What do you think?
Rate this book
1812: The Navy's War
At the outbreak of the War of 1812, America’s prospects looked dismal. It was clear that the primary battlefield would be the open oceanbut America’s war fleet, only twenty ships strong, faced a practiced British navy of more than a thousand men-of-war. Still, through a combination of nautical deftness and sheer bravado, the American navy managed to take the fight to the British and turn the tide of the war: on the Great Lakes, in the Atlantic, and even in the eastern Pacific.
In 1812: The Navy’s War, prizewinning historian George C. Daughan tells the thrilling story of how a handful of heroic captains and their stalwart crews overcame spectacular odds to lead the country to victory against the world’s greatest imperial power. A stunning contribution to military and national history, 1812: The Navy’s War is the first complete account in more than a century of how the U.S. Navy rescued the fledgling nation and secured America’s future.
491 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
140 people are currently reading
899 people want to read
About the author
George C. Daughan
6 books17 followersGeorge C. Daughan earned a Ph.D. in American history and government from Harvard University. He has taught at the United States Air Force Academy, Connecticut College, the University of Colorado, the University of New Hampshire, and Wesleyan University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
February 22, 2013
1812: The Navy’s War is a well written account of America’s war with Britain from 1812 till 1815. The author has attempted to show the role of the fledgling US Navy and how it was a determining factor on the conduct of the war and the subsequent peace signed at Ghent in 1814.
The author has provided the reader with great accounts of naval combat; ship-to-ship broadsides, boarding parties and frigates manoeuvring through shot and shell and stormy waters to gain the tactical advantage. Mr Daughan has not neglected the many combats on land along the Canadian-US border nor the many naval combats along the lakes and waterways in that area. He also covers the happenings in Napoleonic Europe as the Emperor of France marches into Russia and the subsequent campaigns to push his forces back to the borders of France.
The political manoeuvres in American, Europe and Britain are not neglected either, nor the fighting in other parts of America concluding with the disastrous battle of New Orleans. The book has fifteen maps covering every area of the conflict including Europe and a number of black & white diagrams and drawings. It would have been nice to have a few of the wonderful colour prints depicting the many naval combats mentioned included in the book but I dare say the expense negated that possibility.
The one thing that for me detracted from this enjoyable account was the author’s numerous comments enforcing his view that the British were ‘bad’ while Americans were ‘good’. This could have been left out or presented in a way so the reader could draw their own conclusions from the historical facts. However, having said that this is still a book that anyone interested in this period will enjoy and I recommend it for all that enjoy a good history book.
The author has provided the reader with great accounts of naval combat; ship-to-ship broadsides, boarding parties and frigates manoeuvring through shot and shell and stormy waters to gain the tactical advantage. Mr Daughan has not neglected the many combats on land along the Canadian-US border nor the many naval combats along the lakes and waterways in that area. He also covers the happenings in Napoleonic Europe as the Emperor of France marches into Russia and the subsequent campaigns to push his forces back to the borders of France.
The political manoeuvres in American, Europe and Britain are not neglected either, nor the fighting in other parts of America concluding with the disastrous battle of New Orleans. The book has fifteen maps covering every area of the conflict including Europe and a number of black & white diagrams and drawings. It would have been nice to have a few of the wonderful colour prints depicting the many naval combats mentioned included in the book but I dare say the expense negated that possibility.
The one thing that for me detracted from this enjoyable account was the author’s numerous comments enforcing his view that the British were ‘bad’ while Americans were ‘good’. This could have been left out or presented in a way so the reader could draw their own conclusions from the historical facts. However, having said that this is still a book that anyone interested in this period will enjoy and I recommend it for all that enjoy a good history book.
June 26, 2013
The title is misleading. This book is about the entire war both on land and at sea. The title refers to the most organized, if smallest department of our military that has always been the strong arm of the United States, the US Navy, during the war with England in 1812. Though it was the Navy who was able to project strength halfway around the world and delivered several David vs. Goliath blows against the worlds' Nautical Super Power, surviving this war was, what the Navy would call, an "all hands evolution."
Daughan's recount of the events leading up to during and after the war reach as far as the Indian Ocean and weave a tapestry for view that allows us to understand all of the complex pressures that lead to victory and survival. From bickering military and militia leaders, to Napoleon, to British addiction to the practice of Impressment, Daughan puts all of the pieces together and explains how events across the entire globe both were affected by, and had an effect on the outcome of nearly every battle.
I would have rated this book five stars, if Daughan had not shifted comments to "vilify" the British. It's one thing to discuss England's angry attitude and sentiment towards the U.S. it's another to vilify the actions of commanders at war and the troops under them for waging war. As he says many times in the book, (paraphrasing) "These acts by the American Military were wrong and unjust but they are nowhere near what the British were guilty of and in no way are they justified as retaliation," Daughan gives an accurate account of those things that were gross injustices, both by the Americans and the British, and, as much as his sources and references are accurate (which they are very accurate) the British offenses along the Chesapeake and Great Lakes were greater and there for worse in scope than those committed by Americans. But make no mistake- injustice is injustice, the end result of bad or wrong thinking is often curbed only by the size of the force committing the injustice. By this scale, the English were no more "at fault" for atrocities of war than the Americans were or vice versa.
