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). In addition to the position that one, or the other, side "won," there is broad agreement among editors (as among historians) that both sides benefited from the war, or, as one editor put it: "both sides won." 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?

Who won?

Impossibility of consensus because Wikipedia is not solely American

Almost all Canadian scholars point out that it was an attempt to make Canada part of the rebel nation and that Canada didn't want to escape Britain. Almost all Americans have not been informed of the Canadian angle. We were all taught only about impressment and General Jackson's post-peace victory in New Orleans. There consensus is impossible unless we make it a solely American-POV article; while this is logically possible I believe Americans should be more polite to the Canadian view 200 years later. We are not in any way threatened by it. The big canal built to protect Canada from USA is not a long skating rink. LaidOff (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific about the problem you see in the article. How do you know that the US wanted to annex Canada? Do you have references? It seems the US invaded Canada because it was nearby and they had military resources that could easily go there. (The ocean-going ships of the British Navy could not get into the Great Lakes, and the British had only a small regular army in Canada). For the US, taking over all or part of Canada could be a way to make Britain give way on the the trade and impressment issues. You need to show that Canada was more than a bargaining chip. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not by way of attacking either point of view, but just for clarification, it should be remembered that people's perception of historical events, as well as the actual events, can be important. They just need to be distinguished. Even if Britain never had either the intention or the ability to re-annex the U.S., and even if the U.S. could never hope or desire to annex Canada, the fact that so many Americans and Canadians have long believed one and/or the other to be the participants' "real" intentions is significant in itself.

By way of parallel, there may never have been such things as the "Slave Power" or a substantial threat of Abolitionist-instigated "Servile Insurrection" in ante-bellum America, but fears of such conspiracies certainly motivated hundreds of thousands of contemporary Americans. (Similarly, while I may personally have nothing but contempt for theories of Zionist participation in the 9/11 attacks, the fact that millions of Asians, Africans and Muslims sincerely believe such pernicious theories cannot be ignored.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree Shakescene, though I think that is the approach the article tries (perhaps unsuccessfully) to take. It points out who and when they took these views. If you mean the more wider social belief, it is more problematic to show, especially within the context of a historical article. I'm sure suggestions will be more than welcome though. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

very few Canadian historians of the war believe that "Almost all Canadian scholars point out that it was an attempt to make Canada part of the rebel nation". It's a famous postwar myth spread in Canada by British imperialists. Rjensen (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Make no bones about it, there were factions within Congress that would have annexed Canada, and had the operations against the Candian colonies been successful then it would have at best been a barganing chip in ending the conflict and it is possible the colony would have been annexed. The problem is that we are now fully into "what if". The stone cold evaluation would bring one to the conclusion that America in general and American's in particular were not all that interested in the campaign until it became a threat to the US. Then and only then did funds, organization, and really capable officers, start appearing and a stalemate took place. I've read the campaigns 4 times now and it is more than painful every time. This isn't and never was a black and white issue type of war, it doesn't lend itself to any conclusion very well except this one... despite the fact that very few lives were lost, no territory was lost, all three Nations (one in the future of course) were very well changed forever both to each other and to how conflicts were settled between them. There is a section on each country and its changes if anyone wants to expand that section I think you will find it matters far more than anything about the war. Tirronan (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are few if any "black and white" issues concerning the War of 1812 and so we need to be very careful about things like Rjensen's comment that annexation of Canadian territory was a "postwar myth spread in Canada by British imperialists". There were AMERICAN politicians who believed that prior to the war the goal was to gain Canadian territory (John Randolph of Roanoke believed that the quest for land was the reason for the war, saying "Agrarian cupidity not maritime rights urges the war" (from Tate, Conservatism and Southern Intellectuals, 1789-1861 ISBN 0-8262-1567-X4 p 66-67 [1])). Significant military construction, such as the fortresses at Halifax, Quebec City and Kingston and the Rideau Canal were concrete (pardon the pun) responses to what was obviously preceived as a very real threat of future American invasion. Without getting too far off topic, there were American plans for the invasion and occupation of Canada until the late 1930's "The policy will be to prepare the provinces and territories of CRIMSON (code for Canada)and RED to become states and territories of the BLUE union (USA) upon the declaration of peace" Raiding the Icebox [2]. Silverchemist (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Those color codes for war plans you are referring to existed for every nation on earth INCLUDING internal military activity in the US itself. It was not a Canada specific thing. I have a book somewhere that lists them all.Jersey John (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go to far with that, in fact there are general war plans against every country on earth though most are just general studies on how it would be done should it have to be. While we have a warhawk section that would have been in support please understand that its a long leap, without the maritime trade issues there is no way I would believe that the US would have gone to war with Britain. Going to that extreme is going to leave the vast majority of historians supporting the maritime issues, and you have only to read the minutes of Congress to understand the pure fury at those issues to be looking the fool. As for anything else, look folks if someone were to seriously propose invading Canada there would be an open revolt in the US, there is no take over Canada cabal here. Tirronan (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

John Radolph of Roanoke was an outsider who was not a policymaker. Canadians want to believe that the US coveted their territory, but the US policymakers at the time wanted to stop the Indian attacks on Ohio they thought were based in Canada. (were they based in Canada??--that is more subtle. British policy in London was to encourage the Indians but avoid the Indians starting a war. British agents in Canada promised much more, and told the Indians, correctly, that if war broke out thern Britain and the Indians would be close allies. That encouraged the Indians and was used by Tecumseh to convince tribes to join his Indian coalition. US strategy was to seize parts of western Canada as bargaining chips. The Americans were not intererested in the parts of Canada where Canadians lived (Quebec, Maritimes). Americans who wanted land in Canada could and did move there before 1812--most of the settlers in western Ontario were Americans by 1812.Rjensen (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have the fact that anyone wanting to move into Canada would be welcome and then you have the fact that America had just doubled its size. Even the Warhawks wanted to take over Canada to get rid of the Empire on North American continent more than any other reason. Both countries have urban myths about the war. Tirronan (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the basic point here is that American Wikipedia authors see it as a draw, while Canadians. British and everyone else see it as a victory for Canada, because the invasion was defeated, and impressment was stopped even before the war started. No matter how it is discussed, the bias in wikipedia authors comes through. The results should reflect this.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The header for this section says it all - obviously Americans are the only people who have misconceptions about this conflict. Further, I think the above writer does indeed make a valid point about bias, albeit for completely the wrong reason. Other than that, the article has a few spelling errors, e.g., centre for center.Jmdeur (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

They are not spelling errors, they are English as opposed to American English. We use one form consistently in any article, this one happens to be in the -re -our form. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Son, the spelling comment was what we over here call humour (sic) - y'all appear to something similar, but having watched a couple of episodes of Benny Hill, it's pretty obvious you Brits are far ahead of us in sophistication.Jmdeur (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't let it surprise anyone that this is a difficult article to find a neutral POV. The most respected canadian history book on this topic is Pierre Berton's, "The Invasion of Canada". This war is a strong motivator for Canadians' long standing mistrust of a militarily capable United States.--Fbfree (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hickey and other USA historians

Most of the footnotes cited are by historians from the USA. Naturally they give the viewpoint of the USA. The body of the essay says that the expansionist desire of the USA has been discounted, as if it has been universally discredited. It has only been discounted in the USA. In Canada, the view is still that the USA invaded and attempted to conquer Canada.

The citations and footnotes show that the article is biased towards the USA viewpoint. Just from googling I found that Hickey is a professor in Nebraska and Mark Lardas is from Texas. David Upton's works are not in print and it nothing about him can be ascertained. Heidler, David S. and Heidler, Jeanne T are also from the USA judging from their books. There were no Canadian historians at all used in this article. Frankly it is unprofessional. Is this to be only the history from the USA viewpoint or is it to supposed to be unbiased? It it is easy to see that it needs a major rewrite. Nacken (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)NackenNacken (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nacken seems to think that American scholars who devote their careers to getting the facts right somehow can't shake the political views of the people in their own country in 1812--but which people, the pro-war Americans in 1812 or the anti-war Americans. In the 21st century are there differences between scholars based in Alberta and Nebraska, say? No one has cited a single sentence that needs changing. Rjensen (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjensen I corrected a small spelling error, and yes unless we are willing to support the fact that the war was entirely about Canada and that Canada won I suspect we'll never quite get an end to this. Nacken there are not many Canadian Historians that would support that view either but there are some and some American historians as well, they are in a small minority but you can find a few. We don't get into all that much opinion here as much as what happened where and when and as far as I am concerned most of the rest is conjecture or national myth. American has them as well and to my best judgement it won't get in here either. Tirronan (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadians were not much consulted--and apparently the folks in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Quebec supported the crown but were only moderately involved in the war itself, or so say the historians of those places. (The chief activity seems to be trading with Yankees who smuggled goods across the border.) As for Ontario (that is, what is now Ontario), most of the residents were American born and the British officials worried about their loyalty; I think most of them were neutral. Now the Canadians who were REALLY involved were the Indians, and they did not fare too well at the peace conference, being sold out by London. I think we can agree they lost a lot.Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

One might think that the Empire Loyalists, who'd left or been pushed out of the States thirty years earlier for being too loyal to the Crown or too hostile to Independence, would have been keen to keep the Yanks away and that some would have been gratified by opportunities for revenge or recouping what they'd lost. But I don't know their feelings for a fact, or what part they could have played in the War itself. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with much of what Nacken has to say, it should be pointed out that there is a view by some in Canada and Britain that US history writing on this war, as well as on other subjects, is slanted (biased) toward the US. The British writer Jon Latimer said as much when he wrote his well-received book 1812: War with America in 2007. In at least two interviews he gave to British newspapers after the publication of his book he criticized US historians for ignoring British sources among other things.

