Talk:War of 1812

This page is for discussions about changes to the article There has been considerable debate over "who won the war" (please refer to Archives 8 and 9 for the most recent discussions). Historians and the editors have various viewpoints on which side won, or if there was a stalemate. For more information, see the section *Memory and historiography, Historian's views*. However, the consensus, based on historical documentation, is that the result of the war was per the Treaty of Ghent, i.e., status quo ante bellum, which, in plain English means "as things were before the war."

Please do not use this page to continue the argument that one or the other side "won" unless you are able to present citations from reliable and verifiable sources to support your claims.

If you wish to make a case for who won the war, but do not yet have citations, feel free to do so here: Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?

Oregon Country, not Oregon Territory

especially not with caps on "Territory". The Oregon Territory was not chartered until after partition, as a formal territory of the US. The term "Oregon" prior to that refers to the larger region whose article in Wikipedia is Oregon Country and though that's a USian term, and not quite the same as "Columbia" or "Columbia District" or "Columbia Department", British terms with subtly different meanings, the two are pretty much the same, until 1846 though the Wiki-convention has been to use Oregon Country despite its purely USian context. There are other terminological errors and historical not-quites in this article but I just dropped by for a look-see and am not about to get swept up in editing/overhauling articles, especially ones currently "locked"....the Fort Astoria/Fort George buy/swap/return is not mentioned, but it's not directly part of the War, rather a mistake compounded by a bad treaty interpretation connected to the war....[comments by Skookum1].115.87.231.164 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Great to see you :-).. I agree Oregon Treaty - (Columbia District) - I will ask User:Rjensen to look this over - as hes got his hands on all the sources.Moxy (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Skookum1, that looks like a good suggestion. It should be Oregon Country. You said that "there are other terminological errors and historical non-quites in this article." Why don't you take some time from your lecture series on Huffington Post and enlighten everyone here. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.206.82.186 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with Skookum1 Rjensen (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

what about the under 30s?

 Done

Re: Most inhabitants of Upper Canada (Ontario) were either Revolutionary-era exiles from the United States (United Empire Loyalists) or postwar American immigrants. as the revolutionary war was then 29 years earlier, and given the generally youthful nature of populations of that era, I would be surprised if that was true. May I suggest Upper Canada (Ontario) had mostly been settled by Revolutionary-era exiles from the United States (United Empire Loyalists) or postwar American immigrants. ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Most immigration had been Americans arriving after the Revolution. TFD (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

the suggested change includes the children & grandchildren & is better. Rjensen (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made the change. Both versions have Loyalists before American migrants. Swapping the sentence round to put the migrants first would be easy whichever version you use, so I'd be inclined to treat that as a separate issue on which I have no opinion. ϢereSpielChequers 21:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it not true that most people living in Upper Canada in 1812 had been born in the 13 colonies or in the United States? And the overwhelming majority were "late loyalists". TFD (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, especially if one only counts those who were adults by 1812. Birth rates were much higher in that era, and children and grandchildren of adults born in America would have been a very large proportion of the population by 1812. But the "settled by" wording sidesteps the issue. ϢereSpielChequers 06:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Second War of Independence say the RS

Americans at the time & historians since often refer to the War of 1812 as the "Second War of Independence" -- for example it ended British efforts to control what became the American Midwest. See 1) Union 1812: The Americans Who Fought the Second War of Independence by A. J. Langguth - 2007. 2) Donald R. Hickey The War of 1812 (1990) p 300 says the war "is often called America's 'second war of independence.' The issues and ideology of this conflict echoed those of the Revolution."; 3) The Second War of Independence: A Beginner's Guide to the War of 1812 by Mack Javens - 2011; 4) Cogliano, Revolutionary America, 1763-1815 (2008) p 247 "The War of 1812 was properly seen as a second War of Independence". 5) Heidler and Heidler The War of 1812 (2002) p. 11 says in 1814, "the United States immediately embarked on a journey of surging patriotism and national pride, comforted in the belief that they had won a 'Second War of Independence'" add some more cites: 6) "the Declaration of Independence enjoyed a second, more popular revival as a result of America's "Second War of Independence" (Travers, 1999 p 206); 7) Nancy Isenberg, Andrew Burstein - 2010 p 503; 8) Brands, Andrew Jackson (2006) p 163 "The other war hawks spoke of the struggle with Britain as a second war of independence; Jackson, who still bore scars from the first war of independence, held that view With special conviction." Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Second War of Independence