In fact, though, this is the reason I lowered my mark from 5 stars to 4 of five, Daughan does a brilliant job of showing how senseless tit-for-tat actions meant as retaliation for some perceived offense that is more personal than strategic nearly always end in folly with the perpetrator of those acts having more remorse and regret than the victims who survived it regardless of who is guilty of acting first. There are always bad people on both sides of a war, and, given the time, arms and opportunity, those bad men will always commit acts that will embarrass their mother country. Retaliation in war means committing the same bad acts on the enemy that they have committed on you and the senseless vicious circle of escalation serves no strategic or tactical purpose in war. War is hell. It has always been hell. War will always be Hell. Unleashing the beast within only fans the flame and spreads the smoke and brimstone enjoyed by those whose souls are sour and rotten.
By Contrast, for the most part, with some notable exceptions, the Navy on both sides conducted brutal war, then, once the battle had been decided, retired from it like gentlemen. Usually I scoff at the idea of "Noble War," in this light, though naive, it is a better choice than brutality for brutalities sake.
And, the best message in the entire book, told from start to finish is not so much what happened, or who achieved which victory, or who screwed up, there was enough blame to go around, but "HOW" the United States, as a Nation conducted the war. There were separatist factions and talk of secession, but no state attempted it. There was little money and no agreement in congress, yet, martial law was never established other than in combat zones and for good reason. There were anti-war activists, yet no laws about sedition were pushed or drawn up and, in the end, despite the disagreements, dangers national poverty and, weakness, the decisions and policies, strategy etc. were all well within the bounds of the Constitution and, as a Nation, after the war ended, the bonds that hold us together in brotherhood grew stronger, not weaker. This was the first test of the United States after winning their Independence and the United States passed the test, even with the heavy losses, dumb-assed military maneuvers and lack of a coherent war policy. How we fight the war and how we conduct ourselves as citizens is more our strength than superior high tech weaponry. How we "live" every day, is more important to us as citizens than dreaming of a goal and taking any means to achieve it without regard to the effect it will have on those around us.
Heroes come and go. Heroes when looked at under a microscope tend to shrink and become more human. It's the ideals properly thought and recorded, practiced and fought for that should be celebrated. Surely we had a lot to fix in 1815, slavery, voting rights, the war with the Native American Indians and it would take us years to even begin to settle those scores and learn how to apply compassion and allow dignity for those who practice a different way of life. This is where it started and, 2 hundred years later, we still have work to do, but, by looking back, we can see that we have made progress, tremendous progress.
Strong, proper steps to begin a journey are the best way to sustain heart and soul until it is done.
Daughan's recount of the events leading up to during and after the war reach as far as the Indian Ocean and weave a tapestry for view that allows us to understand all of the complex pressures that lead to victory and survival. From bickering military and militia leaders, to Napoleon, to British addiction to the practice of Impressment, Daughan puts all of the pieces together and explains how events across the entire globe both were affected by, and had an effect on the outcome of nearly every battle.
I would have rated this book five stars, if Daughan had not shifted comments to "vilify" the British. It's one thing to discuss England's angry attitude and sentiment towards the U.S. it's another to vilify the actions of commanders at war and the troops under them for waging war. As he says many times in the book, (paraphrasing) "These acts by the American Military were wrong and unjust but they are nowhere near what the British were guilty of and in no way are they justified as retaliation," Daughan gives an accurate account of those things that were gross injustices, both by the Americans and the British, and, as much as his sources and references are accurate (which they are very accurate) the British offenses along the Chesapeake and Great Lakes were greater and there for worse in scope than those committed by Americans. But make no mistake- injustice is injustice, the end result of bad or wrong thinking is often curbed only by the size of the force committing the injustice. By this scale, the English were no more "at fault" for atrocities of war than the Americans were or vice versa.
In fact, though, this is the reason I lowered my mark from 5 stars to 4 of five, Daughan does a brilliant job of showing how senseless tit-for-tat actions meant as retaliation for some perceived offense that is more personal than strategic nearly always end in folly with the perpetrator of those acts having more remorse and regret than the victims who survived it regardless of who is guilty of acting first. There are always bad people on both sides of a war, and, given the time, arms and opportunity, those bad men will always commit acts that will embarrass their mother country. Retaliation in war means committing the same bad acts on the enemy that they have committed on you and the senseless vicious circle of escalation serves no strategic or tactical purpose in war. War is hell. It has always been hell. War will always be Hell. Unleashing the beast within only fans the flame and spreads the smoke and brimstone enjoyed by those whose souls are sour and rotten.
By Contrast, for the most part, with some notable exceptions, the Navy on both sides conducted brutal war, then, once the battle had been decided, retired from it like gentlemen. Usually I scoff at the idea of "Noble War," in this light, though naive, it is a better choice than brutality for brutalities sake.
And, the best message in the entire book, told from start to finish is not so much what happened, or who achieved which victory, or who screwed up, there was enough blame to go around, but "HOW" the United States, as a Nation conducted the war. There were separatist factions and talk of secession, but no state attempted it. There was little money and no agreement in congress, yet, martial law was never established other than in combat zones and for good reason. There were anti-war activists, yet no laws about sedition were pushed or drawn up and, in the end, despite the disagreements, dangers national poverty and, weakness, the decisions and policies, strategy etc. were all well within the bounds of the Constitution and, as a Nation, after the war ended, the bonds that hold us together in brotherhood grew stronger, not weaker. This was the first test of the United States after winning their Independence and the United States passed the test, even with the heavy losses, dumb-assed military maneuvers and lack of a coherent war policy. How we fight the war and how we conduct ourselves as citizens is more our strength than superior high tech weaponry. How we "live" every day, is more important to us as citizens than dreaming of a goal and taking any means to achieve it without regard to the effect it will have on those around us.
