First book down on the 2025 to-read list! While the title promises the Western theatre of the War of 1812, in his introduction to the book the author makes it explicitly clear that he is focused on the role of Kentuckians in the conflict. (Not that I can pretend to be shocked, because I've listened to David Kirkpatrick on Kentucky history podcasts). It's an appropriate focus, given that an astonishing five out of every six(!) white male Kentuckians of military age served in the War of 1812, and they made up the majority of US casualties. Kentucky drove the US war effort not only in terms of War Hawk propaganda, but the actual boots on the ground.
Kirkpatrick is a Kentucky-based archivist and librarian with a master's degree in history, so this book has some academic chops. You can find a few reviews in peer-reviewed journals, I think the one in The Journal of Southern History is the best summary of the book's strengths and weaknesses. As the reviewer notes, "nonwhite, non-Kentuckian viewpoints remain opaque." Fair enough, given the author's stated focus, but he also doesn't really interrogate his sources and takes them at face value. Also annoying: the footnotes are an endless series of "ibid," and you frequently have to search the past four or five citations to find whatever source Kirkpatrick is using (this is NOT proper Chicago style, fyi.)
Nitpicking aside, I enjoyed the book a lot, and the deliberate centering of Kentuckians made for an engaging and fresh narrative. Isaac Shelby emerges as a hero of this story: tirelessly advocating for Kentucky troops and drawing on his experience as a Revolutionary War veteran before saddling up to participate in the Battle of the Thames at the age of 62. He was definitely one of the most qualified and intelligent military leaders on the US side. It's also striking how there's a blurry line between the War of 1812 in the West and settler-colonial violence directed at Indigenous people. (This is where interrogating the viewpoints of primary sources would help.)
In one jarring passage, Kirkpatrick quotes Shelby complaining about the depredations of British troops, including "the plundering of negroes." He is not talking about Black people being robbed by the British; he sees enslaved Black people as being property or possessions that can be "plundered" i.e. liberated from chattel slavery. It's a real ugly glimpse at the worldview of a person who is otherwise depicted as compassionate and judicious.
The War of 1812 in the West is very, very, very pro-American in its perspective (zero airtime for Sir George Cockburn's funny quips in the burning of Washington, for example), and deeply pro-Kentucky. I enjoyed Kirkpatrick's defense of the beleaguered Kentucky militia at the Battle of New Orleans, but once again he glosses over or ignores other, more critical perspectives. For what it is (a roughly 200-page popular history), the book succeeds and it's a fun read.
David Kirkpatrick, national correspondent for the New York Times, talks with Rachel Maddow about how the Tom Barrack indictment alleges Barrack was working with the United Arab Emirates as the U.A.E. was reportedly offering help to the Trump campaign in 2016 and efforts were being made to make connections with Russia.
