MovieChat Forums > The Buccaneer (1958) Discussion > Faulty Hollywood history of the War of 1...

Faulty Hollywood history of the War of 1812 in this movie

posted 14 years ago by jeffyoung1
4 replies | jump to latest

Let me start by re-affirming that I still like THE BUCCANEER. Who can resist the dynamic duo of Yul Brynner and Charlton Heston.

The Hollywood depiction of the Battle of New Orleans is fantastic, even down to the depiction of the British congreve rockets screaming over the heads of the American army soldiers, militia, frontiersmen, and conscripted citymen.

The background of the movie, THE WAR OF 1812, is distorted in this movie. It's based on distortion and re-invention of history, junk history.

Second, let me say that I am an American, not British or Canadian, and I'm not a liberal revisionist. I like to read military history and I seek the truth.

The movie tries to impress a background of America losing the war in December 1814 and in danger of being overwhelmed by the British redcoat hordes whereupon the fledging United States will be re-absorbed into the Greater British Empire.

Poppycock. Buffalo chips. Or like the Brits say, bullox. By December 1814, the United States army and associated militia forces had been expelled from Upper Canada and forced to retreat back into the United States. Here is where the strategic initiative had passed to the British. The British government never had any intention - and this is historically verified - of reconquering the United States. By 1806 the United States had reached 3/5ths of its present size. The British invasion army of 16,000 poised to attack New Orleans, and the small British/Canadian army north in Niagra were never intended to conquer the vast U.S. and its population of 8 million citizens. Now for the Americans in December 1814 there was a real danger. The British held the strategic initiative and succeeded in repelling the American invasion of Canada. But to continue the war meant military operations on American soil. There was strong pressure in England to end the war just as there was equal pressure in the U.S. to come to terms with the British government. The British government, having succeeded in its primary goal of protecting Canada, had little incentive or desire to invade and hold American territory. But in the meantime, the long-term British army's planned operations against New Orleans in order to control the Mississippi went ahead while the British government and American delegates negotiated a truce in Europe.

While the reality of history disproves the later American re-invention of history about illusionary British attempts to re-conquer the U.S., there was a real fear that military and diplomatic failure could reduce the U.S. to subordinate or vassal status to the British government, a sort of Finlandization whereby a stronger nation bullies a smaller, weaker nation into following a foreign policy favorable to the stronger nation.

The war started because there were historical provocations by the British government and its naval impressment of sailors off American merchant ships. But there was strong American opposition to the war and Congress declared war by the slimmest of margins. Had the British government rescinded its Orders In Council a mere two weeks earlier, then it would have been politically impossible for the American Congress to declare war. The British government did rescind those special dispensation orders allowing its navy to impress seamen off American ships, but in the time it took for the news to travel across the Atlantic Ocean via ship, war had been declared in Congress.

The American government's mistake was using the war as a pretext for invading and conquering Canada. A modern review of the motives for the pro-war, pro-expansionist Americans in Congress and the Madison Administration for invading Canada seems so absurd today as to be completely out of touch with reality. The following American invasions of Upper Canada were so ineptly led and poorly executed that the true military history is embarassing to the United States. After the Peace Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812, the American government and the people all collaborated to reinvent the course of the war as a glorious Second War of Independance from Great Britain. In truth there was glory to be had in the several victorious battles against the British, but were in essence tactical victories. The greatest victory of all, the Battle of New Orleans, took place after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed. News of the peace treaty followed upon the heels of the great victory at New Orleans and later generations of Americans interpreted the New Orleans victory as been instrumental in compelling the British government to sign an armistice. Some American historians find value in the victory. The victory at New Orleans compelled the British to abide by the peace treaty. But that is debatable. Even if the British took the city of New Orleans, it would have been academic. The Treaty of Ghent was based on antebellum principles, restoring and respecting national boundaries of 1812 before the outbreak of war. The British army would have been required to evacuate New Orleans according to the terms of the peace treaty.