Heroes come and go. Heroes when looked at under a microscope tend to shrink and become more human. It's the ideals properly thought and recorded, practiced and fought for that should be celebrated. Surely we had a lot to fix in 1815, slavery, voting rights, the war with the Native American Indians and it would take us years to even begin to settle those scores and learn how to apply compassion and allow dignity for those who practice a different way of life. This is where it started and, 2 hundred years later, we still have work to do, but, by looking back, we can see that we have made progress, tremendous progress.
Strong, proper steps to begin a journey are the best way to sustain heart and soul until it is done.
December 30, 2013
The U.S. situation was grim two years after the war of 1812 began. Washington, D.C., was in ruins, red rockets were glaring and bombs bursting in air at Baltimore. Might we again become subjected to Britain? It all began when President Madison and Congress declared war after Great Britain had over the years condescendingly impressed (kidnapped) 14,000 sailors from American ships. Madison, in particular, was fed up and thought the time opportune to retaliate. After all, since the British were preoccupied with fighting Napoleon in Europe, perhaps the U.S. could also quickly lop off a bit of Canadian territory. The Canadian adventure flopped, though, plagued by inept generals and wide-range bungling. Then the European war ended when Napoleon abdicated and British troops were freed for American action. They swarmed to the U.S., burned Washington, wreaked havoc on coastal port cities, but were stopped at Baltimore and New Orleans. By 1815 weariness of both countries prompted peace settlement. Impressments ended and the British gained respect for American military prowess, particularly at sea.
October 1, 2013
Daughan takes the unappealing tack of constantly using nautical terms without explaining them. If you know about how ships worked in the Age of Sail, you'll be able to follow his accounts of naval fights. If not, then not. As a general history, it's pretty standard. Most of the interest is just in cataloguing the sheer amount of incompetence and tripping over their own shoes that the Madison Administration managed in the shiny new war they choose.
Anyone whining about the divisiveness of current politics is advised to visit Massachusetts in 1812 where a mob tar and feathered their congressman for voting for the war.
Anyone whining about the divisiveness of current politics is advised to visit Massachusetts in 1812 where a mob tar and feathered their congressman for voting for the war.
December 11, 2012
A little long winded at times, this tome of knowledge will satisfy your thirst for an often overlooked piece of American history. Well written and easy to digest, it includes a glossary to help understand sailing terms from an earlier era that Salts and Lubbers will appreciate.
October 1, 2012
It took me a couple of days of listening before it dawned on me that this is the bicentennial of the War of 1812. That is not why I read this book, but it is one reason why I am glad I read this book now.
My ignorance about all things related to the War of 1812 was appalling. However, in the course of reading the book, I discovered that I was not alone, and that many of my friends knew no more than I did.
I knew two things about the war... It was with England, and that Francis Scott Key wrote the SSB during the bombardment of Baltimore. And I knew Andrew Jackson won a battle in New Orleans.
Things that I could not have told you before I read this book included:
Who was president at the time?
Why did we go to war?
Who else was England at war with in 1812?
What neighbor did we try to annex thru the war?
What major American city was burned during the war? (ok, I think I knew something about this)
What were the two wars that we fought between the revolutionary war and the war of 1812?
I now know the answer to all of these questions, and I'll be happy to burden you with all of this info if you are ever so interested.
But this is a review of the book, and not the war of 1812 final exam. You now know the best thing about the book... It is informative!
And the author does a great job explaining the importance of the war in changing British attitudes about the quality and character of Americans. He also illustrates that presidential incompetence and political infighting is an American tradition. That President Madison's reputation survived the war is a sheer stroke of incredible luck, because he surrounded himself with bumblers, so it seems.
I just have one "criticism" of the book. It is scary to me how much time the author spent documenting the names of all of the ships that participated in all of the battles of the war, AND how many guns (artillery) and what type each one had. At times, my ears got crossed from listening to the narrator rattle off the numbers.
And at the end of each battle, he would then report what he repeatedly called the "butcher's bill", the number of dead and wounded on each side. Most of the time, the numbers were small, but it does remind one that war brings a sudden end to the hopes and dreams of so many!
Good book to learn a key part of our history.
January 16, 2012
The United States entered the War of 1812 wholly unprepared. There was no national army or navy; there was no way to raise money other than borrowing, as there was no taxation system; and there was no agreement among Federalists and Madison's party on either whether or how the war should be waged. "The Congress have met in a bad temper, grumbling at everything in order to avert the responsibility which they have incurrred in refusing to provide the solid foundation for revenue and relying on loans. They have suffered the specie to go out of the country, adopted a halfway system of taxation, refused or omitted to establish in due time a national bank, and yet expect the war to carried on with energy," Secretary of the Treasury (and the Navy) William Jones would write to the president in 1815.
It may sound like 2012, but in one sense or another the arguments over federal spending have been occurring as long as the American republic has existed. It took a devastating and poorly-run war for James Madison to switch from opposition to any taxes to run the central government to realizing that at a minimum a standing army and navy were essential to survival.