In the Evening Leader in Wrexham, Wales he stated: "Pretty much everything about it has been written by Americans or Canadians, and in the case of the former this has led to a severe distortion of it as American writers have almost completely ignored British sources."

Nacken is just reflecting this type of opinion. Dwalrus (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Even admitting that some historians neglected British sources, we should hear more about Latimer's view of the 'severe distortion' and how it might have prevented a correct reading of the outcome of the war. I would be interested to see the full text of those published interviews with Jon Latimer, whose book was very good. (Reading the book, I must have overlooked something because I don't recall much criticism of American historians). After seeing our article on Latimer I did look up his Times obituary, but it doesn't mention how his book might have changed the historical verdict on the War of 1812. EdJohnston (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote that I gave from an article in the Evening Leader in Wrexham is unfortunately no longer on the web. It was published in November 2007 and was very short. However, there is another article from Bucks Free Press from the same time period that is still on the web. You can find it at Bucks Free Press. Notice the third paragraph.

Latimer did in fact make a number of criticisms of US historians in his book. On the first page of the introduction he criticizes George Bancroft and Henry Adams for their writing and he continues to snipe at US writers throughout his book. His attack on Bancroft is particularly puzzling. In referring to the Battle of New Orleans he wrote: "...the entire conflict was conflated into a stunning American triumph, a version of events effectively carved in stone by George Bancroft in his multivolume History of the United States(1834-1873)." What is puzzling about this comment is that I do not believe that Bancroft's History of the United States covered the War of 1812. It started with the early exploration and gave extensive coverage of the Revolution but stopped with the writing of the constitution.

You are right in pointing out that Latimer's book has not changed the scholarship on the War of 1812. Despite the massive bibliography and more than 2000 endnotes it did not add anything new of significance to our understanding of the war that had not already been written.Dwalrus (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite so, Latimer freely criticized historians (Bancroft) without so much as picking up Bancroft's book (which ends in 1789). Latimer also makes elementary errors: in the newspaper interview he says, regarding the burning of Washington,"few people in Britain know about this event due to more urgent matters that were happening in Europe at the time. Britain was at war against Napoleon's France, and the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 eclipsed conflicts elsewhere." Well that's false chronology. The Washington burning was Septrember 1814, Napoleon abdicated in April 1814, and Waterloo was in 1815. Only the US was fighting Britain in Sept 1814, surely a point that every observer in Britain at the time knew perfectly well. Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the crux issues , as Nacken and others are proposing, was the cause of the war and we would have to contend that the primary cause was American greed for Canadian land. Now mind it has to the THE primary cause, not one of the contributing factors. Here you run up against the records of the American Congress, and Presidents Jefferson, and Madison. Here is where I take issue, because yes if the singular and primary issue causing the war was American desire to annex Canada then indeed America lost the war. However we have a pesky problem in that the records of most of the American and British government branches are still available. By gosh they just don't agree with what take on the causes of the war. Then you have the problem that New England states would have NEVER GONE TO WAR OVER LAND THEY DIDN'T WANT. The Warhawks were centered in the south and west and there is where you can find some support for the theory however there is this pesky problem that the rest of the American factions didn't agree. You can read of the fury about restraint of American trade, violation of American territorial waters, and impressment, that drove the issue, but that was and remains the issue with Nacken's proposition. That is the reason the vast majority of modern historians don't support that theory anymore. That doesn't leave me or any of the other editor's much room to agree with this proposal for a change.Tirronan (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Tirronan is quite right. Note the anomaly: Canadians have been asserting what AMERICANS thought in 1812--even though it is the American historians who have poured through the pamphlets, speeches and letters of American politicians--sources that require lots of research time Washington and US state archives. Few if any Canadians have done this kind of work in American archives. I can assure folks up north that Americans are happy to welcome Canadian scholars to Washington. (Advice: Washington is pleasant in the winter but miserably hot in the summer). Rjensen (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My theory is that you have two views on this war (1) A victory for Canada and Britain, and a loss for the US based on Military objectives or (2) a draw based on the peace Treaty. There are historians who support both views, unfortunately Wikipedia supports the pro American viewpoint that the war resulted in a draw. The results box should reflect that this is seem as a victory in Canada, and by historians such as Hickey, Lucas, Eisenhower and Latimer, while it is seen as a draw in the United states and by US Historians. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A victory for the Canadian First Nations? more of a smashing defeat for them. A victory for the British commanders-- like Ross? (killed in battle), Prevost? (facing court martial for defeat when he died), Brock? (killed in battle), Sheaffe? (defeated in battle and recalled), Tecumseh? (killed in battle), Duke of Wellington (refused to get involved because he said war was a draw), or Packenham (killed in battle). It's hard to find a successful British general who survived--Drummond, maybe, but he lost as many as he won.Rjensen (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I do disagree with what you say here, in particular Wellington, but my point is not to come here and argue, but to point out that only one of two recognised opinions on the results of the war is shown in the results box. Until the Canadian/British, (and the view of a number of major historians including Hickey who is possibly the foremost expert on the war) viewpoint is represented in there, this article is pro US biased and misleading.Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhm. Well, yes, certainly Whig history would say that but by no means is that the view of all British historians. And Whig history is a dirty word in history these days. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be the common view in Canada, as well as the view taken by some American Historians. Would you say that Hickey and Eisenhower are "Whig historians"? It certainly was the view taken by British Parliament at the time. I'm pretty sure the only three British published books on the war written by Benn(Canadian but British publisher), Latimer and Lucas, all indicate that the US lost the war.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at Canadian historians in the last 40 years --they have not been calling a victory. Morton says the war was a "stalemate" but the Americans "did win the peace negotiations." (Morton, Kingdom of Canada 1969 pp 206-7). Arthur Ray says the war made "matters worse for the native people" as they lost military and political power [Ray in Brown ed Illustrated History of Canada (2000) p 102.] Bumsted says the war was a stalemate but regarding the Indians "was a victory for the American expansionists." [Bumsted, Peoples of Canada (2003) 1:244-45.Thompson and Randall note that the "land hunger" thesis has been "largely dismissed by historians," though they admit it is still taught in Canada's schools. They say "the War of 1812's real losers were the Native peoples who had fought as Britain's ally." [Thompson and Randall Canada and the United States (2008) pp 21, 23] Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am suprised that so many Canadian writers would not claim this as a victory for their country(and I'm greatful that you post this as I don't have easy access to Canadian materials), my only comment here is that possibly they seem to be labouring more on the peace negotiations, which highlights a stalemate, rather than which side achieved their military objectives, which tends to show the US as having lost. In any case, the Canadian people generally, from what I read, see this as a victory, even if not all their historians do. IN addition to the people of Canada, there is still a number of historians that do see this as a victory for Canada, which unfortunately is not reflected here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record here is the letter of the Duke of Wellington or more to the point what he thought about the state of the war as pertained to the Ghent negotiations, and in the article is the citation as well. So where exactly do you get the military victory you proclaim when the leading military commander of the Empire makes statements like this?

The Prime Minister wanted the Duke of Wellington to command in Canada and finally win the war; Wellington said no, because the war was a military stalemate and should be promptly ended I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America ... You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You can not on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power ... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.[72]

"a number of historians"--let's talk about them. first please name a few. Rjensen (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)'

Some of them I mentioned just a bit above, Latimer, Hickey, Eisenhower and I think Carl Benn (I haven't got his book, but I think that is the way he leans). Also CP Lucas. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Historians and Canadian viewpoint that the war was not a stalemate

There are two viewpoints by historians and countries about this War. By the people of Canada it is seen as a victory. In the United States, it is seen as a stalemate. The points of view are based on two different logics, the stalemate is based on the fact that no land was exchanged in the treaty. The Canadian/British victory claims that the US lost the war based on the achievement of objectives.