A source called Union 1812:Americans Who Fought in the Second War of Independence hardly seems reliable,neutral,reliably neutral, or anything associated with those two words so vital to Wikipedia. And how was independence incomplete before? The removal of the part about complete independence would,in my opinion,solve the problem.Rwenonah (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

please don't argue with the RS. independence was incomplet Because Britain did not respect US control of the Midwest & wanted to make it a puppet Indian state of the UK. Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

@Rjensen..wow, really?...lol..good joke though...wanted to have a good laugh... Norum 17:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I'm impressed. You seem to have used all of two very biased seconds in replying.Puppet state? That is not the view of any historians,even the most ultra-biased American patriot. Did Britain,prior to the war of 1812 , have any control over the American government?NO. Did Britain,during the war of 1812,ever threaten to annex the US? NO. Independence was thus fully complete,desires for the creations of buffer zones for people subject to ethnic persecution are entirely beside the point. And,please,I feel that I deserve a sentence without typos.Thank you! Rwenonah (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians read and follow the RS -- I have cited 8 recent books. Rwenonah has cited zero for his personal POV. Britain tried to control American foreign policy, Indian policy & threatened to control the American Midwest. And newbies who can't even add spaces between words should stop making silly demands like And,please,I feel that I deserve a sentence without typos.Thank you! Rjensen (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How mature. Have you fallen to personal attacks already ? Tsk,tsk. I'm sure there's a rule about this somewhere. And newbie? At what? Writing? Wikipedia? Life? Listening to your bias(eg. "Democracy isn't very Canadian" )? Wrong on all, unless you have the worldview of a lethargic turtle. But I digress. To business. I have no objection with the whole "second war of independence" thing. What I find immensely incorrect is the use of the words "sense of complete independence". How was American independence incomplete before the War of 1812? Your sources do not deal with that. No number of "RS"s (I'm sorry,am I too much of a "newbie" to say that? ) can avoid the fact that America's independence was not incomplete in any way whatsoever prior to the War of 1812,(excepting the period before the American Revoloutionary War),during the War of 1812, or after the War of 1812. And as for typos:"please don't argue with the RS. independence was incomplet Because..." Thanks,Professor. Rwenonah (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"Britain tried to control American foreign policy(how?), Indian policy (how?) & threatened to control the American Midwest(which at that point was not American-it belonged to the Natives)." So,independence not incomplete. Rwenonah (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

take the Midwest. Britain & the US had treaties (1783, 1795) that guaranteed US ownership of the Midwest. Britain provided military supplies to Indians (Tecumseh most notably) and Tecumseh tried to organize Indians in both the Midwest & Southwest to stop American settlers. The British were the main source of rifles & gunpowder. Going a step further the British war goal was to set up an Indian state in the Midwest that would permanently block American expansion. Rjensen (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

All totally correct. However,Britain was not directly threatening American independence,directly controlling any undisputed part of the US-none of this seems to have threatened the independence of the United States(which was the issue the whole time). So if you could give a reply which addresses my concerns... Rwenonah (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at Bemis, JQA vol 1 p 210. Britain was planning to take control of half of Ohio and all of what became Michigan Indians, Illinois and Wisconsin away from the USA through a puppet Indian state it would control. One goal was to control the source of furs for the Canadian fur traders Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"Puppet state" is arguable. Faced with genocide by Americans,the Natives logically attempted to fight back. Supporting Britain was a way to get a powerful ally while simultaneously gaining a chance of creating a Native nation allied to a power that did not support ethnic persecution(Britain).The natives were the instigator of your supposed British plan-without them,the plan would never have been envisioned. Given the fate of allies of the Americans,it was probably the right decision-at least some of them managed to escape the US. More to the point,this never threatened American independence from Britain. Please answer the question. Rwenonah (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

the US was not fully independent if Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin were under control of a foreign power. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The original inhabitants of Ohio,Illinois,Indiana,Michigan and Wisconsin were neither foreign nor a power. The Midwest was not under British control at any point,unless you consider the Natives Britain.Rwenonah (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. in 1814-15 the British Army had actual control of part of Michigan and Illinois and all of Wisconsin. See Concise Historical Atlas of Canada plate 38 for actual map of control. The map in Bemis shows their demandsRjensen (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Britain never threatened to annex this territory to Canada-it wanted to create a Native nation there. Once again, the natives were not Britain.Thus,Britain was not threatening American independence. And how would the Native nation have ever threatened the independence of the United States,anyway? Rwenonah (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You can argue all you want, but it's all WP:OR especially when we have RSs that disagree with you. Hot Stop (Edits) 15:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources to support statements and it seems to me that it has been provided. In addition to the two sources already in the article Rjensen has provided several others. By contrast, Rwenonah has not provided any RS to support his point of view. It is important to understand that we are talking about what many people in the US believed at the end of the war. We are not talking about whether or not others, people in other countries or some historians, believe that the US was actually in danger of its independence from Britain. The latter point is not shared by all but that is not what the sentence in the article is about. Remember what the sentence actually states:

The nation also gained a psychological sense of complete independence as people celebrated their "second war of independence."

That statement is in the section on the United States and therefore is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.195.180.146 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources are difficult to find for my point of view,due to the total prevalence of American historians in this field. I bow to consensus. Rwenonah (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be neutral, just reliable. And note the article does not say it was a second war of independence, merely that Americans saw it that way. TFD (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Rwenonah (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If you check the British newspapers of the era it wasn't just America that was attempting to land grab. A quick review of the actions by virtually every European state involved with the Congress of Vienna state was rather eye opening. The British had been very vocal about curtailing the American mercantile fleet and reducing the threat that a continent wide power would present. In point of fact the American merchant fleet did not recover from the war of 1812 in the short term so they succeeded at least in part. The curtailment of American expansion was an epic fail obviously. America was seen as a long term threat to British Imperial interests. There were still British MP's pushing for colonization of California as late as the 1930's. The New Orleans campaign was in part to grab the mouth of the Mississippi and cut America off from the rest of the continent. Proposals were made to maintain control of the river during the Ghent discussions. I've said it once and I will say it again, in this age there were no countries wearing white hats. Both sides were after their own long term best interests. Ronald there are so many primary sources available you could write a book fairly quickly on the subject. I don't think this is a point you can win. Tirronan (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

Please change, in the fourth paragraph: "attempt by America seeking to expand US territory." to "attempt by the United States to expand its territory." America is not a country, and wikipedia should not promote the use of the word "America" in a factual article.

68.114.62.206 (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done - with this edit. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 03:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

British Empire?

The British Empire did not exist until much later in the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.23.11 (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you read British Empire which explains that the First British Empire ended with the loss of the Thirteen Colonies but a Second British Emprire started up immediately with the colonising of parts of Upper Canada and the Australian continernt. Dabbler (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The British Empire did not begin until after the Napoleonic Wars ended. This article should say the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.23.11 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

British Empire is the term most commonly used to describe the UK and her possessions. TFD (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Assertion is not argument or a reliable source in Wikipedia. Please provide sources which state that the British Empire did not begin until a certain date. In fact i think that while there was a general understanding of the term British Empire, both First and Second, it was never defined in legislation or any official documents. The people of Upper and Lower Canada and the colonies of Nova Scotia and Bermuda were all participants in the War of 1812 and were controlled by Britain. They are nott part of the United Kingdom of Great britain and Ireland,, if they were not the British Empire, what were they? Dabbler (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

They were British subjects because Canada did not exist until 1867. The Revolutionary War article says the Kingdom of Great Britain because the British Empire did not exist in 1775-1783. This article should say the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (92.7.23.11 (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC))

The second British Empire started in 1783 and continued well past the war of 1812. Plus,consensus is clearly against this edit.Rwenonah (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking there was no British Empire because there was never an emperor, other than the Emperor of India, and the laws of England applied throughout. It is however a term that was and is used. TFD (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The laws of England don't even apply in Scotland. The many individual colonies were locally governed, with some direction from London, either by a legislature or council or else directly by British Colonial governors and officers. Depending on the colony and its governance, they could either be tightly controlled by the Colonial Office or could act almost like independent countries. The colonies all developed their own legal systems which may have been based on British law but took into consideration local indigenous practices. The so-called settler colonies Canada, Australia, etc. took more from Britain, the others which already inhabited by a large majority of indigenous people (India, African colonies etc.) adopted a mix. The colonies were the overseas possessions of the Crown and you are correct, the term Empire was never really used in any legislation or titles adopted by the Crown. It was a generic term adopted to describe the overseas possessions of the Crown. Some monarchs outside the UK explicitly took the title equivalent to Emperor in their own language, L' Empereur Napoleon, the Tsar, the Kaiser, the Emperor of Japan, but apart from becoming Emperor (-ress) of India, British monarchs did not. Dabbler (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that by "locally governed" you mean that the King did not personally administer the land from London, instead he appointed a Governor to go and live there and govern "locally." I'm not sure that is a useful distinction here.2001:470:1F04:3DF:0:0:0:2 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)