If you accept the old Hollywood, mainstream grade school history textbook versions of the early United States of America, please stop reading this post now. It will only piss you off.
The old Hollywood version of the early USA holds that, despite its obvious flaws like slavery, political disenfranchisement of women, and brutal treatment of the native population, the nation nonetheless was a remarkable and unprecedented experiment in representative democracy. According to that sanitized telling of our past, by the time of the War of 1812 we were continuing to ride high on the revolutionary fervor of 1776, a mostly free people envied by European populations still wallowing in tyranny.
The uncomfortable fact is the the United States government was deeply unpopular among the masses for most of our early history. The movement to write a Constitution that would create a United States of America and a strong federal government in Washington was hardly motivated by a desire to expand freedoms. Rather, a post-Revolutionary War economic crisis and mistreatment of war veterans produced widespread feelings that the revolution had been betrayed by moneyed interests no better than the King of England. Such sentiments culminated in Shays' Rebellion, a violent insurrection in Massachusetts led by Continental Army Captain Daniel Shays. The so-called founding fathers concluded that such rebellions, which were not confined to Massachusetts, would continue absent the presence of a stronger national government empowered to maintain order and suppress internal violence.
To the extent that modern US citizens know anything at all about the War of 1812, they probably know that it was a battle between the USA and Great Britain, in which the Brits set the White House on fire, Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner to memorialize the courageous defense of our land, and the young nation proved we could once again repel the ruffians we had defeated less than 40 years earlier. The War of 1812 was a "Made For TV" War more than a hundred years before anyone knew what television was.
Just how oppressive was the United States that declared war on Britain in 1812? Let's just focus on the centrality of slavery. Thanks to some research done in 2022 by the Washington Post (before Jeff Bezos decided to turn the paper into the Trump toadying joke it is today), we now know that more than 1800 congressman once owned human beings. According to the Post, "enslavers in Congress represented 40 states, including not just the South but every state in New England, much of the Midwest, and many Western states." In 1812 there were only 18 US States (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana). Before and/or after the War of 1812, at least one member of Congress in every one one of those states was a slave owner. So can we finally put to rest the absurd notion that slavery was exclusively a southern phenomenon?
Britain in the War actually recruited American slaves to fight as "Colonial Marines." The idea that these warriors might join the enemy in order to secure their own freedom was not appreciated by America's war planners. Thus Francis Scott Key's infamous third verse of the Star Spangled Banner: "No refuge could save the hireling and the slave from the terror of flight of the gloom of the grave."
The original White House was built mostly with slave labor from 1792-1800. The reconstruction of the torched edifice from 1814-1817 continued that pattern. "Fun" Fact: In March of this year, the United States, Israel, and Argentina were the only three nations in the world to vote against a United Nations resolution recognizing slavery as a "crime against humanity."
Most serious historians, looking at the War of 1812, conclude that both the USA and Great Britain could claim victory. As summarized by the USS Constitution Museum, the British could claim victory because "they held on to Canada and their maritime rights," and the United States could claim victory because "just fighting the 'Conqueror of Napoleon' and the 'Mistress of the Seas' to a draw vindicated its sovereignty and earned the respect of Europe."
Did the result of the War of 1812 slow down American progress toward abolition of slavery and other injustices? We cannot know for certain, but the fact that citizens celebrated the end of the war with overt displays of patriotism and unity probably empowered the enslavers and other oppressors to think that they had been vindicated. Tragically, it would take another 50 years and hundreds of thousands of battlefield deaths for American slavery to finally come to an end.
Okay, so what does all of this have to do with Operation Epstein Epic Fury? Iran today is in a somewhat similar condition to the United States of 1812: a relatively young (established in 1979) "Republic" whose revolutionary era promise of liberating the populace from the chains of the Shah's tyranny has been betrayed by theocratic regimes enforcing their own brand of brutality. Much like the United States of 1812, Iran today has a long way to go toward protecting the human rights of women, non-religious people, and political dissenters. For anyone sincerely interested in assisting freedom seeking Iranians, the absolute LAST thing you would want to do is support a war that would actually increase the popularity of the established regime. And yet out of sheer hubris, stupidity, or whatever, that is exactly what the Trump Administration has done.
Remember, the US could claim victory in the War of 1812 in part because they had taken on the mighty British Navy and not lost. Today, the United States is not only the "Mistress of the Seas" but also the "Master of the Skies" with the most powerful Air Force in the history of the world. Does the Iranian regime have to defeat the United States and Israel? No, it only has to fight to a stalemate like America did with the Brits in 1812. If that happens, and it starting to look increasingly likely that it will, the cause of genuine Iranian liberation for the masses could be set back for at least a generation or more.
Writing on the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent (the treaty that ended the War of 1812), historian Matthew Dennis wrote about the American public's response to the war. What he describes is very likely to happen in Iran when this stupid an ill-conceived war finally ends:
Americans . . . celebrated an imagined unity, virtue, right, and might. And even those who understood that the U.S. hadn't won could take comfort in the fact that it had not lost. And by not losing to the greatest military power on Earth . . . the United States affirmed its independence. In the war's aftermath the country experienced an unprecedented outpouring of nationalism that further obscured embarrassing facts . . .
In 2009 Rick Steves traveled to Iran to report on life among average, ordinary Iranians. These decent people, much like so many average, ordinary Americans of 1812, are caught in the literal crossfire between an oppressive home regime and foreign invaders led by morally bankrupt bullies.
Pray for those people.
