As mentioned before(errrh a few times!) I disagree with the premise held here that the opinion by some of the editors on this page that the prevailing view is that the war was a stalemate. While some argue that based on the peace Treaty, both sides were stalemated in the War, a number of historians, including Donald Hickey, who is acknowledged as one of the most authoritative historians on this war, argue that the war was a British Victory. It is also the traditional view within Canada that the war was a Canadian/British victory. The Historian's argument is based on the fact that Canada and Britain achieved their objectives and the US largely did not, while the viewpoint that the war was a stalemate is most often based on the results of the Treaty of Ghent.

Quotes from Authors who see the War of 1812 as a British/Canadian victory:

“An assessment of objectives set in 1812 and realised in 1814 points to a British victory, although perhaps one that is not clear in the modern mind, partly because the war occurred in an age when diplomatic negotiations, the preservation of dignity, and compromise marked treaties, rather than the images of unconditional surrender that have come to dominate our consiousness.” (Carl Benn, “The War of 1812”, p82 – 83, 2002)

“So who won the war of 1812? The biggest Winner was Canada; then came Great Britain; then the Indians living in Canada. The biggest losers were the Indians living in the united states; after them came the United States itself, which (the glorious triumphs at sea, on the Northern lakes, and at New Orleans notwithstanding) for the first time in its history lost a war.”(Donald Hickey, “Don’t give up the ship”p 304 – 305, 2006)

“America's first Vietnam...Yes, good analogy. Good analogy. We had always claimed before Vietnam that we'd never lost a war. Well, it's a question of definition, but if you... usually if your criterion is whether you obtained your objectives in a war, we lost that one as much as we lost Vietnam. We just came back to our own shores and that was the end of it. Painted differently”. (John Eisenhower “War of 1812 – Background and ideas” http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/background/hist_likevietnam.html)

“Britain was content to settle for the 1812 Status quo, and this is what Britain got. The United States, in contrast, achieved none of its war aims, and in these terms, the War of 1812 must be seen as a British Victory, however marginal.” (Jon Latimer “1812 War with America”. P 4 2007)

They did not get the status quo, as a major part of the reasons behind America going to war, impressment, ceased after 1814 and never resumed, so that is most certainly a victory for America (which was a war aim that somehow Mr. Latimer also missed). In addition, the trade agreement signed with Britain was a landmark agreement between the two countries under President James Madison, establishing America as a power in its own right. Based upon these two indiputable elements of the post-war world at that time, to claim it was a British victory boggles the mind, at it most certainly was NOT the status quo, not in the least. Madison's successful efforts in "defense of the rights and independence of the United States" as stated perfectly in U.S. Presidents and Foreign Policy by Carl C. Lodge, despite the burning of Washington and the stifling of trade, proved that Mr. Latimer's conclusion is not correct. I have seen a disturbing trend of British historians swinging the pendulum of analysis the other way in the War of 1812- for instance, in Command of the Ocean by N. A. M. Rodger, the efforts of the United States Navy were summarily relegated to a very, very small part unfairly. I am hoping that an unbiased, serious look at the war will some day be written. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

“It was the failure of men who had once been citizens of the British Empire to subdue other British Colonists lining their frontier and facing their settlements, that makes this war one of the first-rate importance to those who study colonial history. The war was the national war of Canada…..It was at once the supplement and the corrective of the American war of Independence” (C.P.Lucas “The Canadian War of Independence” p 259, 1906)

The article needs to indicate that there are two viewpoints on this war, one as seen by the Canadian people and these historians that the war was a victory for Canada and Britian, and the other view that the war was a draw. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This still isn't anything new and still leaves what the 98% of historians with a markedly different view? Tirronan (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

as seen by the Canadian people ??? as seen by the Canadian First Nations it was a terrific defeat for those Canadian people.--and they were the Canadians who did most of the fighting, after all.Rjensen (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RJensen - as seen by mainstream Canadian society then. Equally you don't judge Mainstream US society by the viewpoint of Native Americans, or anyone one smaller group. Tirronan - "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I think we would count this as a significant view, considering the status of some of these historians, and it is the prevailing view amongst Canadians?. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the right thing is done, and both viewpoints are presented. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article should explain that there are differing views amongst historians, why on earth wouldn't you make it clear?

~BSdetector~ 10th November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.139.98 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, C.P. Lucas (Sir Charles Prestwood Lucas, 1853–1931) was a Englishman and never lived in Canada. He was a civil servant in the Colonial Office and wrote on the history of the empire. His popular book on 1812 appeared in 1906 and did not have access to the last 100+ years of scholarship. It was a military history based on the dispatches of the generals. See Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004 and review of Lucas. Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has indicated for a long time that Canadians view the war as a victory for themselves. It can be found in the last paragraph of the Overview section. I don't see anything wrong with adding a sentence or two mentioning that there is a disagreement among historians over the results. Don Hickey states the problem on page 299 of his book Don't Give Up the Ship: "Many wars produce a clear result, but not the War of 1812. Reflecting this ambiguity, scholars assessing the outcome have reached very different conclusions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwalrus (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agrees, there should be some references in the article, and the Infobox should be corrected to reflect the different viewpoints. As you say, Canadians see it as a victory is already noted in the article, though not in the infobox. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok here's a proposed synthesis of Canadian expert opinion-- I think this summarizes expert opinion of Canadian scholars:

The consensus of Canadian historians is that the war was a "stalemate" but the Americans "did win the peace negotiations." [Morton, Kingdom of Canada (1969) pp 206-7]. The war was a victory in the sense that Canada survived as part of theBritish Empire, but it also created a spirit of English-Canadian nationalism. [Granatstein, ‘’Yankee Go Home’’ pp 25, 34]. The chief losers were the First Nation as they lost military and political power [Arthur Ray in Brown ed Illustrated History of Canada (2000) p 102.] Bumsted argues that while the war was a overall a stalemate regarding the First Nations it was "a victory for the American expansionists." [Bumsted, Peoples of Canada (2003) 1:244-45.] Thompson and Randall note that the "land hunger" thesis has been "largely dismissed by historians," though they admit it is still taught in Canada's schools. They conclude, "the War of 1812's real losers were the Native peoples who had fought as Britain's ally." [Thompson and Randall Canada and the United States (2008) pp 21, 23]. Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, I do not agree that there is any need to change the Infobox. As it stands now it is a straightforward factual statement of the ending of the war and is sufficient for an Infobox. A sentence in the article, the Overview or Consequences section, that historians do not have a unanimous opinion on whether the war was a stalement or win/loss is all that is needed.Dwalrus (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why, oh why, are we ploughing this ground just after sending the previous discussion to the already-overloaded Who won? archives? And why advertise for more wranglers? But (to repeat myself from earlier threads) I agree: the Information Box necessarily has to be concise, terse or gnomic, and can't absorb anything more than the barest facts. The finer philosophical points about who "really" won the Crimean War, or the Korean, or all those Balkan Wars, or even the American, Spanish & English Civil Wars, can't be compressed into a Procrustean Info Box. Ditto for this War. The nature and existence of different well-considered historical (and popular) conclusions, however, should be noted in the text. I thought they already were. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The infobox states one opinion, that it was a stalemate. The article will point out that the there is not a unanimous opinion on whether it was a stalemate or a British Victory. A lot of people will flick to the Infobox to quickly read the result, and not read the text of the article - I agree the infobox needs to be concise, but it should reflect the article, not just one opinion. It should reflect the fact there are divergent opinions on the result of the war.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is just trolling, I am sorry but I will not change my mind of the same arguments repeated endlessly as I stated before. Tirronan (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How about a small para that goes something like "Many historians saw the War of 1812 as a stalemate, based on the results of the Peace Treaty and the return to the status quo after the end of the war. Conversely, other historians saw the war as a British/Canadian victory and a loss for the US, based on the achievement of objectives(add references here). The war is generally seen as a victory within Canada, and a stalemate in the US" Please add comments. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give you an example as to what I did in the section Theme system under the article Byzantium under the Heraclians. Three viewpoints emerged regarding the beginning of the system, and so I mentioned them all and provided footnotes for them, using three sources that I felt best represented all views. The link to that section is right here; be sure you look at the footnotes at the bottom of the article. Splitting the viewpoints into two distinct paragraphs for this controversy gives them both equal footing, which I find to be a lot better. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Deathlibrarian since this accurately reflects reality. This article has been on almost permanent lockdown because some editors seem incapable of understanding that there are very different perspectives on this war. Of course we all know the reason why a more comprehensive view of the outcome is not permitted to appear, and that is petty schoolboy nationalism. The fact that the war is viewed as a victory in Canada (and many other countries) is undeniable, so why try and hide it?