Daughan's book is unique in concentrating on naval battles and how tactics determined the outcome. His description of the cooperation of naval officers and the land forces of Gen. Andrew Jackson in the Battle of New Orleans (actually fought after the treaty that ended the war) is excellent. And he describes in detail the differences in treatment of crews between the British and American officers, the former relying on impressment and capital punishment as the grease to keeping their ships at sea. Indeed, when called to fight on American soil, desertion rates of 10% or more were common.
It may sound like 2012, but in one sense or another the arguments over federal spending have been occurring as long as the American republic has existed. It took a devastating and poorly-run war for James Madison to switch from opposition to any taxes to run the central government to realizing that at a minimum a standing army and navy were essential to survival.
Daughan's book is unique in concentrating on naval battles and how tactics determined the outcome. His description of the cooperation of naval officers and the land forces of Gen. Andrew Jackson in the Battle of New Orleans (actually fought after the treaty that ended the war) is excellent. And he describes in detail the differences in treatment of crews between the British and American officers, the former relying on impressment and capital punishment as the grease to keeping their ships at sea. Indeed, when called to fight on American soil, desertion rates of 10% or more were common.
May 17, 2012
Call it 4.5 stars. Despite the title, this book is a good all-around introduction to one of America's most under-appreciated wars, and much like Washington's Crossing it kind of makes you wonder how America managed to succeed at all. Certainly the country's first few decades were a thoroughly precarious affair, and never moreso than the second half of this war.
This book should be required reading for two groups of people: military officers, and politicians. The former because the war went far worse for the US than it might've if competent men had been in charge of the military. Poor scouting, poor intelligence, poor training, and poor decision making cost hundreds or thousands of lives.
The latter because the politics of 1812-1814 are more like the politics of today than they were the politics of any other period except perhaps the Civil War. Members of the opposition Federalist party took every dirty trick they knew to undercut the president, and they were willing to throw the US under a bus and make peace with Britain if it meant getting rid of James Madison. Needless to say, there were some similarities.
This would've been five stars, but I knocked a half-star off because the author lets his pro-American bias show a bit more often than he should. It doesn't hurt his credibility, but it was an unnecessary mistake on his part. Still, a great book, and highly recommended to history fans everywhere.
This book should be required reading for two groups of people: military officers, and politicians. The former because the war went far worse for the US than it might've if competent men had been in charge of the military. Poor scouting, poor intelligence, poor training, and poor decision making cost hundreds or thousands of lives.
The latter because the politics of 1812-1814 are more like the politics of today than they were the politics of any other period except perhaps the Civil War. Members of the opposition Federalist party took every dirty trick they knew to undercut the president, and they were willing to throw the US under a bus and make peace with Britain if it meant getting rid of James Madison. Needless to say, there were some similarities.
This would've been five stars, but I knocked a half-star off because the author lets his pro-American bias show a bit more often than he should. It doesn't hurt his credibility, but it was an unnecessary mistake on his part. Still, a great book, and highly recommended to history fans everywhere.
September 17, 2012
Naval History was mandatory at Navy. This retold the facts and details I knew (and ones I did not know, the very last hold outs defending Washington DC from burning by the British after the Army had left were Sailors and Marines at the Washington Navy yard. They stopped them for a while too.) in a more readable way. It tells the story of the people who made the history, the Captains and Admirals and their egos that were a part of the story. It also explains very well why this was an important war for the US and not just an ill advised conflict we should not have got involved in and that we were lucky to fight to a draw. This really was worthy of GOOD READ mention.
October 25, 2014
Great book, excellent single volume history of the naval war of 1812. Daughan does an excellent job of putting the naval action in the proper setting and giving the wider picture of the action, and the political aspects as well, along with the goings-on in Europe and how they affected the war effort.
July 11, 2019
Ever since living in Canada for a few years I’ve wondered about the War of 1812. Patriotic Canadians would always tell Americans that they kicked our butts in this war.
This book provides great detail about the Navy battles. I am not sure if there was a land war that coincided with this war or not. This was an interesting and compelling story and recounting of events.
At times I hard a hard time keeping track of which ships were on what side and which ShipMasters were for which Country. At times I got daydreaming but never felt like I missed a large part of the plot. This is a great historical account.
I can’t imagine being a sailor on a war ship and being so close to an enemy ship exchanging canon and musket fire. It seems those who lived were just a little more lucky than those who didn’t. Such unique tactics and objectives.
This book left me wanting more, not for lack of content but more for a need to know more details about this conflict.
As a war history enthusiast, I’d recommend this to any who have read any war type novels. It also appealed to me for my infatuation with Pirate stories!
This book provides great detail about the Navy battles. I am not sure if there was a land war that coincided with this war or not. This was an interesting and compelling story and recounting of events.
At times I hard a hard time keeping track of which ships were on what side and which ShipMasters were for which Country. At times I got daydreaming but never felt like I missed a large part of the plot. This is a great historical account.
I can’t imagine being a sailor on a war ship and being so close to an enemy ship exchanging canon and musket fire. It seems those who lived were just a little more lucky than those who didn’t. Such unique tactics and objectives.
This book left me wanting more, not for lack of content but more for a need to know more details about this conflict.