So was it worth it? For us Americans, it was the prospect that our nation took on the mighty British Empire and were NOT defeated and reconquered. That alone was worth international prestige. But that was never the intent of the war. The original intent, to redress American grievances over British impressment of American seamen, interference in American trade, interference with the Indian tribes west of the Mississippi proved to be sufficient national causus bellus to instigate an ill-prepared and incompetently led war for the actual foolhardy aim of acquiring the British colony of Canada. It's ridiculous, especially when the U.S. in 1812 already possessed more land than it knew what to do with.

In the next two hundred years, the Americans and the Canadians quickly put aside their differences and became close allies. The Americans and the British quickly forgot the war and today very few people in either nation can tell you much about it. The War of 1812 - The American War, to the Brits and the Canadians - was much more glorious for the Canadians. In 1912 there were national celebrations in Canada on the centennial of the war. But that was before World War I and World War II and the ensuing Cold War where the U.S. and Canada became the closest of allies and trading partners. Today in 2010, who knows what Canadians think about their American War? It's possible the war is equally forgotten in Canada today. The Americans tried to take something that wasn't theirs and got our noses bloodied in the attempt. We Americans learned our lesson by 1815 and retreated out of Canada back into our own country, never to return.

[–] jpilkinton2 11 years ago

Without a doubt the British would have kept New Orleans. They wanted it very badly. The Mississippi would have been quite lucrative to any entity that controlled it. The fur trade in that time period amounted to a vast fortune, and the British participated heavily in the market. Can you imagine how the developement of the States would have differed if the British had control of the Mississippi? The treaty by US Constitutional Law had to be ratified by the Senate, which did not happen until February 1815. The capture of New Orleans could arguably have changed the course of United States expansion westward. It was considered so important a victory at the time, that it was celebrated as a national holiday second only to July 4th up until the Civil War.

[–] ljspin 11 years ago

True, the capture of New Orleans would have been a great coup for the British, capturing New Orleans does not mean they that would control the Mississippi. They would only control its mouth. The bulk of the river still ran through American territory, and therefore the United States would still have primary control over the river.

For example: the Union army and navy captured New Orleans early in 1862. It took over a year for the Union army and navy (it was a combined effort) to captured every Confederate stronghold on the river. It wasn't until the fall of Vicksburg, Mississippi, in July of 1863, that President Lincoln could say that the Father of Waters again flowed unmolested to the sea. The British would have had to have done the same. The Mississippi River area was relatively unsettled -- small cities and towns, small settlements. Even so, the British army would be fighting in enemy territory. Both sides of the river belonged to the United States. They would have to be a conquering army, able to capture and HOLD the land they took. They would be fighting with very, very long supply lines. They would be fighting in unfamiliar territory. This alone would give the American army, and especially, the local militia units an edge in the fighting.

Into this you have to figure two other things. 1.) The Treaty of Ghent. Once the peace treaty was received, would the British government renew hostilities? Remember, the Battle of New Orleans took place AFTER the treaty was signed. If the British had won that battle, what would they have done? Quietly relinquish control of New Orleans because of the Treaty? Or violate the Treaty and continue hostilities? The Treaty of Ghent may not have been ratified by Congress until February, 1815, but when did Parliament ratify it? Would the Great Britain be ready to renew the war, even with the capture of New Orleans? 2.) Great Britain fought the War of 1812 with one hand tied. She fought us at the same time that she was marshalling troops against Napoleon. Now that Napoleon was defeated, could the young United States withstand the full force of Britain's army and navy if she sent them against us? Yes, we withstood her during the Revolution, but our main ally then, France, was in the middle of post-Revolution/post-Napoleon confusion. It is doubtful that they would or even could support us. Plus, how would the British people, as well as the British government, feel about continuing a war with the United States after they had spent so many years at war with Bonaparte.

I think that a British victory at New Orleans would only have been a minor ripple in American history. I defer to Jeffyoung1 if he is still reading this posting. He seems to know more about the War of 1812 than I do.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss history! (As well as movies!)

[–] mrbluto-2 10 years ago

Chill out dude, it is a movie from 1958.

[–] jonathanrspalding 9 years ago

It is an above average history for a movie. Obviously they take dramatic license and make it more dramatic, but I think the essential history is good. I think the 1st version is much more historically accurate version of Jean Lafite the calculating privateer than the lovesick idealist as he was here.