“War and Memory”

The penultimate reading response for my Canada field!

Vance, Death So Noble

Taylor, The Civil War of 1812

Jonathan Vance’s Death So Noble: Memory, Meaning, and the First World War details the construction of a mythic version of the First World War, questioning why this war became so defining in Canadian history despite being divisive and destructive (11). Vance argues that a mythic version of the war formed through the cultural expressions of average Canadians, filling their explanatory and consolatory needs; it was not the creation of elite citizens or a means to entrench a social order (7, 10). In his cleanly-written and amply-illustrated chapters, Vance outlines several mythic constructions of the war, showing how they came together in cultural expressions and public observances. First, he considers the popular sense that the war was “just” because Canada had entered it to preserve peace; this idea made Canadian participation a source of pride (13). Canadian soldiers thus had fought to protect humanity and civilization, and most Canadians saw soldiers as the ultimate pacifists (29, 33). He then analyzes the religious connections to the war. Metaphors linking soldiers to Christ were prominent in visual and literary depictions of the war, portraying it as a defense of Christian principles (36-37). Those who had lost loved ones in the war could rest assured that fallen soldiers had willingly sacrificed their lives for a noble cause; memorials thus focused on expressions of gratitude, rather than grief (51).

Turning to the secular framework for the memorialization of the war, Vance explains that it had similar emotional links to sacrifice, and worked to portray war in a positive, nostalgic sense (73, 75, 77). Such “High Diction” representations, focusing on light, hoe, vitality, and colour, became so entrenched in popular culture such that a critique of this discourse was hardly possible (93-94). This discourse also drew links between the First World War and earlier battles, situating the war within the history of the Victorian British Empire (94).

Vance outlines how the status ascribed to soldiers and veterans as true patriots shamed men who did not serve, both during and after the war (112-114). The “cult of the service roll” focused on service at the front, often undervaluing other contributions to the war effort through factory or farming work (122). This built long-term solidarity and a sense of shared identity among veterans, casting them as distinctive from men who did not serve (135). Subsequently, extending the discussion of soldiers as a representation of Christ, Vance considers how soldiers became a personification or embodiment of Canada (136). Images of soldiers emphasized them products of their landscape (161), coming from traditional, rural backgrounds, in contrast to the mechanization of the war, and stressed their boyishness as symbolic of Canada’s innocence, enthusiasm, and future potential (142, 157-158). According to Vance, this ignored the fact that a minority of soldiers were actually born and raised in Canada, and that most were urban, rather than men of the land (161). Soldiers’ mothers were also important in representations of wartime sacrifice, symbolic of the link between Canada and Britain, and showing continuity between the nation’s past, present, and future (147-150).

Vance next explores how Canadians memorialized the mythic history that they had created, turning their version into a legitimized history supported by literature and academic work. One shortcoming in this section of Vance’s work is that he does not sufficiently take into account which particular Canadians were involved in the promotion of collective memory; certain voices have been left out of mythicized histories of the First World War, and Vance does not explore this, more or less taking for granted that this history was formed primarily by white men. In the absence of an “official” history of the First World War, local communities created unofficial histories, which were largely extensions of the “cult of the service roll” and aimed to be a tribute to the war, rather than an analysis of it (173). One particular concern for many Canadians was that Americans could filter and alter their war story, undermining the role of Canadians in battle victories (178-179). This observation allows intriguing parallels with Taylor’s analysis of the War of 1812 and how it has been presented in Canadian and American histories.

“In Flanders Fields” has long been central to Canadian memorials of the First World War, and thus it anchors Vance’s penultimate chapter, fittingly titled “If Ye Break Faith.” It has become part of Canadian vernacular, urging Canadians to safeguard their history and protect the principles for which they had waged war (199, 201). Expanding from the poem itself, Vance considers efforts to create national and community memorials to the war, arguing that there was a general consensus that memorials were necessary as an expression of fidelity from the living to the fallen (209), a tangible representation of a community’s values (210), and a place for teaching future generations (211). Similarly, Remembrance Day became “a public statement of the myth of Canada’s war” (216).

Vance’s final chapter considers the role of the war as a unifying force, stronger in Canadian memory than Confederation (227). As such, portrayals of the war became important to school curricula, for memorialization and instilling a sense of civic duty (236, 241). Among the challenges in creating this sort of mythic representation are the tensions that the war created between groups of Canadians; to highlight unity, French Canadians had to emphasize their sacrifices with images of the habitant doing his duty (252). This was a means of reconciliation through shared sacrifices in war (254). Vance concludes his work by arguing that this myth was overly optimistic, as it was not as meaningful for immigrants, First Nations, and French Canadians (259) and relied on an impossible extent of assimilation (260). While it was not a product of elite manipulation, the mythicized version of the war was “fashioned along Anglo-Canadian middle-class ideals of social unity” and thus remained fairly exclusive (261). Ultimately, the memory of the war was part of a widespread search for meaning (267).

Alan Taylor’s The Civil War of 1812 breaks down many of the ideas that a Canadian reader would have about the War of 1812. Arguably his most controversial contention is that the war was a civil war, as the British and Americans were not distinct peoples (8). Vance makes this argument by chronologically tracing the war in great detail, illustrating the rivalry of political systems and ideologies (12). He begins by examining the role of Loyalist and “Late Loyalist” settlers in Upper Canada and setting the stage for a division of American republicanism and British mixed constitution forms of governance (43). With a broad definition of Loyalists acceptable as immigrants to Upper Canada, these settlers were not particularly committed to the British Empire (72). While unlikely to rebel, they were also difficult to mobilize in the event of a war. These Upper Canadians became caught between the Americans and the British, and were undecided as to the extent that they should resist when the Americans invaded (141-144), although they became more inclined to see the Americans as invaders as the war progressed (267). Upper Canada, Taylor argues, was not all that distinct from the United States in terms of ethnicity, religion, or culture; the key division was political (71).

