From Philly.com: The War Without a Name
We don't refer to the Civil War as the "War of 1861" or the Revolutionary War as the "War of 1776." So what's with the War of 1812?
The name is not even a very thorough description of the war's timing. If you count the Battle of New Orleans, which was fought after the peace treaty was signed, the war lasted until early 1815.
The bicentennial of the War of 1812 — which began 200 years ago today — happens to coincide roughly with the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. The latter was known by several names before general usage shifted decisively in favor of "Civil War." Southerners favored "War Between the States"; Northerners, "War of the Rebellion." "Civil War" may seem bland in comparison, but at least it makes a clear statement about the nature of the conflict.
The same cannot be said for "War of 1812." It's a lousy label, and we should grasp the opportunity offered by the 200th anniversary of the conflict to adopt a better one.
British challenges to American sovereignty at sea and on the frontier led Congress to declare war on England in June 1812. The United States was completely unprepared, however, and as things went from bad to worse, the label "Mr. Madison's War" became popular, especially in the New England newspapers. The president's humiliation peaked in August 1814, when the British marched into Washington, chased the locals (including Madison and his wife, Dolley) into the countryside, and burned the Capitol and the White House.
Philadelphians were in a panic, afraid that their city would be next. Thousands of volunteers began building a huge defensive earthwork along the Schuylkill. Fortunately, that attack never came.
Naming the war after the president would be an improvement, but it probably won't get much support from the current chief executive, who might be loath to set such a precedent.
My students came up with some good alternatives, including the "Revolutionary War, Take Two," "British-American Imbroglio," and "Anglo-American War for Sovereignty." In the end, they settled on a name that has been suggested before: the "Second War of Independence."
Adopting this name would suggest that the war that began in 1776 was the "First War of Independence." Since Americans like abbreviations, and given the analogy of World Wars I and II, we would then have a WI1 and a WI2, appropriately emphasizing their connectedness.
We don't refer to the Civil War as the "War of 1861" or the Revolutionary War as the "War of 1776." So what's with the War of 1812?
The name is not even a very thorough description of the war's timing. If you count the Battle of New Orleans, which was fought after the peace treaty was signed, the war lasted until early 1815.
The bicentennial of the War of 1812 — which began 200 years ago today — happens to coincide roughly with the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. The latter was known by several names before general usage shifted decisively in favor of "Civil War." Southerners favored "War Between the States"; Northerners, "War of the Rebellion." "Civil War" may seem bland in comparison, but at least it makes a clear statement about the nature of the conflict.
The same cannot be said for "War of 1812." It's a lousy label, and we should grasp the opportunity offered by the 200th anniversary of the conflict to adopt a better one.
British challenges to American sovereignty at sea and on the frontier led Congress to declare war on England in June 1812. The United States was completely unprepared, however, and as things went from bad to worse, the label "Mr. Madison's War" became popular, especially in the New England newspapers. The president's humiliation peaked in August 1814, when the British marched into Washington, chased the locals (including Madison and his wife, Dolley) into the countryside, and burned the Capitol and the White House.
Philadelphians were in a panic, afraid that their city would be next. Thousands of volunteers began building a huge defensive earthwork along the Schuylkill. Fortunately, that attack never came.
Naming the war after the president would be an improvement, but it probably won't get much support from the current chief executive, who might be loath to set such a precedent.
My students came up with some good alternatives, including the "Revolutionary War, Take Two," "British-American Imbroglio," and "Anglo-American War for Sovereignty." In the end, they settled on a name that has been suggested before: the "Second War of Independence."
Adopting this name would suggest that the war that began in 1776 was the "First War of Independence." Since Americans like abbreviations, and given the analogy of World Wars I and II, we would then have a WI1 and a WI2, appropriately emphasizing their connectedness.
No comments:
Post a Comment