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?

Reference to Slave Trade could be explained better

Freeing and Recruiting slaves

change

The blockading British fleet in Chesapeake Bay, based at Bermuda, received increasing numbers of enslaved black Americans during 1813. They were welcomed by Royal Navy officers holding anti-slavery sentiments and, by British government order, were treated as free persons when reaching British hands.

The 1807 Slave Trade Act was one of the motiviations of this, along with hurting the US economy, so I propose we replace the current text with this:

The blockading British fleet in Chesapeake Bay, based at Bermuda, received increasing numbers of enslaved black Americans during 1813. In light of the 1807 Slave Trade Act, Slaves were welcomed aboard by Royal Navy officers and, were treated as free persons when reaching British hands.

Reference to Indian Allies unclear

I point this out not as a matter of political correctness but clarity: the first sentence states the war occurred between "the United States and the British Empire and their Indian allies" to which my reaction was "the Empire shipped sepoys to North America?" This may be my own personal misunderstanding, but something like "indigenous Indian allies," "Native American allies," "Northern Amerindian allies," even "aboriginal Indian allies" would more accurately express with whom the British alliance was.

you learn something new everyday--especially if you read the entire first paragraph which covers the matter. A "sepoy" by the way was not an Indian ally, it was an Indian enrolled in the British army. Rjensen (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As a British reader I thought exactly the same thing. By 1812 the British were already using units of Indian troops in the British Indian Army, though not outside the sub-continent. In this particular case I think the first paragraph should make it clear that the British allies in 1812 were Native Americans, if that can be done in a suitably readable way. Perhaps just substituting 'Native American Indian allies' would do.Blakk and ekka 09:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't think I wrote this particular sentence, the question is just tricky, apart from trying to avoid either anachronistic political correctness or historically-contemporary usage that would confuse or confound non-expert modern readers (e.g. "factory" for a trading post). In addition to their P.C. sound, "Native Americans" seems inappropriate to Canadians for describing tribes then living in Canada; while the current (post-1970) Canadian term "First Nations" means nothing to most Americans. Plain old "natives" was once just descriptive, but its disdainful use over the years by imperialists, racists and colonialists, reflected in stereotyped film and literature, understandably makes it offensive to many. There is some relatively happy wording, but it may take time to work out. If interested, you could peruse this Talk Page's archives for earlier discussions on this topic. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, it does seem something of a can of worms. I think perhaps that it's the word 'Empire' that provokes the incorrect first impression in British readers. Perhaps something like "allied British and Indian forces" could be substituted (although I realise that it's important to emphasise the role of Canadian forces)? Also the sentence "...a 32-month military conflict between the United States and the British Empire and their Indian allies" might be considered ambiguous in that it implies that both sides had Indian allies. Would "the British Empire and its Indian allies" be more accurate?Blakk and ekka 15:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. had some Indian allies too. While the "empire" is a singular noun, I believe the possessive is "her." TFD (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The British Empire is mostly an it, not female. Check out Winston Churchill's comment about "... its finest hour." Dabbler (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Except he actually said, "if the British Commonwealth and Empire lasts for a thousand years men will still say, "This was their finest hour."[1] The speech that was broadcast was recorded by an actor. Regardless, one person's speech is not authoritative. He referred to himself as prime minister of England for example. TFD (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the reference to "Indians" is initially confusing. Especially in such close proximity to mention of the British Empire. I think that most Britons would instinctively think of India at this point. (Certainly this one did!) Since the terms "native Americans" and "first Nations" are unsuitable, might some adjective perhaps be inserted to refer to their location? e.g. "the British Empire and their allies from the local Indian population"? "the British Empire and those* local Indians who supported them"? (* or "the".) And so on..... MrsJJHH (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In British primary sources I have looked at, the British use the term "Indian" for the local indigenous population...so it would seem the most suitable term. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Varieties of English

All due respect.. why does Canadian English prevail in an article that over 300 million Americans turn to for their reports and submit them to their schools every day. In the section of Memory and historiography.. There is a section American that states:

Today, American popular memory includes the British capture and the burning of Washington in August 1814[citation needed], which necessitated its extensive renovation. Another memory is the successful American defence of Fort McHenry in September 1814, which inspired the lyrics of the U.S. national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner"

