Yankee Imperialists, we

Well, the evidence is mounting and only one verdict seems likely: conquest of Canada – at least parts of Canada – was a part of United States war planning in 1812.

I’ve been quite happy believing that our motives were all pure and that we only wanted to be left alone (by England, who had been interfering with our commerce and pressing American sailors into service in the English navy).

And I still believe that the War of 1812 was essentially intended as a reminder that we were a free and sovereign nation.

But, when American strategists assessed the situation, they must have been struck by the threat and opportunity presented here in the Great Lakes region.

The threat was that England could take advantage of its naval strength and ability and use lakes and rivers to outflank American forces. The war could easily have been lost in this “back-door” action, particularly in view of the fact that the British had already managed to capture our nation’s capital and to burn the White House.

The opportunity was that American victory in the region could force a British retreat and make it possible for the United States to conquer central Canada. By controlling the waters that provided the British with an advantage, Americans would not only eliminate that advantage, but also gain it for themselves.

Holding captured territories after the war would have been consistent with the burgeoning sense of destiny that Americans felt when they looked at the vast expanses of territory that could be added to the original 13 states.

The temptation had to have been strong and there’s little doubt that, had victory in the north been more decisive, the Americans probably would have demanded territory as part of the peace agreement.

As it was, both sides were ready to end the fighting and U.S. negotiators gave up all hope of expanding our borders north by agreeing to return to pre-war borders.

This aspect of our history was not emphasized when I was a young student. And the notion of Manifest Destiny was generally celebrated, as were our brutal conquering of Native Americans and Mexicans.

Current events have certainly sensitized me to this kind of historical awakening. Having been born and having grown up during a period of intense patriotism and national pride, each chink I discover in the American Armor hurts.

My first such unpleasant epiphany came in December of 1965. I remember being surrounded by grown-ups while engaged in a discussion/argument about the now-infamous and then-alleged Gulf of Tonkin Incident that led to American attacks on North Vietnam and a dramatic expansion of that conflict in Southeast Asia.

I remember feeling that I was being ganged up on and the humiliation that followed my ultimate, and (I believed) most compelling argument.

In a half-whimper-half-shout, I protested, “The president wouldn’t lie to the American people.”

The adults immediately burst into laughter.

Not for the last time, I realized that I was clinging to a truism based on American mythology. At a very early age, I had heard the story of George Washington and the cherry tree.

That message resonated in me; it comforted me. In my mind, it grew in importance as I extended the rule to all American presidents: The president wouldn’t lie to the American people.”

It sounds ridiculous today.

What a shame.

And so, I must now add Canadians to the list of those whom my country has dealt with in a less-than-ideal fashion. As believers in self-determination, we should not have contemplated “capturing” an occupied territory and imposing our way of life on the occupants.

And if that doesn’t sound like advice that applies today, you may not be paying attention.