What do you think?
Rate this book
Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths Of The War Of 1812
No longer willing to accept naval blockades, the impressment of American seamen, and seizures of American ships and cargos, the United States declared war on Great Britain. The aim was to frighten Britain into concessions and, if that failed, to bring the war to a swift conclusion with a quick strike at Canada. But the British refused to cave in to American demands, the Canadian campaign ended in disaster, and the U.S. government had to flee Washington, D.C., when it was invaded and burned by a British army. By all objective measures, the War of 1812 was a debacle for the young republic, and yet it was celebrated as a great military triumph. The American people believed they had won the war and expelled the invader. Oliver H. Perry became a military hero, Francis Scott Key composed what became the national anthem and commenced a national reverence for the flag, and the U.S.S. Constitution, "Old Ironsides," became a symbol of American invincibility. Every aspect of the war, from its causes to its conclusion, was refashioned to heighten the successes, obscure the mistakes, and blur embarrassing distinctions, long before there were mass media or public relations officers in the Pentagon. In this entertaining and meticulously researched book by America's leading authority on the War of 1812, Donald R. Hickey dispels the many misconcep-tions that distort our view of America's second war with Great Britain. Embracing military, naval, political, economic, and diplomatic analyses, Hickey looks carefully at how the war was fought between 1812 and 1815, and how it was remembered thereafter. Was the original declaration of war a bluff? What were the real roles of Canadian traitor Joseph Willcocks, Mohawk leader John Norton, pirate Jean Laffite, and American naval hero Lucy Baker? Who killed the Shawnee chief Tecumseh and who shot the British general Isaac Brock? Who actually won the war, and what is its lasting legacy? Hickey peels away fantasies and embellishments to explore why cer-tain myths gained currency and how they contributed to the way that the United States and Canada view themselves and each other.
464 pages, Hardcover
First published July 11, 2006
2 people are currently reading
55 people want to read
About the author
Donald R. Hickey
27 books12 followersDon Hickey is a professor of history emeritus at Wayne State College. He earned his B.A. in 1966, his M.A. in 1968, and his Ph.D. in 1972 from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
January 12, 2024
Just incredible!
Donald R Hickey did not just write a book, he wrote a research project on the War of 1812. As a War of 1812 reenactor (2nd Regiment of York Militia in Mississauga), I was blown away by this author's efforts.
In this work, Hickey went over the background, time, and setting of the war, plus the causes, battles, casualties, results, and historiography. He clarified and debunked MANY claims about the war, such as the 93rd Sutherland Regiment wearing kilts at New Orleans in 1815 (rather they wore grey pants), as well as how the Americans didn't mind impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy, as long as they were not born in America. Hickey uses primary and secondary sources to further his claims, as well as statistics when talking about things like casualties.
Personally, I liked how he talked about the historiography of the war and the history of diplomacy. For the former, I learned that the 'militia myth' was created by people such as Pte Cornelius Flummerfelt (composer of 'The Bold Canadian'), and Reverend John Strachan, then furthered by Reverend Egerton Ryerson and student Gilbert Auchinleck. It was only in 1928 that it was criticised by Colonel C.F Hamilton, then by military historians George Stanley and C.P Stacey in the 1950's, though those after took things too far by saying Upper Canadians were 'neutral.' For the latter, I appreciated learning about Anglo–American diplomacy before, during, and after the war. This covered topics from the Chesapeake Affair of 1807 to economic relations.
However, I have one criticism. Near the end, when it was talking about the Canadian song 'The Bold Canadian' by Pte Cornelius Flummerfelt, 3rd York. While I agree that the song leaves out the British regulars and Induan warriors, I do think that the song could just be from the militia's, or a militiaman's, view. I do think that the author thinking of the song as perpetuating the 'militia myth,' is a bit harsh.
In conclusion, this was a titan of a work. Though long, it was eye-opening and well researched. I recommend this book if you are interested in the War of 1812 or military history (Canadian, American, British, or First Nations), as well as if you are a reenactor portraying the era.
Donald R Hickey did not just write a book, he wrote a research project on the War of 1812. As a War of 1812 reenactor (2nd Regiment of York Militia in Mississauga), I was blown away by this author's efforts.
In this work, Hickey went over the background, time, and setting of the war, plus the causes, battles, casualties, results, and historiography. He clarified and debunked MANY claims about the war, such as the 93rd Sutherland Regiment wearing kilts at New Orleans in 1815 (rather they wore grey pants), as well as how the Americans didn't mind impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy, as long as they were not born in America. Hickey uses primary and secondary sources to further his claims, as well as statistics when talking about things like casualties.