Starting in his fourth chapter, Taylor considers the direct causes of the War of 1812. One critical issue was impressment of American sailors by the British navy, which illustrated conflicting visions of citizens and subjects. The British felt that being a royal subject was a lifelong status, and considered American sailors to be deserters, rather than emigrants (105). This positioned the United States as a British colony, undermining the impact of the American Revolution (123), a problematic premise for Republicans who felt themselves to be politically distinct from the British Empire. Taylor states in his fifth chapter that historians have debated at length the causes of the War of 1812, namely whether the conquest of Canada was the goal of the war, or the means to another end (133-134). He outlines his goal of examining the interactions of maritime and frontier issues, the “synergy of multiple grievances” that produced the war (134-135). This contention about the debate is problematic—was it really that simple, with other historians on a “quest for the one true cause” of the war? This is one aspect of Taylor’s work that falls short.

Taylor’s work includes a patchy analysis of the role of First Nations peoples as a catalyst for the war. The position of First Nations—referred to unquestioningly as “Indians” throughout Taylor’s work—was a point of contention for the British, who saw First Nations as autonomous peoples, and Americans, who saw them as dependents of a sovereign state (126). First Nations participation is central to Taylor’s eighth chapter, sensationally entitled “Scalps,” which discusses how the British exploited American fears of “Indian warriors,” making First Nations soldiers particularly valuable to the British army (150, 203). Racial tensions are a repeated theme in this monograph; the Americans were routinely concerned about the treatment of white American soldiers and sailors at the hands of the British, arguing that the British were violating the bodies of white men as though they were black slaves (137).

Taylor’s analysis emphasizes the importance of American partisan politics in the War of 1812, noting that the Americans were specifically Republicans, with Federalists often obstructing the war effort (180). Within the United States, voters preferred Republican belligerence to Federalist peace promises, supporting the Republicans in a New York state election during the war (260). Following the war, Republicans attempted to portray American participation in the war as self-defense, and claimed victory on the basis of their national survival (420). This was appealing to American voters; the “myth of a glorious war confirmed by an honourable peace” helped Republicans politically (421).

The War of 1812, whether or not we accept Taylor’s contention that it was a civil war, certainly shared logistical challenges with civil wars more generally. In particular, there was no obvious way of distinguishing between one’s own troops and the enemy, due to common use of English (332). This meant that desertion and spying was a concern for both armies (333,340), and both sides aimed to “make and unmake citizens and subjects” through the recruitment and treatment of prisoners of war (379).

The War of 1812 was fought on a significantly populated borderland area, making civilians an important concern for both forces. Many areas experienced tensions between soldiers and civilians, particularly when the Republican army fought in regions with a predominantly Federalist civilian population (337). Many civilians saw any allegiance as “contractual and conditional,” an ambivalence that both sides interpreted as treachery (304-305). Many civilians profited by smuggling goods across a largely open border: in the St. Lawrence area, smuggled goods sustained British troops while diverting supplies from the American army; for rural people, nationalism was secondary to their profit and survival (291-292).

How do we define a “civil” war? Geopolitics and international diplomacy? Identity? Partisan politics? Heritage? Wouldn’t a war over the identities and definitions of citizens and subjects specifically not be a civil war? Taylor asserts that the War of 1812 was a civil war, but it could more accurately be described as a borderlands war, as it concerned attempts to differentiate soldiers and civilians across a contested border. Taylor’s chronological organization means that his themes are often quite scattered, diluting his argument in a sea of battle details. A focus on the war as a conflict over the border could fit well with Taylor’s final chapter, which outlines how the War of 1812 strengthened the border and the identities on either side of it, and argues that the war had “decisively divided the continent between the republic and the empire” (456).

There is an intriguing parallel in the works of Vance and Taylor showing the role of mythic versions of war for national identity. Taylor’s penultimate chapter on the peace process and the differing interpretations of the outcome of the War of 1812 corroborates Vance’s arguments about the memorialization of war, albeit more briefly. Taylor argues that the War of 1812 superficially looks like a draw, as there was no change in the international boundary or in British policies (437). A closer examination, however, shows “an ultimate American victory that secured continental predominance” (437), a contention at sharp odds with Canadian public memory of the war. Republicans saw the British acceptance of American control over their own border and navy as a belated American victory, despite British successes in battle (435).

Taylor concludes his work by stating that histories of the War of 1812 impose nationalisms on the past (458). This is clear when examining the official Canadian War of 1812commemorative site, which proclaims the war as “The Fight for Canada” and “a seminal event in the making of our great country.” Its banner is a staged photograph depicting four major figures who are central to the Canadian war effort. Notably, the three individuals of Euro-Canadian ancestry are described as “hero” or “heroine,” while the mouse-over caption for Tecumseh simply describes him as “Shawnee War Chief.” These four individuals are of short-term importance in Taylor’s analysis; he makes only brief mention of Laura Secord. Where Taylor portrays ambiguity or American triumph in a civil war, Canada’s official commemoration describes an unquestioned Canadian victory: the Prime Minister’s Message states that “The War helped establish our path toward becoming an independent and free country, united under the Crown with a respect for linguistic and ethnic diversity. The heroic efforts of Canadians then helped define who we are today, what side of the border we live on, and which flag we salute.” Whereas Taylor portrays ambivalent civilians and uncommitted soldiers and militia volunteers, the Canadian government of 2012 remembers cooperation between soldiers and volunteers. The disjuncture is clear.