~BSdetector~ 11th November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.139.98 (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't even get the majority of Canadian Historians to agree with this view. Tirronan (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Monsieur, that looks like a good example of how to deal with it. The different viewpoints, with different references, from the various national points of view and references from varous historians. Considering how much debate there is here over this topic, it is remarkable that something like this has not been done already. The strategy to deal with the discussion in some ways has veered more towards supression (somewhat understandable considering some of the arguments that go on), but this sort of discussion is only ever going to be resolved by having an adequate section in the article that deals with the various viewpoints. What should the new section be called?Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point there is no agreement for a new section. You need to get an agreement first.Dwalrus (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't need to be an agreement for the new section- naturally, after a war, you have to have a section describing the outcome, and of course who won/lost/etc. To pose the question even for a new section would delay the improvement of the article, wouldn't you say? Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree and if we did we would just get the 50 million American's that insist just as rabidly that this is an American victory and a return to the constant edit wars. This is getting old beyond telling and this section is going to go with all the others in a few days. If you can't leave this alone then perhaps it is time to refer this to the admins and let you rant at them. Tirronan (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Aftermath and Consequences sections together are already longer than most articles in Wikipedia, so it's absurd to say the subject's neglected. And the Information Box is no place for the "ultimate" consequences of a war (whatever they may be, and no matter the degree of dispute). However, because, I think, of all the previous wrangles, I think that the ends of the lead and the Overview are a little cursory in answering the ordinary reader's question of what happened or why the war might be important. Now, I don't think that they need many extra words, let alone another paragraph or another section, but (fond, foolish, vain, inane hope) I think they could be made a little sharper without introducing bias. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, we must also get the "50 million rabid British" that insist that somehow after a treaty which won nothing for Great Britain that it was a victory without question. To not include all viewpoints by notable historians on the subject is to bury one's head in the sand and to be dishonest. I simply cannot understand how being neutral and presenting all views is ever a bad thing. By stifling the ability to present all viewpoints because of fear of edit wars is not a valid reason; I'm sorry, it is not. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 02:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"I simply cannot understand how being neutral and presenting all views is ever a bad thing" Indeed, I agree. Sorry if I jumped the gun on a new section. Considering that there is disagreement about the outcome of the war by historians, and that it is something much discussed here on the discussion pages, wouldn't it be a good idea to give it its own section so the two viewpoints are clear and people don't just keep on debating it?. I think with some wars the outcome is clear, so may be not so much needs to be written about them. But with wars where there is opposing viewpoints on the outcome, with arguments from both sides, then addressing the viewpoints in a bit more detail, and possibly give it its own section may be warranted. In any event, IMHO the two viewpoints, the peace treaty stalemate viewpoint, and the British/Canadian Objectives based decision need to be presented with enough detail that they make sense. I guess if we can't agree here, may be it needs to go to mediation or Admins? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

no one here has yet found a Canadian historian who calls the war a victory for Canada. They do say it was a terrible defeat for the First Nation of Canada, the founding nation most involved. Rjensen (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjensen, Carl Benn is a Canuck (Carl Benn PhD, is the Chair of the Department of History at Ryerson University in Toronto, having previously been Chief Curator of the City of Toronto's Museums and Heritage Services): “An assessment of objectives set in 1812 and realised in 1814 points to a British victory, although perhaps one that is not clear in the modern mind, partly because the war occurred in an age when diplomatic negotiations, the preservation of dignity, and compromise marked treaties, rather than the images of unconditional surrender that have come to dominate our consiousness.” (Carl Benn, “The War of 1812”, p82 – 83, 2002)Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I was hopeful we were going to come to some conclusion, but it looks like we have opposing views which are going nowhere...and this section is now reaaaaally long. I'd like to recommend Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal so we can all move on with this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please... this way we can finally find a solution to this. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If Deathlibrarian/ Monsieur are sincere about "presenting all views" of the opinions of various historians on who did or did not win the War of 1812 then there are more than two views on this subject. This was made very clear by Donald Hickey in Don't Give Up The Ship. He lists four different opinions by historians. If all views are not presented then the accusation can be made that there is not a sincere desire to present all views. Another point that has to be kept in mind is that this view/opinion of who won is a subjective judgment and therefore we are by necessity entering the area of point of view. This cannot be avoided if we go there. A perfect example of this is the quote from Carl Benn that Deathlibrarian gave that "An assessment of objectives set in 1812 and realised in 1814 points to a British victory...." It can be pointed out that objectives do not stay the same during a war and that after Napoleon abdicated in May 1814 the British clearly were striving to take areas of the US for themselves (ostensibly for security) and a huge area of the US for their Indian allies. This was made evident by the delay in the British negotiators in arriving at Ghent and by the movement of British troops to North America. The British demands on the first day of negotiations at Ghent also show these British objectives. Those military objectives were not achieved and that goes into the equation of who won or lost or if it was a stalemate. There is no question that by moving into the highly subjective opinion/point of view of whether anyone won this war the article will become more controversial. BTW, the latest book on this war is by a British academic named Jeremy Black. Titled The War of 1812 in The Age of Napoleon it argues the war was a stalemate. Prior to this book I read Unlikely Allies by a Canadian academic, Duncan Andrew Campbell, who also sees the war as a stalemate and a win for both sides. Clearly some of these views are more complicated and do not go along strictly national lines. If some want to take this issue to mediation then do so. Dwalrus (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to take this to mediation, we went with the actual outcome because it is beyond dispute that both sides went with Status quo, otherwise you get into the who shot John with the various adherents all screaming for their view to be held over all. I rather look forward to defending the current position and will be happy to live with whatever the result is.Tirronan (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dwalrus, I am sincere about presenting all views, and I'm quite happy to represent all significant views argued by historians, including the four views in Hickey's "don't give up the ship" . I was only arguing that the stalemate-British/canadian victory views were represented as they were the two significant views and up until now, no one else had mentioned the others. But as you say, Hickey points out there are other viewpoints that other historians argue, so no reason not to include those. Everyone agrees on mediation, so that seems to be our next step. Is everyone happy to be mentioned as a party to the mediation? Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for representing all views here. Just because I disagree with the "British victory" opinion doesn't mean that I would be opposed to it being included with the other viewpoints, not in the least. This dispute is hardly the most virulent one I have been involved in, for Greek genocide is far more deep a subject with so many pitfalls it is extremely dangerous ground. Here, I can safely say that the numerous examples of scholarship in this area will no doubt be able to make it into the article rather easily, for they are based on mostly solid facts rather than mostly nationalistic observations, despite the difference in conclusions. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have registered the dispute for mediation with Mediation Cabal - just waiting for someone to be assigned to it. Hope thats ok, its normal wikipedia procedure to go to the informal cabal rather than straight to formal mediation. And yes, I disagree with some of the viewpoints that some historians have about the War, but I think it important the significant viewpoints are show here.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the link for the dispute I am requesting that all the regular editors please get involved. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812. Tirronan (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the main point of contention over a "Canadian" victory is that no such a country existed at the time. (i.e. Canadians should stop trying to find ways to be better than American) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.163.248 (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Indian Affairs

Native Americans, Indians and First Nations

Please see other discussions on this page and in the most recent two archives (for 2008 and 2009) above for earlier exploration of these topics in depth.

I just reverted a wholesale change of nearly all references to participants whose ancestors were in North America before 1500 to "Native Americans". (This included at least two titles of other works, which is clearly incorrect and would make it impossible to identify and find those works.)

There is no good single correct answer as to the best title in a given context (other than titles of other works). So "Native American" isn't absolutely wrong, but changes should be discussed here first.

To summarise some points made in earlier discussions,

1. "First Nations" is familiar and well-understood in Canada today, but not outside, and was not in common use anywhere before about 1970;
2. "Native Americans" is problematic not only because it was not generally used in 1812 but because many of the tribes and peoples involved lived on both sides of the European-established borders, or had crossed those lines for decades to hunt, fish, herd or trade;
3. "Natives", "Indians" and "tribal" are considered to have unfavourable connotations today, whatever their historical or scholarly use, while "Amerindian" is unfamiliar to some general readers of Wikipedia;
4. "Indians" or "American Indians" were often used in this article because it was the term used by many of the people who fought and lived through the War of 1812;
5. "American Indian" (like "Native American") may confuse general readers of Wikipedia who don't see "American" as referring to North America rather than the United States.

