|
 The failure to capture Canada,
the retreat at Bladensburg, and the burning of the capitol 200 years
ago this week are part of what people generally remember about the
War of 1812, according to an Army historian.
This largely forgotten war, however, was by-in-large a success
for the U.S. Army, given the circumstances prior to June 1812, when
the war started, according to Glenn Williams, U.S. Army Center of
Military History.
Williams edited a pamphlet, "The Chesapeake Campaign," which will
be
available in print or online by the middle of September 2014.
Dr. Charles P. Neimeyer of the Marine Corps University History
Department authored the pamphlet.
PAPER ARMY
Before the War
of 1812, the regular Army was about 10,000 strong -- "on paper,"
Williams said, meaning units were authorized but men would still
need to be recruited and trained for them. The actual strength was
around 5,000 to 6,000 Soldiers.
The British, on the other hand, had tens of thousands of seasoned
veterans, who were fighting Napoleon's Army in Europe. That campaign
was won by Britain and her allies in 1814, freeing up these soldiers
for North American service.
And, the British navy was second to none in the world and would
take command of the seas around the U.S., for the duration of the
War of 1812, Williams said, with the U.S. Navy having success only
in single-ship actions.
In 1812, there were few seasoned U.S. Army officers and
non-commissioned officers for the 35,000-man Army authorized by
Congress. Those who had fighting experience on the Indian frontier
were placed in charge of new units.
In some respects, the
problems of manning prior to the war resemble other pre-war periods
in American history, leading up to the world wars, Korea and even
today, Williams explained.
Over the last few years, Army
Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno has told lawmakers during testimony
on many occasions that the Army is approaching a critical point
where, if manning levels, readiness and modernization continue to
decline, the Army is in danger of becoming a hollow fighting force.
Although history doesn't repeat itself, Williams said occurrences
often seem similar.
What about calling out the Reserve and
National Guard during the War of 1812?
They didn't exist in
name or capability as today's Reserve Component does, Williams said.
At the time, the states had about 700,000 militiamen, white male
citizens between the ages of 18 and 45, who were required to be
available for state or national emergencies, he said. The militiamen
could be drafted for short periods of time -- generally 30 to 90
days -- but not all were able-bodied, trained or even eager to
serve.
More about the pre-war Army of 1812 can be found in
the Center of Military History's publication 74-1, Defending the New
Nation, by Dr. John R. Maass.
CALL
TO ARMS
Prime causes of the war included the British
seizing of merchant ships and cargoes, in violation of U.S.
neutrality, and the involuntary removal of American Sailors from
ships to serve aboard British vessels, called impressment. This
angered Americans, but didn't drive them all to want a full-fledged
war against the United Kingdom again, Williams said.
People
living in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., where the
Chesapeake Campaign took place, from 1813 to 1814, were divided as
well. Federalists generally wanted to maintain good relations with
Britain, while the other party, the Jeffersonian Republicans,
favored good relations with the French.
Baltimore, a port
city and the third largest city in the U.S. at the time, regarded
war as a potential economic calamity, since England was its largest
trading partner. Even Francis Scott Key, who would become famous
later on for writing the "Star-Spangled Banner," opposed the war.
But once the war started, Americans who had opposed it,
generally rallied 'round the flag, including Key, Williams said. Key
served as an artillery officer in the District of Columbia militia,
and fought at the Battle of Bladensburg.
In 1812, things
predicatively didn't go well for the Army, as it invaded Canada,
which was then known as British North America. The U.S. Army was
poorly trained and led, and had significant logistical weaknesses,
according to U.S. Army command historian Steven J. Rauch.
Rauch authored the pamphlet
The Campaign of 1812 (PDF format) ... which describes the war in
detail leading up to the Chesapeake Campaign.
Richard V.
Barbuto, a professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff
College, stated: "Congress and the Madison administration had not
entirely understood the difficulties of expanding the Army and Navy
from their meager pre-war strengths. Few citizens were willing to
join the Regular Army. There were not enough experienced officers
and NCOs, and dependence on state militias was misplaced."
By David Vergun
Army News Service
Copyright 2014
Comment on this article |