Personally, I liked how he talked about the historiography of the war and the history of diplomacy. For the former, I learned that the 'militia myth' was created by people such as Pte Cornelius Flummerfelt (composer of 'The Bold Canadian'), and Reverend John Strachan, then furthered by Reverend Egerton Ryerson and student Gilbert Auchinleck. It was only in 1928 that it was criticised by Colonel C.F Hamilton, then by military historians George Stanley and C.P Stacey in the 1950's, though those after took things too far by saying Upper Canadians were 'neutral.' For the latter, I appreciated learning about Anglo–American diplomacy before, during, and after the war. This covered topics from the Chesapeake Affair of 1807 to economic relations.
However, I have one criticism. Near the end, when it was talking about the Canadian song 'The Bold Canadian' by Pte Cornelius Flummerfelt, 3rd York. While I agree that the song leaves out the British regulars and Induan warriors, I do think that the song could just be from the militia's, or a militiaman's, view. I do think that the author thinking of the song as perpetuating the 'militia myth,' is a bit harsh.
In conclusion, this was a titan of a work. Though long, it was eye-opening and well researched. I recommend this book if you are interested in the War of 1812 or military history (Canadian, American, British, or First Nations), as well as if you are a reenactor portraying the era.
August 6, 2016
I think a better title would be "1812 Shades of Gray." It's not a primer on the war and it's not a straight-up debunking of the myths of the war and it's not historiography--although it is all of these, in part.
Rather, Professor Hickey has dissected many elements of the war (battles, generals, naval officers, tactics, politics and so on) and examined them all, teased out the truth (or at least the best evidence which points at truth) and allowed himself to do what a lot of historians don't: indulge in the "what if" questions. What if news of the Orders in Council had reached the US earlier. What if this battle or that had gone anther way. I *like* this sort of speculation (much more than the guessing game of "[X famous figure] probably did this and probably thought that"). I also like that Hickey has his own biases and calls it like he sees it (go team Jefferson-was-a-big-fat-hypocrite!), and while I didn't agree with every conclusion he reached, I like a historian who takes a stand. Hickey knows his stuff inside and out, and even if you don't like his conclusions, you will find they are well-reasoned.
If you are very familiar with the War of 1812, you will find places where your attention will flag because you have the basics down cold already. Read it anyway, because you will also learn nuances of the war you didn't know existed. Also, Hickey devotes a good deal of time to the impact of the war on Canadians and Native American populations.
If you are not very familiar with the War of 1812, what is wrong with you? Um, I mean, this is maybe not the perfect starting point for learning the war (I am partial to Jon Latimer's _1812_, which I think is, despite its British bias, a fair treatment), but it is a good second or third book, to put it all into perspective.
Recommended.
Rather, Professor Hickey has dissected many elements of the war (battles, generals, naval officers, tactics, politics and so on) and examined them all, teased out the truth (or at least the best evidence which points at truth) and allowed himself to do what a lot of historians don't: indulge in the "what if" questions. What if news of the Orders in Council had reached the US earlier. What if this battle or that had gone anther way. I *like* this sort of speculation (much more than the guessing game of "[X famous figure] probably did this and probably thought that"). I also like that Hickey has his own biases and calls it like he sees it (go team Jefferson-was-a-big-fat-hypocrite!), and while I didn't agree with every conclusion he reached, I like a historian who takes a stand. Hickey knows his stuff inside and out, and even if you don't like his conclusions, you will find they are well-reasoned.
If you are very familiar with the War of 1812, you will find places where your attention will flag because you have the basics down cold already. Read it anyway, because you will also learn nuances of the war you didn't know existed. Also, Hickey devotes a good deal of time to the impact of the war on Canadians and Native American populations.
If you are not very familiar with the War of 1812, what is wrong with you? Um, I mean, this is maybe not the perfect starting point for learning the war (I am partial to Jon Latimer's _1812_, which I think is, despite its British bias, a fair treatment), but it is a good second or third book, to put it all into perspective.
Recommended.
January 6, 2013
The War of 1812 is certainly one of America's most forgotten conflicts, as another of the author's book titles claims, but it has also generated an inordinate number of myths which complicate and distort the history of conflict among those who are familiar with it. Donald Hickey's book seeks to correct many of the most significant myths which deal with the war.
Professor Hickey has done a fine job outlining the historiography (the history of the history) of the myths of the War of 1812. He disproves many of the myths, proves the validity of others - either in part or whole - and refutes and disproves many others. I found this book a very enjoyable read; although, I do not agree with some of the author's arguments - specifically in regard to the author's contention that the U.S. lost the War of 1812. While he makes a somewhat reasonable case, his argument is far from convincing to this military historian. Historian Dr. George C. Daughan, an accomplished professor in his own right, makes a far more convincing case that the U.S. won the War of 1812 in his fine book "1812: The Navy's War," which I recommend to those seeking an opposing point of view in this matter. Hickey gives too much weight to the lack of reference of the maritime causes of the war in the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the conflict, and downplays the fact that with Napoleon's fall in 1814 those issues were no longer major points of contention. In the end, "the proof is in the pudding" as the saying goes - and I remain convinced that the U.S. won the War of 1812 at best, and fought to a draw at the worst.