There's nothing sacred about the choices that were made before August 2009, but they often represented a general consensus or the best answer that could be accepted by most of the editors at the time. Before adding to the already-long discussion of these topics, it would be helpful to see what's already been said, at least in the last year or so. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The term 'savage' is appropriate to the period and was widely used. It is the only term used to reference 'Indian Savages' in the Declaration of Independence. Written by the same man who used the 'mere matter of marching' line to describe the aquisition of Upper Canada. He was told to leave out blaming King George for slavery in 1776, he was after all having children with at least one of his slaves (she was also his sister-in-law) The term 'exterminate' or 'extermination' are used repeatedly by American commanders in proclamations and orders to troops. Every country has baggage. The Founding Fathers were not nice guys. Perhaps they had to be nasty to survive in their era. Jim Hill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.250.2 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal threat

The "United States" subsection of results presently begins

The U.S. ended the aboriginal threat on its western and southern borders.

I know what the writer was trying to say, and how he or she was trying to say it, and what problems she or he was trying to fix or avoid with such phrasing. However, it raises its own difficulties of connotation and clarity, although I'm stumped about how to improve it. "Native American threat", "native threat" and "Amerindian threat" each has problems; would something like "the threat from Indian nations [or tribes] on its western and southern borders" work better? Is "threat" itself too loaded a word, even if it reflects how westerners and southerners felt?

How about "ended the Indian barrier to expansion into U.S. territory to the south and west." Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Errrh, yeah, the phrase "Aboriginal threat" is at the least a loaded term, and at the worst pretty insulting. I read most of the military efforts of the Indians, bar a few examples here and there, as being provoked by US Expansion (which, coming from an Aussie's point of view, is a nice way of saying US annexation of Indian Territory). Rjensen your term is better and more neutral. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

¶ I'm not the historian here, so I'll defer to whatever the consensus might be, but I think there are two possible challenges to the U.S.:

1. Barriers to future expansion, and
2. The possibility of attempted reclamation or re-seizure of previously-Indian-settled lands now occupied by Euro-Americans.

The best phrasing depends on what "threat" the U.S. was trying to avert or end. Was it a threat, a barrier, an obstacle, a challenge, or something else? —— Shakescene (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest "ended Indian resistance to US expansion."Dwalrus (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we use the "US ended Indian resistance on its Western and Southern borders." ? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of "borders" in this context is inaccurate since the 1783 Treaty of Paris and the Louisiana Purchase put the US borders beyond these areas of conflict with the Indians. Dwalrus (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nor did the end of the War of 1812 end Indian resistence.Tirronan (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

it pretty much ended Indian attacks on the frontier. compare the lttle damage that Black Hawk was able to do in 1832. For the next 50 years there was not much resistance except in Florida (which was not part of US in 1815) Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits of American to U.S. and Indian to indigenous/aboriginal/native

One editor has recently started systematically changing all instances of "American" to "U.S.", and (far more contentiously) all instances of "Indian[s]" to "aboriginal", "native" or "indigenous". I understand the reasons for such editing, but we really need a consensus before doing all that; otherwise I might feel forced to revert the whole lot until some consensus to do this is reached.

In general, I understand the present consensus to be to use the terms that contemporaries would have used, so long as these are neither obscure to current Wikipedia users (e.g. "Upper Canada"), outright offensive (e.g. "savage") nor completely ambiguous (which "American" and "Indian", in context, are not).

As can be seen by a thread above this one and others in this Talk Page's archives, there is no entirely-satisfactory term for those whose ancestors lived in North America before John Cabot's voyages. Amerindian and indigenous are too academic or vague for the general reader, native and tribal have pejorative connotations, First Nations is obscure to non-Canadians, and Native American (or Canadian), apart from technically including anyone of any race who was born in North America, places many tribes within boundaries they themselves would not have acknowledged.

There's of course room for further discussion. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

the term of choice by historians is "American"--historians never use USA as an adjective ("USA leaders")--it's POV usage and I changed it. "Indians" is the term used by most historians and also by the official government agencies today in both the US and Canada: "Bureau of Indian Affairs" and "Indian and Northern Affairs Canada". Some historians use "aboriginal" is also standard. In the well-known Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples (1999) ed. by Paul R. Magocsi, with contributions by 300+ scholars, "Indian" "native" and "aboriginal" are each used on about 100 pages, showing that among scholars each term is standard; note that "Native American" only appears twice, suggesting it is not standardamong scholars. Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Donald Hickey has a note on terminology at the beginning of his book Don't Give Up The Ship. In it he writes:

"I have also followed common practice in using the terms 'United States' and 'America' interchangeably. To refer to aboriginal people, I have used the words 'Indian' or 'native' since the term 'Native American' does not work well for Indians living in Canada, and terms like 'aboriginal,' 'First People,' and 'First Nation' are not used in the United States."

I am afraid that we will see terminology continually changed no matter what terms are used. Dwalrus (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

unless/until you get a definitive statement from the Tribes involved as to what they wish to be called as a group I don't think you ever will have a good terminology. Tirronan (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

American expansion into the Northwest ... impeded by Indian raids.

“ American expansion into the Northwest (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin) was impeded by Indian raids ”

I noticed this sentence in the first section, does this neutralise the fact that the US expansion is into Indian territory?(which I assume was the case)...or is the implication enough. Should this be "American expansion into the Northwest Indian territories(Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin) was impeded by Indian raids."Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That statement is very general and not too well done, IMO. I hate, hate, hate those parentheses... why do that when you can say "...into the Northwest Indian territories of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin..." It really doesn't give a full picture of the reality, and the reference isn't sourced correctly- the inline citation should be full for the first footnote of Bowler. I'm inundated in World War I writing and unable to fix it properly... maybe some help to make it better? Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 02:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good point about the parentheses, not really needed. "American expansion into the Northwest Indian territories of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin was impeded by Indian raids". I guess my main point was that these were territories where the Indians lived already, and the Indians were opposing the expansion because it was their land, rather than just being white expansion into "unoccupied" land. I may be looking at this too much from the Australian experience though.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point is valid, but I don't think anyone will be writing in the style of a 19th century American historian to reflect this period- at least I hope not. "Indian territories of" is also, now that I look at it, wholly inaccurate. Also, only parts of Wisconsin were of the Northwest Territory. Heck, I'm going to go ahead and revise the sentence and make it clear. You got me! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 13:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't the meaning now been changed? Prior edit was to the point (unsourced) that expansion wasn't happening as quickly as some might have wanted and, in the following sentence it says that Canadians thought the US wanted to gain more territory. The prior edit (again, unsourced) suggests that finding expansion to the West difficult, they might have sought Canada. The current edit suggests a pattern of expansion. I have no opinion on which is the case but the two edits are suggesting different things. BobKawanaka (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The meaning should be changed according to sourced material. Western expansion was the main reason for settlement, and I think that other editors should be able to find this material as a follow-up sentence expressing difficulties in settling the land. The article Northwest Territory is awful as virtually all of the text is unsourced; one sentence in this article probably needs far less attention than that article does. However, I'll provide the follow up sentence for the difficulties. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 15:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

the Northwest Territory was NOT Indian territory. The British wanted to make it so--that was a longtime goal and they insisted on it for a while at Ghent. However they lost the battles and lost control of the area, so it remained part of the USA. Rjensen (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjenson - when you say the Northwest was not Indian Territory - are you saying there were no Indians living there? Did the Indians think it was Indian territory? The article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh%27s_War seems to imply the part of the NorthWest (Indiana?) was ceded by the British to the US, but not by the Indians (sorry I haven't read up on this, so forgive me If I'm wrong here). Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Monsieur, I would be careful about using a book like 1812: The War That Forged A Nation by Walter Borneman. This book was written as popular history and not as a particularly scholarly work. Borneman does not document much of what he writes. The statement you put in the article that, "Many of those in the American government did not try to hide the fact that they had their eye on Canadian land beyond their territory," is undocumented. I assume that you took it from what Borneman said on page 28 where he said, "And most westerners made no secret of the fact that they coveted Canada itself." Borneman did not document that comment and his comment is actually very different from your undocumented comment. Dwalrus (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does, on pages 28 and 29 and I included page 29, with the involvement of Clay, the Republican and Federalist comment, and the conduct of Harrison. Look, I didn't want to get involved in making this first paragraph better, because for one it seems like there is a lot more interest in fighting over every single piece of text rather than true collaboration, second because no one seems to get involved in sourcing things and would rather point them out, and lastly and most importantly, I am heavily involved in another history article that requires a lot of careful research. I'll be glad to help, but when help is received with nothing but criticism without help in return, then I get frustrated. I am bowing out of this, hopeful that others can use whatever reference they wish... what I have added is by no means a fringe belief that goes far off of the track, popular history or no. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 18:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Monsier, I must say, I agree with your comments on the general mood of this page.It definitely isn't easy writing on here...there has been conflict about writing the history of this conflit for at least 140 years, and it is evident here now.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced Leads

And to add- do you know how many featured articles have NO sourcing whatsoever in their leads? Far, far too many. I thought it was a bonus just to source this and make it legitimate. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 18:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re featured articles -- Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations has pertinent information on why many FAs don't have many citations in the lead section. older ≠ wiser 19:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Indian raids was not a part of the section to which the lead refers, and so it was odd to me. I have seen more than a few leads be independent of the article it introduces, so I will keep that in mind and tag a lead when it is incorrect. I just got frustrated earlier today trying to ensure material is properly sourced. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 01:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This happens to be the subject of a current, live discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Use of references in the Lead section. Although there are some terrific arguments (including aesthetics) for minimising the use of footnotes in Lead sections, I lean much more heavily to referencing anything that is or could be questioned, and also any phrases or statements that naturally provoke questions not answered with a simple (non-red) Wikilink — on the principle that the Lead section is often all that's reprinted or read. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC) ¶ And as currently written, the relevant part of WP:LEAD reads:

Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.