The word "defence" should be "defense". This is American History. Why does Canadian English prevail over the most powerful country in the world, in a war that was fought primarily (95%) in the USA and our children turn to this article everyday for school reports? Change this in at least the American section to American English. Thank you.Mattscards (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question, to which you will find a general answer in Wikipedia:ENGVAR, which says that where a subject has no clear tie to one particular English-speaking nation, the style of the first major editor(s) should be followed by subsequent ones. (Of course this never applies to direct quotations, which should almost always use the exact spelling of the original.) Apparently, the first major editor's style was Canadian English. This article has both very learnèd, dedicated editors, and more-casual ones like me, from the U.S., Canada and the British Isles, in all of which at least some important actions, decisions or debates of this war took place. So the intent of the first-major-editor rule, to keep stability and reduce conflict, has been well served by trying best to follow it. As far as I can gather, the War of 1812 represents (or at least used to represent) a far greater place in popular Canadian historical memory than it does in U.S., let alone British. (It was considered the catalyst for a sense of Canadian identity, in a similar but much greater fashion as the French & Indian Wars brought the Thirteen Colonies closer together.) However, a stand-alone article about American memories of Fort McHenry would best be written in American English. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably because the war is of greater interest to Canadians. TFD (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

According to (Canadian writer) Farley Mowat, Canada won. History is written by the victors. Other than one or two spelling pecadilloes could y'all tell me what is the difference between Canadian English and US English? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the language is called English, the spelling used by the English and the Commonwealth should predominate, not the incorrect mangled version propagated by the United States. Particularly since the British won the war.Gymnophoria (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Since us Brits and the Canadians both spell defence with a C and the Americans with an S I think that's 2 to 1... We win! By the way, why aren't we Brits taught about this in school? Still,let's not hold grudges. We're all friends now! - (LRR)

I think that all articles that "Americans turn to for their reports and submit them to their schools every day" should do done in British or Canadian English. This makes it more obvious to teachers when students plagiarize by copying text verbatim.71.109.148.53 (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR. As this subject applies to the US and Canada/UK, we go to the "which was it first written in." Looking at the original revision of this page (taken from a British encyclopedia whose copyright had expired), I see the word "favour"; thus Commonwealth spelling is appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The war was the last war fought on Canadian soil.

Regarding the different attitudes between American, Canadian, and British view of the war, here's an article from tvtropes that should help clarify:

1814, an American Rock opera about the War Of 1812 recently toured Canada, only to find the audience cheering the Red Coat character's songs, and booing American characters, despite the fact that the Americans are written as the opera's heroes, and the Red Coats are the villains. This is because in the War Of 1812, Canadians fought on the British side against the Americans, and during the same war, York (modern Toronto, and the de facto capital city of Canada, or at least the half that spoke English, at the time) was burned to the ground by the Americans, and the original parliament buildings with it, resulting in the Canadians and British burning Washington DC in revenge. There's also the fact that even today, 200 years later, both the Americans and the Canadians believe they "won" the War Of 1812, despite the fact that from a modern perspective, neither nation could claim "victory" because both nations had their capital cities occupied and burned by enemy soldiers, and neither nation gained or lost any territory despite heavy losses on both sides, with the post-war borders being identical to the pre-war borders. This hasn't stopped the Americans believing their side "won" because the United States remained independent from the British Empire, and the Canadians believing their side "won" because Canada remained independent from the United States. In short both nations cast themselves heroic underdogs who won a war for their very existence against an invading aggressor with Imperial ambitions on their territory (which was to an extent true for both of them.) The war is also a vital part of both nations' national identity, with both nations taking their "victory" as a point of national pride. The Americans because it lead to the creation of the Star Spangled Banner, which would become their national anthem, and the Canadians because it was the last war fought on Canadian soil, and is the one single event that caused English Canadians to think of themselves as Canadians, rather than British, or Americans as they thought of themselves before the war. It just goes to show that just because two nations share a common language, a border, a culture, and a continent, doesn't mean that they won't have radically different points of view when it comes to historic events that effected both. Naturally this extends to any work of fiction or historical documentary taking place during the War Of 1812, as any such work that doesn't take a completely neutral view point is pretty much guaranteed to be hated either by Canadians or Americans. In another example of Americans Hate Tingle, The British, the other major player in the War Of 1812, see the war as little more than a footnote in their nation's long military history, far from regarding it as being a vital turning point of national identity as Canada or the United States does. There are two main reasons for this British apathy. Firstly, it almost certainly has to do with the fact that the war was fought entirely in North America, with hard fought and bloody battles in places that are still easily recognisable to modern Americans and Canadians, where as to the British it was just another colonial war fought "over there", with comparatively little impact on Britain itself. The other being the fact that the war was fought at around the same time as Britain's far more famous war with Napoleon Bonaparte.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.97.24 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 8 July 2013‎

....not sure about the whole "More Americans refer to Wikipedia so articles should be written in American English" suggestion !!!!!. In seriousness, the UK spelling on this page has been covered before. The Wikipedia rule is the first variety of English that the article was written in, which was British English. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted this debate about what type of English variation Wikipedia:ENGVAR is used on this page, I have added the Brit Eng template. Hopefully this will stop these large unnecessary discussions in the future. Peace out! Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:ARTCON I spotted a few US spelling variations, so changed them to Non US. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Raids based in Canada?

