hold.
Vice
President Dick Cheney, on March 16, 2003, made a similar claim about
Iraqis, despite himself having pointed out its error on television nine
years earlier when he had explained why the United States had not
invaded Baghdad during the Gulf War. (Cheney, at that time, may have
left some factors unstated, such as the real fear back then of chemical
or biological weapons, as compared with the pretense of that fear in
2003.) Cheney said of his coming second attack on Iraq in 2003:
"Now,
I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of
the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as
liberators."
A year earlier, Ken Adelman, former arms control
director for President Ronald Reagan, said "liberating Iraq would be a
cakewalk."
This expectation, whether a pretense or sincere and
truly stupid, didn't work out in Iraq, and didn't work out two centuries
ago in Canada.
The Soviets went into Afghanistan in 1979 with
the same stupid expectation of being welcomed as friends, and the United
States repeated the same mistake there beginning in 2001. Of course,
such expectations would never work out for a foreign army in the United
States either, no matter how admirable the people invading us might be
or how miserable they might find us.
What if Canada and Iraq had
indeed welcomed U.S. occupations? Would that have produced anything to
outweigh the horror of the wars? Norman Thomas, author of War: No Glory,
No Profit, No Need, (1935) speculated as follows:
"[S]uppose
the United States in the War of 1812 had succeeded in its very
blundering attempt to conquer all or part of Canada. Unquestionably we
should have school histories to teach us how fortunate was the result of
that war for the people of Ontario and how valuable a lesson it finally
taught the British about the need for enlightened rule! Yet, to-day the
Canadians who remain within the British Empire would say they have more
real liberty than their neighbors to the south of the border!"
If
our culture survives until 2203 can we expect a bicentennial
celebration of the Battle of Baghdad? And if so, will alternative
perspectives -- such as the one I like to call reality -- be included?
If
we were wiser we would celebrate the many years in which Baltimore has
not known war. Frederick Douglass learned how to read in Baltimore.
Activists struggling nonviolently for justice have a rich history in
Baltimore.
Can we get beyond the national war anthem to any of the many things truly worth celebrating?
David Swanson's books include "War Is A Lie." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online activist organization http://rootsaction.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.