—— Shakescene (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

references don't work well in the lede here. 1) most people are annoyed by references (that's why popular books avoid them like death); 2) anyone who likes them will quickly find them in context in the text.

As the "War Aims" paragraph of the Lead is presently written, the references work well, because each supports a different contention. But in an ideal world —where we could come a little closer to consensus not about the war but about how to present the material neutrally— someone would be able to summarise or blend all those clashing, disjointed sentences, and I think such a summary should carry fewer references. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Some articles need every line referenced - others don't. This is more the former. 114.76.87.223 (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Revenue Cutter Service in Information Box

Someone recently added the United States Revenue Cutter Service (the predecessor of today's U.S. Coast Guard) to the U.S. forces in the Info box. I fiddled slightly to restore some of the previous parallelism in the box, but if it's possible to keep the same accuracy and precision, it would be nice to align the Revenue Cutter Service with the Provincial Marine, some of whose duties (I read at its article) were roughly parallel. Would this both be justified and make sense? (For example, according to their respective articles, the Revenue Cutters fell under the U.S. Department of the Navy in wartime, as the USCG does today; while the Provincial Marine came under closer Royal Navy control in 1813 after faring poorly in battle.) If the equivalence is justified, is it possible to disaggregate the Revenue Cutter ships from the USN/USMC strength (and then match the Revenue Cutter ships against the Provincial Marine's) without leaps of logic or guesswork? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The dates are all screwed up

At the top of the article it says from 1969 to 1812 ???

On the right side it says from 1869 - 1812.....

Explain how thats possible ?

How could anyone lock the article for editing with such outlandish dates on it ?

Please fix.

IT also says the war of 2515 on the picture....... can somebody clean up this vandalism ?

24.38.156.102 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it this?

This article is really screwed up. Shouldn't articles of low quality like this be deleted? 75.97.199.249 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whao, never mind. Looks like I found it at the exact moment it was vandalized. 75.97.199.249 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Renew semiprotection?

The last semiprotection expired on August 2, and I'm not aware of any good-faith contributions by IPs since that date. (When this article appears on my watchlist it's usually vandalism). Are people OK with reinstating another semiprotection? EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do, it happens to be one of the most regularly vandalised pages on my watch list. Justin talk 16:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This page doesn't have the problems that Michael Bloomberg has had when it's not semi-protected, but I wouldn't be upset if semi-protection is restored. We might lose something useful from a passing unregistered IP reader, but most of the IP edits that aren't pure-&-simple vandalism are trying to "correct" the outcome of the war one way or the other without looking at, or trying to shift the balance of, the long discussions that led to the page's present statement (Treaty of Ghent and status quo ante). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for Canadian and Imperial wars

Currently at the foot of this article there is a boilerplate for major conflicts that the US has taken part in. While it is true that they were in this war, I feel that this should be removed as leaving it in as the only national boilerplate on this page, if we were to leave it then similar boilerplates for the British Empire, and possibly Canada, should be placed at the end of this as well. Otonabee (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(I think that might be because while the War was very important for both the U.S. and Canada, its importance to the U.K. or the British Empire as a whole probably rates at about the level of the Peninsular Campaigns, or perhaps below them since their failure could have affected Britain's independence more directly and immediately than the outcome of the Anglo-American War of 1812. That's a possible explanation or rationale, not necessarily a justification.)

¶ But I tend to agree with your major point, especially from Canada's point of view, so if you can find the templates for Canada's Wars and Wars of the British Empire, I personally would be glad to see them added. The worst that can happen if you just go ahead and be bold is that someone may remove one or both of them but then have to justify the differential treatment of American and Imperial history. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars

American historians may not consider the War of 1812 part of the Napoleonic Wars but the British do. Wikipedia represents all mainstream opinion, not just the American POV. That needs to be restored to this article. Justin talk 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Most Americans do not consider the Napoleonic Wars part of the War of 1812, not may not, do not. You say the Napoleonic Wars should remain because the British believe it is part of the Napoleonic conflicts. Basically what you are saying contradicts other articles, specifically the Napoleonic Wars page and American opinion about the "part of" issue does not matter.

Do you not think that that is unfair in anyway?

Wikipedia is not a British encyclopedia either, therefore your response is contradicting aswell and should have no role in wiki affairs anyway. This comes down to a wiki commons issue. Only the British, Canadians and Americans, as I am, should be the ones to decide this. The Americans, which is a population number that far surpasses that of the UK and Canada combined, should hold the sway do to the simple fact that a larger number of Americans believe the war was not part of the Napoleonic Wars compared to the British with a far smaller number of people who think the war was part of the Napoleonic Wars. Its simple, more people believe the War of 1812 should not be included as a Napoleonic conflict so this is how it should be writ.

I'm sorry, but I oppose the idea that the War of 1812 is a part of the Napoleonic Wars. This is not merely an American POV, but a matter of fact that it is not a part. The Napoleonic Wars were wars with European opponents in its true definition here as well as British sources, and the War of 1812 could never be considered a part. I would have thought this was an obvious decision, but alas I was wrong. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

21:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From the Canadian Encyclopedia here, which puts it best: The Napoleonic Wars, during which both sides infringed the rights of neutrals, also produced a secondary struggle called the WAR OF 1812 between the US and Britain.

[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] There are plenty of mainstream historians who do classify it as part of the Napoleonic Wars. Wikipedia reports mainstream opinion, what you're suggesting is to exclude an opinion on the basis of original research. Justin talk 21:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Monsieurdl, thank you for agreeing, I thought this issue had been solved long ago. Alas I was wrong aswell. --Az81964444 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Az81964444 has asserted that wikipedia should only reflect an American opinion on this article, as there are more Americans than there are British people and, hence, the American opinion should prevail. Such an argument obviously fails WP:NPOV, which requires all mainstream opinions to be represented. User:Az81964444 also asserts the fallacious argument that because two viewpoints are diametrically opposed it is unfair to the American opinion to also represent the British opinion. Justin talk 21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I only agree because it is obvious... the source that you provided in the Canadian Encyclopedia merely refers it to Napoleonic Wars, where it says it produced a secondary struggle, not WAS a part of the struggle. There is either an INCLUDED or NOT INCLUDED answer, which is done by consensus, to be perfectly accurate. So far you have not proven that there is a British consensus opinion that is was a PART of the Napoleonic Wars, and not merely an offshoot, which is correct. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

21:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin, Sorry I was not more specific, it seems you deleted my first reply. I personally think the "parts of" section should not read Napoleonic Wars or should read "part of the Napoleonic Wars" with the word "disputed" after it to symbolize the different opinion. I do not think it is fair to list only the American opinion as you have tried to slander. What you have done Mr. Justin is list only the British opinion which is why we are having this argument. Yes, thinking internationally of Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, I do believe because more people believe the War of 1812 was not a Napoleonic conflict that the War of 1812 should not be listed as a Napoleonic War in the "part of" section. This is where wiki commons comes in, the majority gets to decide. In this case, the majority of people who are interested in reading about this war, do not think the War of 1812 is a Napoleonic War, this is my reason for bringing up wiki commons. Do not play with my words an attempt to express I only think American opinion should be regarded. It is simply a coincidence that falls in my favor that more people of the three said countries agree with me. Majority rules, that is how wiki commons works. If we cant have it one way, it should be listed as I have written above.--Az81964444 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No I said all mainstream opinion should be mentioned, I did not just insist upon the British opinion. I am not playing with words, you have clearly argued on that basis. That is way out of order. If instead you'd proposed an alternative to include what you feel is necessary to represent an American opinion I'd have listened. Justin talk 22:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From The Age of Aristocracy: A History of England from William B. Willcox and Walter J. Arnstein: "The British were embroiled in a second Anglo-American conflict, which from their viewpoint was merely a regrettable and minor by-product of the great struggle in Europe but from the viewpoint of the United States was momentous." Again, the idea of a byproduct, not a product. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

21:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Look I'm not disputing that some historians classify it differently but that isn't how wikipedia works. We are required to represent all mainstream opinions. And by representing those mainstream opinions, we do not have to neglect others. Justin talk 21:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One again Justin, Listing that the War of 1812 is a Napoleonic War does not, in any way represent both British and American opinion. Do you not think listing it is a little one sided? It is as simple as this. --Az81964444 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Be careful how you state things, though... there are historians out there that deny the Holocaust ever happened for Jews, which is not mainstream- are we to include that? This is why consensus should solve this matter once and for all. The Napoleonic Wars: The Rise and Fall of an Empire by Gregory Fremont-Barnes and Todd Fisher doesn't even include the War of 1812 at all. I am providing non-internet sources to defend my position, that British historians do not consider it to be a part of the Napoleonic Wars, merely a war that was affected by it... Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

Monsieurdl, bad comparison, American belief that the war of 1812 is not a Napoleonic Conflict is mainstream. The neo-Nazi denial issue represents a non-mainstream view. No I do not think the Holocaust denier's opinion should be listed in the Holocaust article, because it is not the opinion of the majority and my personal opinion, not true, the Jewish holocaust obviously occurred. Why are we writing about the holocaust?--Az81964444 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

22:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, holocaust denial falls foul of WP:FRINGE and where have I said dissenting opinion shouldn't be mentioned? You two are claiming that to represent one opinion another must be excluded. Justin talk 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just checking. You misrepresented the problem in the RFC request, which isn't right... so far, you have not presented much in the way of proof that the mainstream British opinion that you say is truth is valid. This is not an example of an "American" opinion being the only one, BUT an example of British mainstream opinions in the majority that would validate your statements. I don't care if it is American, British, Indonesian, whatever- I care about the MAJORITY of historians and what they agree on so we can have a good consensus. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

22:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

---You two are claiming that to represent one opinion another must be excluded.

This is not what I was suggesting, I am sure by now you have read of my alternative, being that you replied to it in a positive nature.--Az81964444 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No I did not, the argument is clearly there, moving the goalposts afterwards doesn't change that. I'm still suggesting ALL mainstream opinions are mentioned. This isn't a fringe opinion. Justin talk 22:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE MY DISCUSSION PAGE FOR FURTHER ELEMENTS OF THIS CONVERSATION.--Az81964444 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I have just written a small paragraph in the "Aftermath" section of this article, briefly expressing the differing American and British opinion, as you implied. Of course, you are free to add to it as long as it is relevant to the issue of seperate British and American opinion. --Az81964444 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The United States was a Cobelligerant of France during the Napoleanic Wars, similar to the situation of how Finland was a Cobelligerant of Italy and Romainia during the Continuation War.XavierGreen (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to quote from the Society of American Historians' 1956 book 'American Heritage': The War of 1812 was merely an episode in the Napoleonic Wars, and the Napoleonic Wars themselves were the culmination of a century-old conflict between the British and the French...

There are others and there is historic debate with some as to whether they are part of it. Enough historians link or include the two together to justify the category (And I would emphasise at this point that it was the Napoleonic Wars, not War. A series of various conflicts) --Narson ~ Talk • 23:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going to help, but I think there are grounds for both. The US's reasons for attacking Canada were related to the conflict (impressment, resulting from British wartime need for sailors). Arguably, the US could only attack Canada because Britain's army and Navy were largely engaged with France. On the other hand, conflict between Britain and the US had other reasons that were separate to the Napoleonic Wars, leftover feelings from war of independance, and by some parties, the desire to annex Canadian land. Also, French military assistance was neither sought by the US (as far as I have read), nor involved (though they had provided assistance in previous wars). There were those in the US that genuinely saw Napoleon as a dictator. Someone compared it to the continuation war between Finland and Russia - the comparison there is different because the Germans not only supplied the Finns with weapons, but also supplied troops and air forces. Basically, I agree with Az81964444, I think it should be reflected here that some see it as part of the Napoleonic Wars and others do not.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Donald Hickey, one of the better US historians on the War of 1812 gave his view on the importance of the War of 1812's connection to the war between Britain and France in his book Don't Give Up the Ship! Myths of The War of 1812. He stated on page 6:

"The War of 1812 may seem in retrospect like a simple Anglo-American conflict that resulted from a failure of bilateral diplomacy, but the war cannot be divorced from its larger context. The War of 1812 was a direct outgrowth of th Napoleonic Wars. If there had been no war in Europe, there would have been no war in North America. Indeed, for the British the war with the United States was just another dimension of a larger world war. Neither the outbreak of the War of 1812, nor its course once it had begun, can be understood outside that larger context." Dwalrus (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would never say that the War of 1812 was not connected to the Napoleonic Wars. However, the whole debate is a simple matter of was a part of the Napoleonic Wars versus was a separate war caused in part by the Napoleonic Wars. Of course I understand the impressment issue and the timing for an invasion of Canada while British might was 'detained'. I still contend it was the latter- a separate war, an offshoot, a byproduct, however you call it. I do not object to a section regarding the controversy, but I would like it to be sourced to the hilt to prove this controversy.

Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I come to this discussion as an English historian. The War of 1812 was clearly an outcome of the situation that Britain found itself in due to the Napoleonic wars. In a sense it arose from the same causes as Armed Neutrality within Europe in two earlier wars. It is certainly contrary to WP principles that WP should reflect the WP:POV of any one country. I would also suggest that the issue of who "won" is a non-issue: like several other wars, it came to an end becasue both sides were tired of fighting and realised that there was little to be gained by continuing it. Indeed, if communications had been quicker, I suspect that the war might never have broken out. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