As a war history enthusiast, I’d recommend this to any who have read any war type novels. It also appealed to me for my infatuation with Pirate stories!
October 30, 2022
DNF
This book is a major disappointment. It reads like a graduate school textbook. It is drier than the Sahara desert.
The good thing is is well referenced and very well researched.
I would only recommend it for historical specialists.
This book is a major disappointment. It reads like a graduate school textbook. It is drier than the Sahara desert.
The good thing is is well referenced and very well researched.
I would only recommend it for historical specialists.
September 3, 2025
Well researched, well written and action packed!
February 26, 2012
This book is more than just a naval history of the War of 1812. It covers a lot of the land battles like the battles in the Niagara region, the Battle of the Thames, the British burning the White House and other public buildings in Washington D.C. and the Battle of New Orleans, because these land battles can't be separated from the navies that transported the soldiers or the struggles for naval supremacy on Lakes Erie & Ontario. Without naval supremacy on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain, land invasions of Canada or upper New York couldn't succeed.
The author has an insightful analysis of U.S. and British politics. John Adams and the Federalist Party believed in a strong navy. But Jefferson, Madison and the Republican Party initially didn't believe in a strong army or navy. Madison's thinking evolved by the end of the war to the point where he urged Congress to maintain a strong navy after the war ended. This paid dividends when the U.S. navy won a brief, decisive naval campaign against Algiers right after the War of 1812. But during the war he was handicapped by Congress not voting to raise taxes to fund the war.
Early in the war, despite inept U.S. leadership, the U.S. navy won an impressive series of individual ship duels. Later on the British naval blockade made it very difficult for the U.S. ships to reach the open ocean. Both sides instructed their ship captains to avoid individual ship to ship combat. The U.S. wanted to use their ships, as well as privateers, to capture British merchant shipping. The British Admiralty instructed their ship captains to only seek combat in pairs or in squadrons.
The success of the U.S. navy earned them the grudging respect of the British navy. The author demonstrates how the successes and failures of the armies and navies influenced domestic politics and the negotiations to end the war. Ironically, the issues that caused the war like the British navy stopping American ships and seizing British sailors who deserted the British navy, weren't addressed in the Treaty of Ghent.
I do think the author overstated his conclusion that there was a dramatic improvement in U.S./British relations after the War of 1812. Yes, the British government treat the U.S. with more respect after the war. But as "A World On Fire" by Amanda Foreman demonstrates, 50 years later during the Civil War, there was still a lot of hostility in the U.S. towards Britain and there were still significant elements in Britain that wanted to see the Confederacy split from the U.S. to weaken the U.S. as a rival naval and economic power. At some point after the Civil War the U.S. and the U.K. became staunch allies. It would be interesting to read a historical study that examines just when and how relations between the U.S. and the U.K. changed.
I recommend this book. If you haven't read a history of the War of 1812, this book is a good place to start to get a better understanding of a little understood war fought 200 years ago. The U.S. history textbooks in school tend to gloss over the War of 1812 and tend to gloss over the U.S.'s failures and focus on the U.S.S. Constitution, the Star Spangled Banner and the Battle of New Orleans.
The author has an insightful analysis of U.S. and British politics. John Adams and the Federalist Party believed in a strong navy. But Jefferson, Madison and the Republican Party initially didn't believe in a strong army or navy. Madison's thinking evolved by the end of the war to the point where he urged Congress to maintain a strong navy after the war ended. This paid dividends when the U.S. navy won a brief, decisive naval campaign against Algiers right after the War of 1812. But during the war he was handicapped by Congress not voting to raise taxes to fund the war.
Early in the war, despite inept U.S. leadership, the U.S. navy won an impressive series of individual ship duels. Later on the British naval blockade made it very difficult for the U.S. ships to reach the open ocean. Both sides instructed their ship captains to avoid individual ship to ship combat. The U.S. wanted to use their ships, as well as privateers, to capture British merchant shipping. The British Admiralty instructed their ship captains to only seek combat in pairs or in squadrons.
The success of the U.S. navy earned them the grudging respect of the British navy. The author demonstrates how the successes and failures of the armies and navies influenced domestic politics and the negotiations to end the war. Ironically, the issues that caused the war like the British navy stopping American ships and seizing British sailors who deserted the British navy, weren't addressed in the Treaty of Ghent.
I do think the author overstated his conclusion that there was a dramatic improvement in U.S./British relations after the War of 1812. Yes, the British government treat the U.S. with more respect after the war. But as "A World On Fire" by Amanda Foreman demonstrates, 50 years later during the Civil War, there was still a lot of hostility in the U.S. towards Britain and there were still significant elements in Britain that wanted to see the Confederacy split from the U.S. to weaken the U.S. as a rival naval and economic power. At some point after the Civil War the U.S. and the U.K. became staunch allies. It would be interesting to read a historical study that examines just when and how relations between the U.S. and the U.K. changed.
I recommend this book. If you haven't read a history of the War of 1812, this book is a good place to start to get a better understanding of a little understood war fought 200 years ago. The U.S. history textbooks in school tend to gloss over the War of 1812 and tend to gloss over the U.S.'s failures and focus on the U.S.S. Constitution, the Star Spangled Banner and the Battle of New Orleans.
