I may have to make some time to watch TV tomorrow:
This month’s 200th anniversary of the start of the War of 1812 will be marked with a colossal bang: the television premiere of Explosion 1812, a new documentary that argues the intentional detonation of Upper Canada’s main ammunition supply at present-day Toronto in April 1813 — described as “one of the biggest explosions that had ever been witnessed in North America” — is a greatly underappreciated moment in history that was key to thwarting the U.S. conquest of Canada.
The two-hour, Canadian-made film — to be aired by History Television on June 17, the eve of the bicentennial of the formal U.S. declaration of war on June 18, 1812 — recounts how retreating British-Canadian troops at Fort York blew up the colony’s “grand magazine” along the Lake Ontario shore as American forces closed in on Upper Canada’s capital on April 27, 1813.
[. . .]
U.S. soldiers outraged at what they considered an act of extreme treachery — even a war crime because of their comrades’ fatal proximity to the explosion — went on a vengeful rampage in the captured capital, terrorizing the civilian population and pillaging residents’ property.Ê
Those actions, in turn, prompted a similar assault on Washington, D.C., in 1814, when the U.S. capital was stormed by British and Canadian troops who set fire to the White House.
Among the U.S. casualties at York was the famed commander of the invasion force, Gen. Zebulon Pike, an early explorer of the American West whose death — his chest crushed by falling rock from the blasted armoury — would be exploited to rally patriotic sentiment in the U.S. for the duration of the war.
Well, I tried watching it, but I lost my patience with the “Gosh, wow!” of the main presenter and their less-than-fully-convincing “scientific” reconstruction of the magazine explosion. I hope it improved after the first hour…
Comment by Nicholas — June 17, 2012 @ 21:18
It’s interesting to see the American viewpoint championed by the presenters. The american historian wrote a book calling the war of 1812 a civil war because there were Americans living in Canada. Much is made of the “late loyalists” ambivalence but the original Loyalists were refugees from the American revolution whose families had been killed and their lands and business looted by the victors. How anyone could imagine that these people would look on the invaders as “liberators” is beyond me. It would be like Israel invading Lebanon and wondering why the Palestinians don’t welcome them. The English presenter Robertshaw refers to the explosion of the magasine as a war crime and suggests it was an IED. Come on, denying your ammo to the enemy is logical and I should think widley used tactic throughout history. We are supposed to feel sorry for the Americans because they were ina poor position for the explosion at York and the British/Canadian/Native forces, although outnumbered 4 to 1 won at Stoney Creek by sneaking up on them (at night!).
Comment by Bill — June 18, 2012 @ 22:53
Elizabeth pointed out to me that it’s likely the highlighting of the “American” angle was in hopes of getting better viewer numbers on US broadcasts.
The stated notion that the defeat of a company in skirmishes required the surrender of the fort is absurd. Blowing up the magazine was absolutely legal under the rules of war as then understood. Pretending it was a war crime is ahistorical and anachronistic. The fact that the surviving American troops took their revenge on the civil population of York is closer to a war crime both under modern rules and under the rules of the day (note that I’m not saying it was, but that it came closer to being one than the destruction of the key element of the fort).
Comment by Nicholas — June 19, 2012 @ 07:52