¶ I changed "Part of Napoleonic Wars (disputed)" in the Information Box to "Part of Napoleonic Wars (indirect association)". While there's always been a lot of back and forth over keeping or removing the "Part of Nap'c Wars" tag in the Information Box and elsewhere, I think most of the editors here would put the association somewhere in between. It wasn't independent of Napoleon's struggle, but then it wasn't organically connected to it, either, in the way that the Peninsular Campaign or the other War of 1812 were. It's the emphasis that varies, and whether to use a tag that's "disputed", while I see (perhaps quite wrongly) a fairly broad range of agreement. Others should certainly feel free to suggest wording that they feel better reflects the area of consensus. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Peterkingiron, I think saying that the war came to an end simply because both sides were tired of fighting is a simplification. From the British point of view, the war did not need to be pursued because the threat to Canada, which is why the British had been fighting, had been removed. Britain had never wanted the dispute in the first place, there was no will to carry it on. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the nation was indeed as you say "tired of fighting" after fightig in Spain and the rest of Europe, but the main reason the British signed the peace declaration was that the US had been defeated militarily, no longer posed a threat, and the US negotiators were offering to return the situation to the status Quo at the peace talks at Ghent. My point here is that the war didn't simply end because "both sides grew tired of fighting", my point is the British achieved their goals, repelled the invasion, *AND* were tired of fighting (and the associated economic situation in Britain). So in this sense, who achieved their objectives in the war is completely relevant. If the US had achieved their objectives, and were still actively campaigning in Canada, I doubt very much Britain would have sued for peace at that point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should include all mainstream perspectives. This is centuries old historical event and it is best understood by including all of the perspectives within the article. If you extend the logic of only including the American perspective that their should be a WP:Winning_Side_Writes_the_Aricles. If it was something that had occured in living memory, then it might warrant an additional article, but in this case there is no reason. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the fact is "who won the war" is a major aspect of the war of 1812..and probably has been since 1815. It is *continuously discussed here* possibly more so than any other war? The various sides should be shown here - to only show one perspective really seems to be covering up the issues. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor here, but I saw the request for comment tag. If you want my two cents, I'd say that the Canadian Encyclopedia's characterization is accurate: while not a part of the Napoleonic Wars, the War of 1812 certainly arose because of the conditions created by those European wars, and should be understood within that context. As to who won: in any war that doesn't have a completely one-sided result, there's no easy way to say who "won" without crossing over the line to POV. Who won often depends on war aims: if the U.S. wanted only to stop the U.K. from impressing their sailors, they won; if the U.S. wanted to annex Canada, they lost. Who can say? This is the problem with infoboxes generally: they try to boil down complex historical events into a thumbs-up/thumbs-down data point. Why not leave it blank and explain the results in the article text alone? --Coemgenus 13:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On who "won" and Infoboxes, I think Infoboxes can be ok where the result is clear - I mean they are just supposed to be a snapshot of what happenned. But yes, where the result is not clear, they can be misleading. Where they try to sum up a complex situation with a couple of words, as is the case here, they can definitley be misleading. Oh, and the US did not stop the UK from Impressing sailors. The UK had largely stopped impressing sailors before the war began, because the need was no longer The UK refused to stop impressment at the Treaty of Ghent, and the US had to drop it from their demands.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. You are arguing that the war was not effectivly status quo ante bellum? That the Treaty of Ghent didn't end the war? I fear we are projecting modern warfare (which is far more unlimited) back to the pre-20th/19th century way of war. This outcome is not unusual for limited wars and the infobox describes it concisely and accurately. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On impressment the deal at Ghent was that in fact Britain stopped impressing sailors BUT it refused to promise it would never do so in the future. That was all the Americans wanted in 1812. (In the event the Royal Navy never resumed impressment after 1814.) Rjensen (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Narson - the results in info boxes in Wikipedia pages that deal with wars/battles reflect which sides achieved their goals, not simply details of the peace treaty. They state which side won the war or battle. It could appear that in this war, where the US did not achieve their goals, is treated differently. Have a look at other wars on Wikipedia for comparison, in particular Korean War. It needs more detail in there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Rjensen, I think you are mistaken here. largely because it was no longer needed as the British Naval activity against France was less.As far as I’ve read, The US had little to do with the British stopping impressment. There were no “secret deals” about impressment at Ghent – the Brits saw impressment as essential for their navy and refused to give it up.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Americans wanted the British to stop impressing American sailors. The British stopped impressing American sailors--and NEVER resumed. Therefore that specific American war goal was achieved. QED. "British Naval activity against France was less" is nonsense. By mid 1814 the British and French under King Louis XVIII were friends and allies. The main British war goal of hurting Napoleon had been achieved. Thus BOTH American and Britain won a war goal. Too often here people assume zero sum, but this example proves otherwise.Rjensen (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Britain did not end impressment because of the US, in fact they stopped boarding US vessels before the war started. Britain stopped impressment because they was no longer any reason for it. France's navy was defeated at Trafalgar, and after the defeat of Napoleon, Britain was not involved in any major naval engagements until WW1. Britain did not give up the right to impressment after the war of 1812, and may well have done it had the need arisen.... but it didn't. The fact is, Britain was way more concerned about Napoleon than they ever were about the United States (and with good reason!) Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The War of 1812 was driven by the Napoleonic conflict as trade issues and maritime right issues drove America to war. Both France and Britain put neutral trade in a vise and this war was one of the results. Death you are wrong, impressment was not repealed it was simply not practiced where American ships were concerned and this in spite of the fact that the 100 days began shortly after the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent. I would have to assume that the pressures to begin impressment was no less than the pressure that existed before, yet no American ships were stopped and impressed again. To loosely quote Churchhill, the lessons were learned and America was never treated as less than a nation.Tirronan (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tirronan, I didn't say that impressment was repealed, I said it was stopped. I believe the last US ship boarded was the Chesapeake in 1807, before the war. If you can find any ships boarded after that, I would be interested to know, I can't see anything. The Brits changed their interpretation of the law at this point so that they saw neutral vessels as an extension of the neutral countries territory, and under this interpretation of the law, they should not have even boarded the Chesapeake. As for the laws of impressment being repealed, AFAIK it seems that they have never been repealed, so it could still be legal to do so...though I'm sure the Uk Human Rights Act may complicate things!. You could assume that the pressures to begin impressment after 1812 were no less than before, but you would be wrong I think. The pressures before the war for the need to Impress related to Britain Fighting the French, Spanish and Danish fleets. Britain defeated the combined Franco Spanish fleet at Trafalgar and enjoyed Naval Superiority after that for some time. After defeating the Danish fleet, she had no real major naval threats until WW1 and therefore no need to impress. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the (apparently somehow frequently overlooked) fact that the infobox does not describe the outcome of the war as a "stalemate". A stalemate metaphor for the outcome of the war would say quite a few things that the infobox pointedly does not say. The entire argument that the infobox must change because not all qualified historians agree the war was a stalemate is therefore complete rubbish. No historian that I am aware of would disagree with the infobox in it's present form...Result Treaty of Ghent, Status quo ante bellum, it simply can't get more impartial than that, certainly not in the murky field of historical analysis.Zebulin (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Zebulin. Result Treaty of Ghent, Status quo ante bellum is admirable for an infobox comment, and the results for everyone concerned are already described in a fairly long and high-quality section. As for "part" of the Napoleonic wars, that question goes even further into the wilder flights of philosophical essentialism. An encyclopaedia should probably avoid commenting, unless the issue is itself notable and describable from secondary sources, and I suggest that it isn't. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What About Harrison?

While reading this article, I couldn't help but notice that William Henry Harrison isn't listed on the U.S. Commanders list. Harrison was the commander of the Army of the Northwest for most of the war and, like Jackson, his service in 1812 helped elect him to the presidency. Shouldn't he be on the list? I'd willingly add him myself, but I think I should see what other people think first. So how about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1812Soldier (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just go ahead and add Harrison since he should be there. I cannot see why anyone would object. Dwalrus (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Save for a few die-hard true Democratic supporters of Old Kinderhook. "Rumpsey Dumpsey, Rumpsey Dumpsey, Colonel Johnson killed Tecumseh!" (Free Soil in 'Forty-eight!) —— Shakescene (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Militia

Below the campaign box it says very few militiamen were involved in this war, this maybe true for Canada but there were thousands of American militia involved in the battles. I could name several engagements in which U.S. militia was a large force of the U.S. army fighting on whatever date. If the note was meant to show that Canadian militias did not fight much in the war, it should read so.--Az81964444 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an asterisk note to the strength listing over 400,000 militiamen, so I think it is clear in the article that the militia were involved. I'm guessing this is a misunderstanding of meaning, the note doesn't say very few were involved, it says very few left their homes to fight in campaigns. My guess is that this is supposed to mean that few militiamen left their local communities or states to fight in extended campaigns, as opposed to battles near their locations. So while militia made up the primary American fighting force in the Battle of Bladensburg, for example, these same militiamen are being described as unlikely to leave their local area ("homes") to fight in New Orleans or Niagara. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that dozens of times in the process of formatting the Info Box to align like with like, and that's definitely news to me (having almost no detailed knowledge of the underlying subject). So there's certainly a problem of clarity. It reads as if almost all the militia were an inactive or nominal reserve. Question is how to phrase that tersely enough for the Info Box. I presume a similar distinction can be made about the Indian allies of the two sides: that some tribes or war parties would have ventured far afield on military expeditions, raids or reconnaissance in force, while others, like the American and Canadian militias, would have stayed closer to home to protect their homes, lands and families. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is pretty bad - it does indeed sound like most of the militia's did not want to leave their houses! :-) It should be something more like "Most militias fought in their local areas" or "Militias mainly operated in their own states".Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, like everything else about this war, you can find both examples. A major part of the failures of the American campaigns in Canada can be traced to Militia formations refusing to cross US borders taking the view that the Militia existed to defend national or in some cases state borders. This can be observed during the 1st 2 years of the war and lead to some of the humiliating defeats thereby. During the Plattsburg campaign the opposite occurred when British forces invaded and the Militia saw it as a vital need to respond and proceeded to violently respond. Now all this sounds logical but there isn't a formation in any US battle that you can't find Militia units participating.Tirronan (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Militia were very prominent on the US side. So its a matter of how much? What about a statement like "Some militia only operated in their own states". ?Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change this to "Some militia only operated in their own regions" rather than the present comment about the militia not leaving their own homes, which is confusing and ambigious (as discussed it sounds like they did not leave their own houses!). Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in article under "Question of US Expansionism"

At the end it says, "He issued a repeal of the impressment orders..." But these were the Orders in Council of 1807, which according to Wikipedia itself were not about impressment but forbidding trade with French and blockading Frace. So that's an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varny6 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I made the correction to Orders in Council from impressment. Thanks for finding the error. Ian Toll's book Six Frigates that is used as the reference does correctly mention that it was the Orders in Council. Dwalrus (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct references to British warships

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change (although the action was fought on the British side mainly by the HMS Endymion) to (although the action was fought on the British side mainly by HMS Endymion) TobyR (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 00:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent theatres of war

There seem to be quite a few inconsistencies in the stated theatres in which the war took place:

1. In the summary, four theatres are given:
   1. Oceans
   2. Atlantic coast
   3. The long frontier
   4. Coast of Gulf of Mexico
2. In "Course of the war" (section three), three theatres are listed in the introductory paragraph:
   1. The Atlantic Ocean (explained in section 3.1)
   2. The Great Lakes and the Canadian frontier (presumably corresponding to section 3.2, titled 'Great Lakes and Western Territories')
   3. The Southern States (can't find a section for this)

I don't have the background knowledge to fix this properly, so hopefully someone else can do it. It's really quite confusing as it is. Matt Gerber (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)