July 25, 2015
A thorough, well-written, and well-researched history of the naval war of 1812, both on the high seas and the Great Lakes, although it doesn’t include anything new. In 34 unimaginatively titled chapters, Daughan gives us a detailed history of the US navy and its impact on the course of the conflict. His accounts of the various ship-to-ship engagements are vivid, and, unlike many books on this topic, he also gives us all of the necessary detail on the war’s land campaigns, although most of the time these operations are given as much treatment as the naval battles, making the title a little misleading; in the end this is basically a history of the entire conflict. Daughan also puts the war in the context of the Napoleonic era, showing how the wars in Europe influenced events, although his account of Napoleon’s Russian campaign seems excessively in-depth and long.
While many books on this topic are somewhat hagiographical, Daughan avoids this pitfall. Many of those said books view the naval war as a David vs. Goliath fight that the US Navy won through some combination of ingenuity and skill, which is probably true, but only in certain respects: the US navy, for example, had much better gunnery training and tended to win engagements by firing at a ship’s mast and rigging with disabling shot at long range. The British, on the other hand, adopted a blood-and-guts approach that placed little emphasis on gunnery training or tactics and much more on close-in melees, which worked well enough against Napoleon’s warships, but not so well against the US navy. The US navy, while numerically a pipsqueak, had much better armament and construction, with better-trained crews and more ambitious commanders. Daughan also does a good job describing the impact on the war that the various ship-to-ship engagements actually had, rather than getting caught up in the individual battles as naval historians are wont to do.
The book has a good number of maps, although all of the pictures are black-and-white copies. And, inevitably, this book includes a good deal of naval terminology that has long since been forgotten. The narrative itself is a little disjointed, with many chapters and sections transitioning only roughly.There are also a few typos like Augustus Foster’s misreading of Madison’s willingness to fight “playing a not insignificant part in bring the war about” and Indians having “paddled canoes passed his fort” and referring to the River Raisin as the “Raison,” Plattsburgh as “Plattsburg,” Havre de Grace as “Harve de Grace,” John Rodgers as “Rogers” (an annoyingly frequent error), a reconnaissance in force as a “recognizance in force,” and a US marshal as a “marshall.” One British lieutenant colonel is referred to as both “Macdonnell” and “Macdonald” in the same paragraph.
Still, this is a well-paced and riveting read on an interesting subject.
While many books on this topic are somewhat hagiographical, Daughan avoids this pitfall. Many of those said books view the naval war as a David vs. Goliath fight that the US Navy won through some combination of ingenuity and skill, which is probably true, but only in certain respects: the US navy, for example, had much better gunnery training and tended to win engagements by firing at a ship’s mast and rigging with disabling shot at long range. The British, on the other hand, adopted a blood-and-guts approach that placed little emphasis on gunnery training or tactics and much more on close-in melees, which worked well enough against Napoleon’s warships, but not so well against the US navy. The US navy, while numerically a pipsqueak, had much better armament and construction, with better-trained crews and more ambitious commanders. Daughan also does a good job describing the impact on the war that the various ship-to-ship engagements actually had, rather than getting caught up in the individual battles as naval historians are wont to do.
The book has a good number of maps, although all of the pictures are black-and-white copies. And, inevitably, this book includes a good deal of naval terminology that has long since been forgotten. The narrative itself is a little disjointed, with many chapters and sections transitioning only roughly.There are also a few typos like Augustus Foster’s misreading of Madison’s willingness to fight “playing a not insignificant part in bring the war about” and Indians having “paddled canoes passed his fort” and referring to the River Raisin as the “Raison,” Plattsburgh as “Plattsburg,” Havre de Grace as “Harve de Grace,” John Rodgers as “Rogers” (an annoyingly frequent error), a reconnaissance in force as a “recognizance in force,” and a US marshal as a “marshall.” One British lieutenant colonel is referred to as both “Macdonnell” and “Macdonald” in the same paragraph.
Still, this is a well-paced and riveting read on an interesting subject.
February 12, 2013
In spite of the title, this book addresses all aspects of the War, not just naval. As it happens, even the land campaigns were largely determined by naval actions on the lakes and rivers.
Takeaways:
Most ship vs ship actions were fought during the early part of the war. After the defeat of Napoleon, the Royal Navy was able to blockade the American coast more effectively, making egress of American warships difficult. Also, after the string of decisive American victories in equally matched engagements early on , the British typically refused to engage with equal odds. Indeed, one major consequence of the War was increased British respect for American prowess, which made the post war naval environment more stable.
In late 1814, negotiations to end the war were not going well for the Americans. The British wanted to keep the territory they occupied, allow Canadian access to the Mississippi, create an Indian buffer state in the Mid west, cede Florida back to Spain, facilitate secession by New England, etc. A peace treaty under those terms would have likely caused the splitting up of the continent among multiple state, which was the British idea. American negotiators found it difficult to bargain because of an absence of recent American victories. Two events changed this: the (naval) Battle of Plattsburgh (on Lake Champlain), in which Commodore Thomas MacDonough defeated a Royal Navy squadron, forcing a withdrawal of the British land forces. The second event was Fort McHenry and the Battle of Baltimore. At that time, Washington was little more than a village, while Baltimore was a thriving town of 50,000. Its successful defense forced the British out of the upper Chesapeake and encouraged the American negotiators at Ghent.
