MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037625195 · doi:10.1353/jer.2007.0031

Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812 (review)

2007· article· en· W2037625195 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gene A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Early Republic · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpanish Civil WarMythologyHistoryBattleConstitutionBannerLawIndependence (probability theory)George (robot)SociologyArt historyAncient historyPolitical scienceClassicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812 Gene Allen Smith (bio) Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812. By Donald R. Hickey. (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2006. Pp. 376. Cloth, $34.95.) The War of 1812 does not play a central role in the national creation story, nor does it currently garner much attention in the collective American memory. In fact, the conflict has been greatly overshadowed by the War for Independence, the American Civil War, and most recently by World War II. While students of the American past might remember that George Washington's army crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776, or that Confederate commander Robert E. Lee's home sat just south of the Potomac River overlooking the capital city, they most likely remember little about the War of 1812. Some may acknowledge that the national anthem and the iconic Fort McHenry Flag (the Star-Spangled Banner) both relate to the September 1814 British attack against Baltimore. Others may recognize that also in that year British forces burned public buildings in Washington, including the capitol and the president's house. But few realize that the nation's oldest active warship, the USS Constitution, secured its nickname, "Old Ironsides," during the war. Fewer still know that the motto of the U.S. Navy, "Don't give up the ship!," supposedly came from Captain James Lawrence's dying words when the British captured his frigate the Chesapeake in June 1813. In fact, most of what people think they understand about the war are myths perpetuated in the years after the conflict. Moreover, other important episodes of this war have failed to be cemented in the American memory, despite their obvious importance. [End Page 355] Most of what we believe we know about the War of 1812 has been generated by the post-War of 1812 selective memory. In the aftermath of the conflict Americans carefully chose to embellish the positives of the war while discounting the negatives. A new pantheon of American heroes—including Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Richard M. Johnson, Oliver Hazard Perry, Stephen Decatur, and Thomas McDonough—emerged and focused attentions on the postwar era and future rather than on the past. As a country, the United States had stood up to Great Britain once again and had not suffered defeat as had Napoleon and the French. In fact, the Treaty of Ghent did not declare a winner, prompting Americans to believe that since they had not lost the war, they had won. Thereafter the selective memory melded with an emergent nationalism to give Americans the psychological and cultural independence that had eluded them since 1783. Finally, since the United States was no longer a de facto British colony, nationalistic American accounts of the conflict held sway, perpetuating a host of myths that have lasted until the present. Donald R. Hickey's unique study Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of the War of 1812 addresses the myths, half truths, and realities of the forgotten last Anglo-American conflict. Organized into six broad sections—(1) The Causes of the War; (2) Battles and Campaigns; (3) The Maritime War; (4) Soldiers, Sailors, and Civilians; (5) The Mechanics of Waging War; (6) The End of War—along with a prologue that features a summary and overview of the war and an epilogue that assesses the war's legacy, this book successfully combines history, memory, and myth. Focusing on the mythology of the war, Hickey analyzes and dissects the stories about individuals and events, causes and consequences, and demonstrates that the myths about this conflict permitted the country to "construct a history that we are comfortable with and that meets certain deep-seated needs" (xvii). The postwar misconceptions and myths permitted Americans to construct their patriotic identity, while also bolstering both local and regional pride. Canadians likewise used the mythology of the war to cement their imperial connections with Britain. In fact, history of the conflict became a way for Britain, Canada, and the United States all to serve broader national purposes. There is no similar book on the War of 1812, nor...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Early RepublicSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207