A sentence in the "course of the War" section states that "The Americans controlled western Ontario, and permanently ended the threat of Indian raids based in Canada into the American Midwest, thus achieving a basic war goal.[72][73]" It is refernced to The Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 (Heidler) and a second book by a Bil Gillbert. This statement seems wrong to m, firstly because most if not all Indian raids were made from what is now the Michigan, Wisconsin and other Indiana into Ohio, Kentucky or Tennessee. I am also unsure whether controlling western Ontario would have affected this, since the U.S stil did not control the actual territory the raids came from, which still bordered the United States. I don't think the war stopped the raids, either, just British support of them. Could someone clear this up? User:Rwenonah (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

the Indians to fight the Americans needed guns, lead bullets & gunpowder from the British. American possession of western Ontario cut off their supply lines. Without British munitions the Indians were outgunned and they stopped raiding. Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't they still have the guns given to them earlier? And with the British in control of Michilimackinac, the supply lines weren't cut, especially since there was a supply line from Michilimackinac to Nottawasaga Bay. Also, if that's true, why does the article specifically say 'raids based in Canada".I tmakes it sound like control of western Ontario stopped raids based in Canada from entering the United States. This is ridiculous for many reasons, including the massive land border which raids could still have gone through, and the fact that no raids were ever based in Canada.Rwenonah (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

in those days guns broke easy and needed gunsmiths. plus powder. Michilimackinac was a LONG way away from supplies and from raiding targets. After 1814 the Brits no longer supplied Indians in Michigan. "raids based in Canada" should probably be "raids supplied through Canada". Rjensen (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good.Rwenonah (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Canadian spelling

I have restored the Canadian spelling in the article. -- Moxy (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's British spelling isn't it? From the article first using Brit spelling content from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica? (though there is only minor variation, I must admit!) Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Canadian spelling to me [2]. Canadian spelling is a little more flexible than either British English or American spelling but is a mixture of both. I am sure like me many others are simply tired of all the reverts back to Canadian English as most think its a mixture of British English or American spelling thus think there are errors. Thus !Vote American spelling as its simply the most common. -- Moxy (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Aye, there is Canadian spelling on here (the use of z in words like Neutralise). But the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica uses British spelling, so under WP:ENGVAR it would be a British English article, as that is what variety it started off being written in. However, I guess you could also say it's been Canadian spelling for long enough that MOS:RETAIN applies. Anyways, not really any big deal so lets leave as is. 27.253.46.128 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

the usual policy is to keep the writing style of the first editor. In this case, however, the first editor did not reveal his writing style. He merely did a cut-and-paste of the text verbatim from an old encyclopedia. For people new to this page, let me add that there is a full length scholarly article (by me) on how it got written: Wikipedia on 1812  :) Rjensen (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

without wanting to have a complex debate, I would say the main thing the rule is trying to indicate is that the article was originally written in one variety of English, and articles are kept in the variety of English they were originally written in.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR is pointless for this article ...so many version since then. Just need to talk about the one we think is best for our readers. -- Moxy (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, unfortunately we can't just throw away wikipedia rules and decide what is best for our readers.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We should always do what is best for our readers (always). In this case what is best for them is a stable article, as readers could care less about our rules. Not a good idea to for go a good conversation by educated individuals simply for a guideline, whos purpose is to guide those who cant come to a logical/civil solution. What do you think is best for our readers? Its clear to me Canadian is confusing our readers...as they think is a split between British and American. -- Moxy (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The most noticeable difference between Canadian and UK spelling is "ize", but the OED preferred spelling is "ize" and they say both are correct in British English, and that consistency should be used.[3] TFD (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point - Oxford spelling indicates to use "ize", which is the actual formal, traditional usage, I think. The Times and some formal publication will use that spelling, but "ise" is used normally by most Brits/Aussies/Kiwis. Its the one bit of spelling that the Oxford agrees with US spelling on, where most Brits don't! Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As a British educated person, now living in Canada, I did not have to change my spelling when I came here. I always used the -ize spelling for a good many words in the UK and find -ise to be a bit of a fetish among some British spellers. Both were acceptable there in my younger days as evidenced by the OED. On the article itself, I see that it is considered of low importance by WP United States, mid importance by WP UK and high importance by WP Canada. Dabbler (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

RJensen - just read the article, excellent work. Very interesting read and I think a pretty valid interpretation of how this article has come to be. http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

From my understanding, the vast majority of "American" Canadian spellings are related to modern concepts and technology (e.g. "program" rather than "programme", "curb" rather than "kerb"). I'd imagine that for a two-hundred-year-old event, the spelling would end up looking like British spelling (the "-ize" variant) whether we specify Canadian or not—no?

Either way, Dabbler's point about Project importance is, I think, the strongest argument to keep the spelling Canadian. I'm surprised it somehow turned out mid importance to WP UK. Does it mean the Brits really do secretly care about the colonies after all? Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)