Baltimore also played a major role in the naval war. In addition to naval shipbuilding and operations, the city hosted over 50 privateers, the most of any American port. These armed merchantmen were authorized by the government to attach, capture and sell enemy shipping. Over 2,000 British ships were lost in this manner.
Takeaways:
Most ship vs ship actions were fought during the early part of the war. After the defeat of Napoleon, the Royal Navy was able to blockade the American coast more effectively, making egress of American warships difficult. Also, after the string of decisive American victories in equally matched engagements early on , the British typically refused to engage with equal odds. Indeed, one major consequence of the War was increased British respect for American prowess, which made the post war naval environment more stable.
In late 1814, negotiations to end the war were not going well for the Americans. The British wanted to keep the territory they occupied, allow Canadian access to the Mississippi, create an Indian buffer state in the Mid west, cede Florida back to Spain, facilitate secession by New England, etc. A peace treaty under those terms would have likely caused the splitting up of the continent among multiple state, which was the British idea. American negotiators found it difficult to bargain because of an absence of recent American victories. Two events changed this: the (naval) Battle of Plattsburgh (on Lake Champlain), in which Commodore Thomas MacDonough defeated a Royal Navy squadron, forcing a withdrawal of the British land forces. The second event was Fort McHenry and the Battle of Baltimore. At that time, Washington was little more than a village, while Baltimore was a thriving town of 50,000. Its successful defense forced the British out of the upper Chesapeake and encouraged the American negotiators at Ghent.
Baltimore also played a major role in the naval war. In addition to naval shipbuilding and operations, the city hosted over 50 privateers, the most of any American port. These armed merchantmen were authorized by the government to attach, capture and sell enemy shipping. Over 2,000 British ships were lost in this manner.
October 2, 2012
If you read only one book about the War of 1812 this year (but really, who could read JUST one?), read this one.
George C. Daughan presents a very readable and dare I say 'enjoyable' overview of the War, its causes, the major battles, and instrumental players, and the effects of the war.
When I was in high school, the War of 1812 was largely skipped over. In fact, I think my teacher taught it something like this, "and then we had the war of 1812...after that Abraham Lincoln was elected president and freed the slaves."
I'm sorry...but the War of 1812 is just incredible! And if you don't think so, read this book!
We may think that a divided Congress and a President who pushes a war through is a relatively new thing. Not so! The War of 1812 remains the most narrowly approved war in American History. The war passed by one vote and Congress then refused to fund the war.
Not only did the War give us our National Anthem (Battle of Baltimore), but also was instrumental in establishing our Navy and making the United States a global player.
The Battles that occurred are more exciting...and often times more horrific than anything than Hollywood can conjure up. But the bravery that was evident far surpassed the political maneuverings of any politician.
Daughan's writing is very lucid and clear. He provides enough details about the construction of early 19th century ships and enough background to make any reader feel like they are in the thick of the battle.
I am not kidding, if you can choose one book as an overview for the War of 1812...this is it.
George C. Daughan presents a very readable and dare I say 'enjoyable' overview of the War, its causes, the major battles, and instrumental players, and the effects of the war.
When I was in high school, the War of 1812 was largely skipped over. In fact, I think my teacher taught it something like this, "and then we had the war of 1812...after that Abraham Lincoln was elected president and freed the slaves."
I'm sorry...but the War of 1812 is just incredible! And if you don't think so, read this book!
We may think that a divided Congress and a President who pushes a war through is a relatively new thing. Not so! The War of 1812 remains the most narrowly approved war in American History. The war passed by one vote and Congress then refused to fund the war.
Not only did the War give us our National Anthem (Battle of Baltimore), but also was instrumental in establishing our Navy and making the United States a global player.
The Battles that occurred are more exciting...and often times more horrific than anything than Hollywood can conjure up. But the bravery that was evident far surpassed the political maneuverings of any politician.
Daughan's writing is very lucid and clear. He provides enough details about the construction of early 19th century ships and enough background to make any reader feel like they are in the thick of the battle.
I am not kidding, if you can choose one book as an overview for the War of 1812...this is it.
May 25, 2013
This is a very well written and easy to read review of the critical role that the Navy played in the War of 1812.
It also made me more understanding of the importance of fighting this war to a stalemate. If the US had seriously lost the the war (lost control of Lake Erie, lost the Battle of Plattsburg, lost Baltimore), the shape of the North American continent would look very different. British North America (then Canada ??) would be the major player on the continent. Mexico perhaps retains it territories. New England succedes and makes a separate peace with Britian. The US is a small, primarily coastal country in the Mid-atlantic region. Who knows??
Daughan also portrays Madison as a strong president leading us into the war. I had always thought of the congressional War Hawks pulling him into the war. I need to do mare reading on that one.
I would strongly recommend the book.
It also made me more understanding of the importance of fighting this war to a stalemate. If the US had seriously lost the the war (lost control of Lake Erie, lost the Battle of Plattsburg, lost Baltimore), the shape of the North American continent would look very different. British North America (then Canada ??) would be the major player on the continent. Mexico perhaps retains it territories. New England succedes and makes a separate peace with Britian. The US is a small, primarily coastal country in the Mid-atlantic region. Who knows??
Daughan also portrays Madison as a strong president leading us into the war. I had always thought of the congressional War Hawks pulling him into the war. I need to do mare reading on that one.
I would strongly recommend the book.