While I disagree with some of the author's other points, I found most of the arguments to be well articulated and researched. If the author demolishes a number of myths dear to American hearts (of those few Americans who know anything about the War of 1812), he equally refutes some of those myths dear to the hearts of Canadians, specifically the myth that the Canadian militia won the war and the misconception that the War of 1812 was nothing more than an attempt at annexation of Canada.
Readers unfamiliar with the War of 1812 would be well-advised to read a complete narrative of the conflict before starting Hickey's book about the myths, so that they will have a point of reference for the events and persons detailed in "Don't Give Up the Ship!"
No matter which of the combatants with which you sympathize, I heartily recommend Hickey's book!
Professor Hickey has done a fine job outlining the historiography (the history of the history) of the myths of the War of 1812. He disproves many of the myths, proves the validity of others - either in part or whole - and refutes and disproves many others. I found this book a very enjoyable read; although, I do not agree with some of the author's arguments - specifically in regard to the author's contention that the U.S. lost the War of 1812. While he makes a somewhat reasonable case, his argument is far from convincing to this military historian. Historian Dr. George C. Daughan, an accomplished professor in his own right, makes a far more convincing case that the U.S. won the War of 1812 in his fine book "1812: The Navy's War," which I recommend to those seeking an opposing point of view in this matter. Hickey gives too much weight to the lack of reference of the maritime causes of the war in the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the conflict, and downplays the fact that with Napoleon's fall in 1814 those issues were no longer major points of contention. In the end, "the proof is in the pudding" as the saying goes - and I remain convinced that the U.S. won the War of 1812 at best, and fought to a draw at the worst.
While I disagree with some of the author's other points, I found most of the arguments to be well articulated and researched. If the author demolishes a number of myths dear to American hearts (of those few Americans who know anything about the War of 1812), he equally refutes some of those myths dear to the hearts of Canadians, specifically the myth that the Canadian militia won the war and the misconception that the War of 1812 was nothing more than an attempt at annexation of Canada.
Readers unfamiliar with the War of 1812 would be well-advised to read a complete narrative of the conflict before starting Hickey's book about the myths, so that they will have a point of reference for the events and persons detailed in "Don't Give Up the Ship!"
No matter which of the combatants with which you sympathize, I heartily recommend Hickey's book!
December 20, 2023
Many histories are arranged chronologically or focus on a particular individual or event. “Don’t Give Up The Ship” is arranged into six topics: The Causes of the War; Battles and Campaigns; The Maritime War; Soldiers, Sailors and Civilians; The Mechanics of Waging War; and The End of the War. Each topic is divided into several subtopics. The subtitle, “Myths of the War of 1812” tells much about the author’s approach. He begins with the generally accepted and examines how much is true or not. The text is supplemented with maps, drawings and portraits. I knew a fair amount about the War of 1812 when I first picked up this work and found the author’s format to be a very effective method to learn more. I chose to read this book straight through, with many interruptions, but it could be kept on your shelf for reference when a question pops up, as I plan to do.
For a taste of the analysis presented in this book, let us consider the oft-offered British Impressment of American seamen as a cause of the War. Why did the British adopt impressment? Who were impressed? How many? Why was it a casus belli?
Why? The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars raised the need for Royal Navy seamen from 36,000 in 1793 to 114,000 in 1812, during which 100,000 perished either from accident or disease. Merchant vessels paid better. Being chronically short of enlistments, impressment, a form of loosely structured draft, to use modern terminology, was employed in seaports and merchant vessels of Britain or those of neutrals while in British ports or on the high seas.
Who? British law held that no one could renounce the status of British subject, a position accepted by the United States until 1848, hence even those naturalized as American citizens were, in the British view, liable for impressment.
How many? Estimates vary, but 10,000 is a reasonable figure, few of whom were either naturalized American citizens or mistakenly identified American natives.
Casus belli? Although maritime issues were frequently mentioned at the time, impressment was likely a minor portion of that.
That gives you an idea of the breath of analysis in one of the dozens of subjects examined.
Those possessing an interest in the early American Republic in general or the War of 1812 in particular, owe much to Professor Hickey for his scholarship and authorship. Read “Don’t Give Up The Ship”, savor it and, whenever you have a question about the War of 1812, pick it up and read again.
For a taste of the analysis presented in this book, let us consider the oft-offered British Impressment of American seamen as a cause of the War. Why did the British adopt impressment? Who were impressed? How many? Why was it a casus belli?
Why? The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars raised the need for Royal Navy seamen from 36,000 in 1793 to 114,000 in 1812, during which 100,000 perished either from accident or disease. Merchant vessels paid better. Being chronically short of enlistments, impressment, a form of loosely structured draft, to use modern terminology, was employed in seaports and merchant vessels of Britain or those of neutrals while in British ports or on the high seas.
