[Adm.Lee]

This week, I'm reading an issue of Naval History magazine, which is the 1812 anniversary issue. As you might guess, the US Navy is quite proud of its record in the War of 1812. As far as I know, the US Army is less so, with a few exceptions (Scott and Jackson, primarily).

Nearly everything I've read speaks of the tensions rising over sailors' rights, hardly anyone talks about imperialism vs. Canada. The exceptions have been works talking about the Federalist-Republican conflicts, pointing out that Jefferson's party spoke eagerly of easily routing the British and increasing the size of the country again. When that didn't happen, it seems the bellicosity got swept under the rug. Since the war (really, the defeat of Napoleon) ended the maritime harassment, that's what gets addressed in the histories written afterwards.

Here in Ohio, there is required state history in 4th and 7th grades. We spend a little more time on the fighting between settlers and natives before the War of 1812. By that time, the tribes had been driven out, and the War seems an aftermath. The big exception, of course, is the Battle of Lake Erie; there's a tall victory column on the nearest island. US history tends to zip through it on the way to the Civil War. Everything after WW1 tends to get squeezed in before final exams, IMO.

So, the Canadians wish to celebrate their victories, the US Navy wants to celebrate its victories; go for it, I say.

Simon and Raellus; those are great ideas to get the kids to work their own families into history, I know it's helped my interest. (Now, if only I could get my sons to pay attention....) On one of my family lines, I've found a Pennsylvania family that sent 4 sons to the war, one of them named his sons for war heros: O.H. Perry, Andrew Jackson, W.H. Harrison, etc.