September 9, 2013
It has been my summer for books on American History... Nancy Rubin Stuart, Nate Philbrick, Joseph Ellis, Bill O'Reilly and several on the Battle of the Alamo. While Mr. Daughan's work will most likely not make it to the silver screen soon, for someone like me who is a bit of a nautical junky it was fascinating. What did I enjoy the most? Obviously, the author was an expert at the methods and technology employed by the captains who made the British sit up and take notice of the nascent American Navy. It was primarily due to them that we achieved the respect and international recognition we had sought but been denied since the American Revolution. For those interested, the author also details the many land engagements that characterized this strange conflict. While only interesting to those of us who have a strong historical bent I recommend it for those interested in this often overlooked yet vitally important war.
October 31, 2012
Very solid book on the War of 1812, encompassing not just the events in North America but also the developments in Europe and how they impacted the American and British strategy. While the subtitle is 'The Navy's War', that is more a qualitative assessment as the book covers all of the major land engagements of the conflict as well as the encounters and fights on the high seas. Very accessible, evenhanded, and well written. This book reads rather quickly as the chapters are not too long but deftly package the important points of the historical material.
A few nit picks:
-A section defining some key terms and people (especially ship parts) would have been helpful.
-Reading how many of each type of gun every ship referenced had did get a bit tiresome after a while.
I would highly recomend this book for someone looking for an introduction to the subject.
A few nit picks:
-A section defining some key terms and people (especially ship parts) would have been helpful.
-Reading how many of each type of gun every ship referenced had did get a bit tiresome after a while.
I would highly recomend this book for someone looking for an introduction to the subject.
abandoned
December 17, 2013Hmm. Unfortunately this wasn't quite what I was looking for in a book about the War of 1812. It started out as a promising book, but boy, I sure am not wanting a blow by blow description of each naval battle. I don't know a frigate from a sloop of war, and I certainly don't understand the naval or nautical jargon the author populated this book with. Based on the subtitle I should have guessed that this book was not going to be quite what I was after, but it seemed like a good place to start. I am looking for something that focuses more on the politics of this war and how it figures into the development of the United States. I get that this war was crucial in the formation of the US Navy, and it's natural that there would be focus on that, but I need the broader political picture first.
August 14, 2013
I bought this thinking it would be a naval history of the often forgotten War of 1812. But I was pleasantly surprised to discover it was a good history of the war in general, though with a heavy Naval emphasis. Overall I love it when i open a history book and forget that I am reading a history. There is no reason history or any book for that matter, has to be difficult to read. This one was such a book, pleasant and well written. The facts are there and I think are arranged well. The war is well described and the various causes and effects of it explained well.
Overall the War of 1812 is a brief and often under reported war in my opinion. Some aspects of it, such as the burning of Washington DC are difficult to read about. But like all wars, to forget them maybe the worst thing.
Overall the War of 1812 is a brief and often under reported war in my opinion. Some aspects of it, such as the burning of Washington DC are difficult to read about. But like all wars, to forget them maybe the worst thing.
March 10, 2012
If you are a history fan, and you are not that familiar with the war of 1812, this is a must read. I enjoyed it. Well written and the level of detail I like. I've always known this was a very important piece of American history, but I never got my head around how important or what actually happened.
This author certainly has a naval focus which is interesting, but probably not the full picture. Lots to learn here and very interesting. What the young country achieved was amazing, especially from a naval standpoint. The Army didn't do as well, which is why Canada is Canada and not part of the US. Very good.
This author certainly has a naval focus which is interesting, but probably not the full picture. Lots to learn here and very interesting. What the young country achieved was amazing, especially from a naval standpoint. The Army didn't do as well, which is why Canada is Canada and not part of the US. Very good.
October 22, 2013
This was an engaging book detailing the circumstances and events of the War of 1812. Daughan gives a thorough treatment of not only the domestic events, but also the worldwide political situation that this war took place in. His chapter on Napoleon's invasion of Russia ranks as one of the most memorable chapters I've read in a book. The reader will learn about the many colorful personalities that defined the early navy of the United States of America. I highly recommend this book to those interested in learning about early United States history.
February 19, 2013
Though tedious at times, it provides a comprehensive account of the War of 1812. While special emphasis is placed on the Navy, the Army is not ignored. Daughan makes no bones about his patriotic fervor in favor of the Americans while justly criticizing the obnoxious deeds of the British. Great ending includes Daughan's thesis that the War of 1812 prompted Americans to develop a strong military in order that no other nation take advantage of them again.
December 4, 2012
For a book that says "The Navy's War" on the cover it seems to spend 1/2 the time talking about anything but the navy. I actually didn't finish the book and skipped huge sections about the land battles. The text drug on and on. If you are looking into a history of the Navy during the war of 1812 this isn't the book for you.
May 15, 2013
An excellent novel which does a fine job revealing many of the lesser discussed details of the War of 1812. I found myself frequently using wikipedia to understand some of the 19th century nautical terms and a few illustrations may have helped with this notwithstanding the author does an excellent job depicting both the naval battles as well as the politics that shaped the war.
January 8, 2016
An interesting look into the War of 1812, and how instrumental the fledgling US Navy was in our semi-victory..
August 11, 2012
I learned a lot about this war that I previously did not know.
August 30, 2012
An excellent history, especially for those unfamiliar with the war. Filled with tons of boarding actions, broadsides, and more, I highly recommend this one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews