Info 202 Fall 2011

The War of 1812 has long been a conundrum for school children and historians.  Fought due to miscommunication and to a large extent between irregular mobs, the War of 1812 has one final and irrepressible problem above all, the name does not successfully describe the conflict.  In truth, the war lasted well into 1815.

So why is it named this way?  First and foremost, this is not the only name by which the war is known.  As is popular amongst political opponents in the United States, any conflict quickly attract the name of the President who is at the helm.  Just as the war in Iraq was "Bush's War" and the war in Afghanistan is "Obama's War," the War of 1812 attracted the name "Madison's War" because it was President Madison who initiated it.  It has also attracted names such as "The Second War of American Independence" and "The Forgotten War" (although this name is also certainly applied to other conflicts, presumably more forgotten).  So one thing to consider is that this name has gone through some form of a selection process over the years.

As to why this name was chosen there is some debate on the matter, but wars (in the English language) are generally named for geographic or national enemies (the Mexican-American War, the Korean War, etc) or for a particular ideal or conflict type (the Revolutionary War, the Civil War).  The War of 1812 does not meet either of these criterion for descriptions for a number of reasons.

1) The war, while being one between Great Britain and the United States was largely fought by Canadians and Native American alliances and tribes throughout the territory of the United States.  While nominally a conflict between states, the fighting between British and US forces did not begin until 1814 and did not end until actually after the war ended.  This presents a problem in naming conventions because it would have been inappropriate to call the War of 1812 the British-American War because it was not fought by them until late in the war.

2) The war was not fought in a single geographic area but all over the United States and Canada.  Operations took place from Ontario to New Orleans and most of this was done by irregular forces against irregular forces so no single battlefield truly fixated the attention of the nation so much so that the area became the focus of the war.  Hence, no Canadian War or Midwest War.

3) While war between the United States and Great Britain was initiated in 1812, Britain was unable to commit anything more than token forces to deal with the US until after it had defeated Napoleon in 1814.  Thus there was a large time gap between when the war began and when the war was actually fought and thus concluded.  The war was not one which truly presented a striking idyllic tone either beyond national defense once the British arrived in force.  While nominally fought over freedom of the seas, the first act of the American military was an abortive invasion of Canada.  Without a real commitment to such an ideal, you do not have America's War on Shipping Lane Freedom.

This naming convention has long been applied to conflicts throughout the globe.  The War of 1812 was preceded by the War of 1753 (also known in the US as the French and Indian War) and also by the War of Jenkins' Ear (which was started because of a guy named Jenkins lost his ear).  War names are rarely as descriptive as may be desired.  Context and current information is often critical to determine what is meant by this or that conflict.  Of course, if it was possible to standardize the naming conventions behind wars, it seems likely that there wouldn't be anymore wars.