Who? British law held that no one could renounce the status of British subject, a position accepted by the United States until 1848, hence even those naturalized as American citizens were, in the British view, liable for impressment.
How many? Estimates vary, but 10,000 is a reasonable figure, few of whom were either naturalized American citizens or mistakenly identified American natives.
Casus belli? Although maritime issues were frequently mentioned at the time, impressment was likely a minor portion of that.
That gives you an idea of the breath of analysis in one of the dozens of subjects examined.
Those possessing an interest in the early American Republic in general or the War of 1812 in particular, owe much to Professor Hickey for his scholarship and authorship. Read “Don’t Give Up The Ship”, savor it and, whenever you have a question about the War of 1812, pick it up and read again.
August 9, 2022
Excellent narrative style, simple and clear to read. I loved the organization of the book and how the detailed table of contents made it easy to look up specific battles. I also appreciated the size of the sections, the book is broken down into short and easy to digest rebuttals of common myths
September 1, 2020
Definitely reflects the state of history as a discipline at the time it was originally written. Some readers may find some sections offensive.
June 23, 2025
A fascinating account of the war of 1812.
May 11, 2013
I'm a little torn about what to say about Don't Give Up the Ship!.
One one hand, the book provided me with a lot of tidbits about the War of 1812 that I didn't know. That makes sense, given the subtitle ("Myths of the War of 1812"), and I appreciated the information.
On the other hand, the book's presentation of information is somewhat disjointed and the reader must know the general history of the war in order to be able to put all of the tidbits in the proper framework. That also makes sense... again, the author is very upfront about his purposes: to set the record straight on the myths and misconceptions of the war (of which he assumes the reader knows many).
Fair enough. But as I was reading this, I couldn't help but think that Mr. Hickey could have presented the myths and misconceptions while presenting a more coherent structure and storyline. That may be unfair of me... I am no author and I sometimes have to remind myself of how difficult the craft is.
I will say one thing definitively. Several of the reviews I read before purchasing this book complained that Mr. Hickey was biased towards to British point of view. Balderdash! I found this to be a very balanced presentation of the facts and a welcome change from the many history books that just can't bring themselves to admit that we might have declared and fought a war in which we were not clearly in the right.
So, bottom line: four stars for information, but a reluctant deduction for presentation. However, if you have a decent understanding of the history of the War of 1812, then I think you'll find this book of great interest.
One one hand, the book provided me with a lot of tidbits about the War of 1812 that I didn't know. That makes sense, given the subtitle ("Myths of the War of 1812"), and I appreciated the information.
On the other hand, the book's presentation of information is somewhat disjointed and the reader must know the general history of the war in order to be able to put all of the tidbits in the proper framework. That also makes sense... again, the author is very upfront about his purposes: to set the record straight on the myths and misconceptions of the war (of which he assumes the reader knows many).
Fair enough. But as I was reading this, I couldn't help but think that Mr. Hickey could have presented the myths and misconceptions while presenting a more coherent structure and storyline. That may be unfair of me... I am no author and I sometimes have to remind myself of how difficult the craft is.
I will say one thing definitively. Several of the reviews I read before purchasing this book complained that Mr. Hickey was biased towards to British point of view. Balderdash! I found this to be a very balanced presentation of the facts and a welcome change from the many history books that just can't bring themselves to admit that we might have declared and fought a war in which we were not clearly in the right.
So, bottom line: four stars for information, but a reluctant deduction for presentation. However, if you have a decent understanding of the history of the War of 1812, then I think you'll find this book of great interest.
May 28, 2012
The author is a Anglophile who in essence balames the War of 1812 on the Americans since they would not roll over and take the treatment given out by the British as the cost of doing business in a world at war. He has every little good to say about the Americans even in their victories. This is a rabid revisionist history of the war but it does provide another perspective for anyone interested in history as all sides of an issue should be explored and then judgements made.
August 19, 2024
Gives new value to the War of1812
Gives new and clear insight to a little known war in America history. Grow up in Ohio you hear and see a great deal about this time in our history. Now comes this book that gives new light to the events and you can see more clearly how our history was really lived out in daily life. As for some of the myths,when facts come in conflict the legend, print the legend s !
Gives new and clear insight to a little known war in America history. Grow up in Ohio you hear and see a great deal about this time in our history. Now comes this book that gives new light to the events and you can see more clearly how our history was really lived out in daily life. As for some of the myths,when facts come in conflict the legend, print the legend s !
September 14, 2011
Answers a lot of practical questions about the War of 1812 in a very readable style.
November 3, 2014
A few minor quibbles . . . the death of Tecumseh, his analysis of who won the war, etc. But overall, pretty groovy.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews